Gdanning
1yr ago
I have never understood the word "groomer" to be a synonym for pedophile, and in fact it is not a synonym for pedophile. It is explicitly a term for people who violate trust in an attempt to harmfully and secretly modify children's sexuality
I have literally never heard it used that way except by you. Rather it has always, and for years, been used to refer to a strategy employed by child abusers: RAINN defines it as "manipulative behaviors that the abuser uses to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught," and a search of Google Scholar's case law database for cases which include the terms grooming and pedophile turns up 420 hits. A search for grooming -pedophile "sexual abuse" leads to 2600 hits. Some of those are mishits, but most are not, and at least as far back as 1987, in State v. Hansen, 304 Or. 169 (1987), the court quotes a police officer using the term to describe the process used by pedophiles to lure victims.
This review article notes several definitions used by researchers, including "A course of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would give a reasonable person cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be for unlawful purposes[,] "the steps taken by paedophiles to ‘‘entrap’’ their victims", "The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the child’s confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive activity."
Dictionary.com has the pedophile definition, but not yours. Ditto the urban dictionary Ditto the Cambridge Dictionary
The idea that the people who make "groomer" claims re trans activists or whatever are not familiar with the standard meaning of the term is dubious in the extreme. It is meant to imply that those persons are akin to, if not actual, sex offenders or wannabe sex offenders.
"We're coming for your children" is saying something very real . . . the statement means they intend to influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement in defiance of their opposition.
Which, unlike child molestation, is a perfectly legitimate goal in a democratic society. Just as those who lobby for or against teaching all sorts of things do all the time.
Also, if your nanny is not familiar with the saying, "you can't judge a book by its cover," or is too lazy to leaf through a book for toddlers, you need a new nanny. And some people want their kids to read those books. That is why the library carries a variety of books, some of which appeal to some people and some of which appeal to others.
Gdanning
7mo ago
I'm not willing to give away the option to prevent flooding the library with propaganda
Well, we will have to agree to disagree, because I see that as deeply improper. And, as Justice Alito has correctly noted, 'The public schools are invaluable and beneficent institutions, but they are, after all, organs of the State." Morse v. Frederick, 551 US 393, 424 (2007). That is true regardless of whether decisions are made by librarians or parents.
Gdanning
1yr ago
-
No, the relevant authorities simply declined to prosecute.
-
Only courts, not prosecutors, can definitively say whether something constitutes a crime. It is a separation of powers issue. Prosecutors' opinions are not binding on anyone.
-
Regardless, OP is incorrect to say that the state is charging him with a federal crime. Even if the DA has to prove that he committed the federal crime, he is not charged with that crime. If he is convicted, judgment will be entered on the state crime alone, not the federal crime, and the punishment will be that imposed for the state crime. It is no different than when a person convicted of child molestation in TX moves to CA and is charged with frequenting playgrounds. The DA must prove that he committed the TX crime, but the DA is trying him for violation of a CA law, not a TX law.
Gdanning
1yr ago
???? The TOPICS are required (to the extent, of course, that anyone can cover all of the topics, which they can't. But the point is that a course needs to cover those topics, not other topics. Eg: The AP Modern World History covers "the cultural, economic, political, and social developments that have shaped the world from c. 1200 CE to the present." So, a syllabus that spent weeks comparing the Roman and Han empires would be dinged).
But, there is no mandate re HOW the topics are covered. So, in a unit in AP Modern World on Mass Atrocities After 1900, I can focus on Rwanda and Cambodia, or on Germany and the Holodomor, or whatever. Similarly, in that unit I can assign readings by Scott Straus, or by Omar McDoom (yes, the real name of a guy who studies the topic), or Lee Ann Fujii, or people who claim all of those people are misguided.
Gdanning
7mo ago
Sorry, I misread your previous reply. It seems that you agree that indoctrination is bad; if that is the case, then I do not understand why you oppose a law that prevents indoctrination. Because, to clarify, once the plurality opinion in Pico is overruled, which is inevitable given the Court's subsequent government speech jurisprudence, schools will be free to engage in indoctrination by removing all books that conflict with the majority view.
