Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[scalziand]

Here, have a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJPm52rmKYI

Or not, depending on your perspective.

[choff]

I thought it was odd that when they allowed for gays in the navy they also allowed beastiality. When was the last time they kept barnyard animals in war vessels. Maybe they use cows to test missle launchers in submarines and sheep to test catapaults on aircraft carriers.

[Diogenes]

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

[AcesHigh]

"experts" say.

actually, TWO philosophers said that.

[Ivy Matt]

Well, whoever they are, I'd say they do have a point.

[Diogenes]

Well, whoever they are, I'd say they do have a point.

I agree. I see little difference between the one thing and the other.

[Diogenes]

EEOC ruling that gender-identity discrimination is covered by Title VII is a ''sea change'' that opens the doors to employment protection for transgender Americans

An employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person's gender identity is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to an opinion issued on April 20 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The opinion, experts say, could dramatically alter the legal landscape for transgender workers across the nation.

http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7288






http://jerrybrice.wordpress.com/2010/10 ... 463170435/



Obviously there are no psychological problems here. We should have these people running the NSA!

[Diogenes]

Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling

In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.

"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/vi ... 25919.html


You liberals and libertarians, tell me again how what I predicted is not going to come to pass?

[ladajo]

So you can't buy a magazine, but you can do it on the web...

[williatw]

Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling


In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.

"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/vi ... 25919.html


You liberals and libertarians, tell me again how what I predicted is not going to come to pass?

From your link: The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image.

"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.
See a copy of the court's full ruling on the child pornography decision.

The court said it must be up to the legislature, not the courts, to determine what the appropriate response should be to those viewing images of child pornography without actually storing them. Currently, New York's legislature has no laws deeming such action criminal.

So merely looking at a picture, even one as odious as kiddy porn is not in and of itself a crime. You are not buying, selling, producing or legally in possesion is what the ruling is saying. Is there any other crime where simply looking at something is a crime? Not sure I see how this ruling constitutes an example of liberalism(or libertarianism) gone mad.

[Diogenes]

Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling


In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.

"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/vi ... 25919.html


You liberals and libertarians, tell me again how what I predicted is not going to come to pass?

From your link: The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image.

"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.
See a copy of the court's full ruling on the child pornography decision.

The court said it must be up to the legislature, not the courts, to determine what the appropriate response should be to those viewing images of child pornography without actually storing them. Currently, New York's legislature has no laws deeming such action criminal.

So merely looking at a picture, even one as odious as kiddy porn is not in and of itself a crime. You are not buying, selling, producing or legally in possesion is what the ruling is saying. Is there any other crime where simply looking at something is a crime? Not sure I see how this ruling constitutes an example of liberalism(or libertarianism) gone mad.

I suspect you are young(er) and have not been paying attention to social issues. The word you need to be familiar with is Incrementalism.

Back in 1979 I told one of my (then) Liberal friends that Liberals/Homosexuals would attempt to be legally recognized as an oppressed minority, lower the age of consent, try to adopt children, and try to make homosexual marriage legal. (I predicted a lot of other things as well.)

He said that was crazy and was nothing but fear mongering from the Jerry Falwells of the world. A few years ago he admitted to me that I had been absolutely correct on everything I predicted, and he was astonished to see that it had come to pass.

Now you see no significance in this ruling. It is simply another incremental step in this direction. People will make the argument that if it is okay to look at this stuff, then it is okay to record it to be viewed later, and eventually all prohibitions against it will fall to these quasi-legal arguments with the eventual result that some court will rule it protected "free speech" or some nonsense.

Incrementalism.

[Diogenes]

So you can't buy a magazine, but you can do it on the web...

Guess what comes next? Web parked storage for all your "legal" needs.

[krenshala]

Now you see no significance in this ruling. It is simply another incremental step in this direction. People will make the argument that if it is okay to look at this stuff, then it is okay to record it to be viewed later, and eventually all prohibitions against it will fall to these quasi-legal arguments with the eventual result that some court will rule it protected "free speech" or some nonsense.

By your logic, you wish to have everyone that accidentally views a page of child porn, in addition to those that are looking for such images, be guilty of a federal crime. To me that makes you look like a complete idiot, since it is pretty trivial to get a large portion of the population "in trouble" this way just by some malicious google-ad graphics.

Its quite clear from the portions williatw quoted that the ruling means "we don't have (enough) evidence" not "this is perfectly legal".

[williatw]

Now you see no significance in this ruling. It is simply another incremental step in this direction. People will make the argument that if it is okay to look at this stuff, then it is okay to record it to be viewed later, and eventually all prohibitions against it will fall to these quasi-legal arguments with the eventual result that some court will rule it protected "free speech" or some nonsense.

By your logic, you wish to have everyone that accidentally views a page of child porn, in addition to those that are looking for such images, be guilty of a federal crime. To me that makes you look like a complete idiot, since it is pretty trivial to get a large portion of the population "in trouble" this way just by some malicious google-ad graphics.

Its quite clear from the portions williatw quoted that the ruling means "we don't have (enough) evidence" not "this is perfectly legal".

Yes...and again is there any other example where merely looking at something is a crime? Not producing, distributing, attempting to buy or sell, or possession. Just "he looked at it" is the crime.

[Diogenes]

Now you see no significance in this ruling. It is simply another incremental step in this direction. People will make the argument that if it is okay to look at this stuff, then it is okay to record it to be viewed later, and eventually all prohibitions against it will fall to these quasi-legal arguments with the eventual result that some court will rule it protected "free speech" or some nonsense.

By your logic, you wish to have everyone that accidentally views a page of child porn, in addition to those that are looking for such images, be guilty of a federal crime. To me that makes you look like a complete idiot, since it is pretty trivial to get a large portion of the population "in trouble" this way just by some malicious google-ad graphics.

Its quite clear from the portions williatw quoted that the ruling means "we don't have (enough) evidence" not "this is perfectly legal".

I quoted the judge.

"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.

"Purposeful viewing." I'm sorry, is there another way of interpreting those words to arrive at your point?