Gdanning
11mo ago
Then you did down into things like his zebra arguments, and they are just obviously rubbish because there are multiple instances of Europeans going to Africa in the 1800s and early 1900s and remarking on how easy to break zebras are,
But, breaking an animal is not the same as domesticating an animal. As noted on page 159: "Elephants have been tamed, but never domesticated. Hannibal's elephants were, and Asian work elephants are, just wild elephants that were captured and tamed; they were not bred in captivity. In contrast, a domesticated animal is defined as an animal selectively bred in captivity and thereby modified from its wild ancestors, for use by humans who control the animal's breeding and food supply."
And of course to this day zebras have not been domesticated.
Gdanning
1yr ago
So you realistically think some teacher is going to be able to get away with assigning Steve Sailer or Charles Murray to add the HBD context to such a course?
What teachers can "get away with" is a rather different issue, but the question is not whether they would get away with adding a new topic to the course, but whether they can get away with including a variety of views on the existing topics in the course.
You're also ignoring that the whole point of AP courses is the test,
As I discuss elsewhere, that is not the whole point of AP courses. The point of AP courses is to enhance student learning.
So, you think displaying a rainbow flag causes some pct of boys to grow up to get an erection when seeing a naked guy, and to fail to get an erection when seeing a naked woman?
Gdanning
11mo ago
You are correct that I did not see the gap. But, is the video actually about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? I think I see one "nun" in the background watching but I don't see any participating in the performance. And 2) what exactly is anti-Catholic about sexualizing Jesus? If I said, "I want to fuck Jesus," I am sure that some Catholics would be offended. But how is that statement anti-Catholic? As opposed to expressing an idea that disagrees with Catholic doctrine?
Gdanning
1yr ago
Again, I am not sure what it is that is depicted there that is disgust-inducing. Disgust is an awfully strong emotion, after all. And, the OP used the term "ugly" -- I took that as an aesthetic comment, rather than as a synonym for disgust, but perhaps that is indeed what they meant. I can certainly understand if someone found certain elements of the scene objectionable, such as the Antifa reference. Or even the LGBT-adjacent couple. But the overall scene of people going about their day -- walking the dog, flying a kite, going to work, hanging out with friends, etc, is a pretty regular street scene.
Again, I took the OP to be saying something other than "I disagree with the Greens' political vision," but perhaps that is indeed all they were saying.
Gdanning
11mo ago
A decade ago the supreme court unanimously ruled that people are actually allowed to appeal federal agency rulings to the court system, which the Obama administration did not want.
That is not the worst summary of a legal issue I have ever heard, but it isn't great. The Administrative Procedures Act provides for judicial review of “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U. S. C. §704. The issue in the case was whether "final agency action" had yet occurred. Not whether "people are actually allowed to appeal federal agency rulings to the court system," since people have been doing that successfully for decades.
Biden's EPA, which had attempted to define the navigable waters of the united states to mean any land on which there is any standing water at any time of the year.
No, 40 CFR 120.2 defines "waters of the United States" to include wetlands, and "wetlands" to mean "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." And according to the Court's decision, that definition dates to the early 1980s. And see, eg, People of State of Ill. v. Outboard Marine Corp, 619 F.2d 623, 627 fn 14 (2nd Cir. 1980) (quoting the rule). It was not a creation of "Biden's EPA," as you imply.
Gdanning
4mo ago
And the people claiming this don't even really like Romney all that much!
I would guess that most of the people complaining are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person.
Gdanning
6mo ago
the elusive moderate Muslim
Every Muslim I have met in the US, and I have met a fair number, has been moderate. Though only one has been from the Middle East.
If you are doing worse, then you seem to be in the minority. And see here
Perhaps your personal situation is not representative of the norm, and that the cited data, rather than being "statistical bullshit," more accurately describes the norm than does your anecdote.
Gdanning
7mo ago
- I don't know why you think there are "sides" on this particular issue. But this is pretty rich, since it sure seems that most of the objections seem to be that commenters fear that it says something that commenters don't want to hear.
- The problem with your analogy to abortion numbers is that false numbers are just that: false. And true numbers are true. In contrast, as I have repeatedly noted, an index like this one is inherently less than perfectly accurate, And, an index, unlike an abortion statistic, can not be said to be either "false" or "true." So, it is not enough to say, as people have, that it is not perfectly accurate. It might be so inaccurate that is "call[s] the whole thing in question," but neither you nor I nor anyone else here has any idea how "inaccurate" it is (ie, the degree to which it does not reflect what is actually happening on the ground). None of us even knows the precise methodology used. The only one who has posted any description of the methodology is yours truly.
Again, the original claim was that the index is invalid simply because it is not perfect. That is a claim a failure to understand the nature of that which is being critiqued.
Gdanning
9mo ago
Criticism of the movie itself is weak, with the arguments boiling down to "it's not realistic" and "the plot doesn't always make sense", things that could be leveled at any summer blockbuster.
Yes, and those exact criticisms ARE levied by critics at summer blockbusters, all the time. I see that the film has a 74% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is the same as Elemental and Asteroid City, and better than the Little Mermaid, Indiana Jones and Fast X. Are you sure there is a culture war angle here?
Gdanning
10mo ago
If man/woman is defined through self-identification, then the definition becomes recursive, and therefore useless.
Not necessarily. There are many instances in which group membership is defined through self-identification, especially for practical purposes. A relatively trivial example: Political party membership in the United States is generally based purely on self-identification; if I declare myself to be a Republican, I can vote in my state's Republican primary. Another example, though one of group self-identification, is the concept of the nation, which is often defined solely in terms of self-identification.(Of course, others push back and dispute that, but that is the point). Another example: "Rape victim." For the purposes of access to rape counseling services, "rape victim" is often defined as anyone who thinks she has been raped, even if, objectively, she has not been. The key there is "for the purposes of access to rape counseling services"; apparently, those who make such decisions deem it sound public policy to define membership in the group, "rape victim" to be based purely on self-identification. For other purposes, eg, criminal conviction of an alleged rapist, public policy might demand a different definition. The same is true of the definition of "woman." For some purposes, sound policy might demand defining "woman" as anyone who identifies as a woman. (Eg: if a high school class is reviewing for a test by having a boys versus girls Jeopardy game, letting anyone who identifies as a girl compete on the girl's team might be sound policy). For other purposes, sound policy might demand defining "woman" using objective criteria (eg, for the purpose of who gets to play "women's" sports).
Gdanning
1yr ago
What Citizens United said was this:
With regard to large direct contributions, Buckley reasoned that they could be given "to secure a political quid pro quo," id., at 26, 96 S.Ct. 612, and that "the scope of such pernicious practices can never be reliably ascertained," id., at 27, 96 S.Ct. 612. The practices Buckley noted would be covered by bribery laws, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 201, if a quid pro quo arrangement were proved. See Buckley, supra, at 27, and n. 28, 96 S.Ct. 612 (citing Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821, 839-840, and nn. 36-38 (CADC 1975) (en banc) (per curiam)). The Court, in consequence, has noted that restrictions on direct contributions are preventative, because few if any contributions to candidates will involve quid pro quo arrangements. MCFL, 479 U.S., at 260, 107 S.Ct. 616; NCPAC, 470 U.S., at 500, 105 S.Ct. 1459; Federal Election Comm'n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 210, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364 (1982) (NRWC). The Buckley Court, nevertheless, sustained limits on direct contributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption. That case did not extend this rationale to independent expenditures, and the Court does not do so here.
So, if you are asking whehther federal laws re campaign contributions apply only to quid pro quo contributions, no, they don't. The limits on contributions and the requirement to report contributions apply to all contributions, not just quid pro quo contributions (which, as the Court notes, would be separately prosecutable under bribery statutes).
Gdanning
1yr ago
So, when Group A files a lawsuit and reaches a settlement, some other group which has not filed a lawsuit has somehow been treated unjustly? Perhaps you should wait until Group B files a lawsuit and we see what happens, before you get all outraged.
That is a very odd citation for your claim, given that the district court said:
A private entity may be held liable under § 1983 when it "has exercised powers that are traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state." Conner, 42 F.3d at 224 (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1005, 102 S. Ct. 2777 (1982)).
In this case, Persistent Surveillance System's actions may be attributable to the Baltimore Police Department for purposes of assessing the Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims. The Baltimore Police Department and Persistent Surveillance Systems have entered into a Professional Services Agreement, ratified by the Baltimore City Board of Estimates, to conduct aerial surveillance over Baltimore. As Defendants conceded during the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Persistent Surveillance Systems would be exercising powers which are traditionally within the exclusive domain of the BPD when undertaking the actions authorized by the Professional Services Agreement.
Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. BPD, 456 F.Supp.3d 699, 707-708 (2020) (emphasis added).
Any argument that Twitter was a state actor must be based on a completely different theory.
Gdanning
6mo ago
Leaving aside the fact that he was, indeed, charged with treason, are you seriously contending that an American who waged war against the US did not commit treason? Because that is the literal definition of treason
Gdanning
7mo ago
Neither the government nor the schools have a valid interest in what children are taught. The valid interest begins and ends with that of the parents,
- Note that we are talking about what ideas are available in libraries, which is not quite the same issue as what is taught in class.
- More importantly, the fact that the valid interest begins and ends with that of the parents is exactly why schools need to refrain from censoring views and to avoid indoctrination. The interest is an interest of *individual *parents, not "the parents" as a group. If I think BLM is bullshit, it is a violation of that interest if the only books my child finds in the library are White Fragility and The New Jim Crow. You seem to be blind to the fact that "the parents" of a school district ultimately constitute "the government" -- they elect the school board, and if they elect a PC slate that promises to indoctrinate students on gender issues, then "the government" is violating my interest in what is taught.
You cannot write a law that "prevents indoctrination" in a system that exists to indoctrinate. There is no neutral viewpoint.
Yeah, this is the same nonsense that I heard from some colleagues when I was teaching: "It is impossible to be completely neutral; therefore, it is fine to indoctrinate my students in my personal political views." No, it isn't: A teacher, and a school, are perfectly capable of exposing students to varying views on issues, including those with which they disagree. I did it all the time: "Here is a very common argument on one side of this issue. Here is a common argument on the other side."
Gdanning
1yr ago
But as of right now, the guy is one step above monosyllabic. . . . This is not a man who can do the job of Senator,
This implies either: 1) a stroke that results in inability to speak necessarily also affects the ability to think analytically; or 2) the ability to speak is critical to the job of Senator. Neither of those things is true.
Re: #1, it would certainly be news to Steven Hawking that speech problems = inability to think, and it is pretty common knowledge that different areas of the brain control different processes. Moreover, suppose Fetterman's stroke had left him completely mute. Would that prove that he would be cognitively unable to perform the duties of Senator? I don't see how, and in fact I rather doubt that anyone would make that claim. Thus, the mere fact that Fetterman has language problems is hardly the ironclad proof that he is unqualified that you think it is.
Re: #2, Senators spend most of their time doing everything other than speaking. And, perhaps more important is that the number one job of a Senator is to represent his constituents. Hence, if Candidate X supports policies that I disagree with, and Candidate Y supports policies that I agree with but has suffered a stroke, it is nonsensical to argue that Candidate X will do a better job as Senator than Candidate Y - from my perspective, he will do a worse job.
There appears to be no requirement that they prove he actually committed another crime, but only that he intended to commit another crime.
More options
Context Copy link