Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fallsfromtrees, George J. Smith, tlb and 8 guests

Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by cthia   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:35 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12104
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Borealis wrote:
Fourth, perfection. This isn't a good term, and it's actually tied to the career issue, but if you had 10 years to spend on a project or hobby, think how good you could become at it. Even if you had little or no talent you could become good just through dint of sheer persistence. Think of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day and his learning to play the piano.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
My next post considers Emily Alexander. I wonder how long she had to practice her craft before the injury?

She was well liked and much is said of her on-screen talent.
I can only parallel it with a Meryl Streep, Marilyn Monroe, either of the Hepburns and many others how well of an actor prolong would have allowed them to become.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by SWM   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:50 pm

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

Cthia, I have to agree with themonster. It is just as inappropriate for a fifteen-year-old to take advantage of a twelve-year-old as it is for a 23-year-old pretending to be a fifteen-year-old taking advantage of a twelve-year-old. Do you disagree? Do you think it would be appropriate for a fifteen-year-old to take advantage of your twelve-year-old niece?
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by TheMonster   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:02 pm

TheMonster
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1168
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:22 am

cthia wrote:And I make no assumptions on anybody's time.
I do make decisions on my own and if someone's thread are a waste of my time, I am a big enough boy that I can decide not to enter their threads.
You don't own this thread.
et you come back, either because you are bored and like proofreading or because my threads are interesting, even with the typos, grammar errors, misspellings and the like.
It is possible to wish to discuss both the impact of prolong and language.
I'll promise not to post my incorrect grammar to your threads.
I don't own any threads either.
Seriously.
WTF?!
Is the only school bus to turn down your street the English bus?
STAY AWAY FROM MY NIECE!
I am no more of a threat to your niece today than I was at age 15. In fact, I'm much less of a threat now. Back then, I still hadn't completely adjusted to the hormones yet.

I think you're reading things I'm not writing.
As soon as your thoughtful post went out I knew that the many emails I'd receive from it would be as expected. They were. You have probably cost this forum some very good members.

I told Andreaa, Cirstea, Natalija, Simone and others that the majority of the people in the forums are unlike you, and don't find it difficult to overlook the English of us mere mortals.
If I walk out of a restroom with three feet of toilet tissue stuck to my heel, I'd like someone to tell me about it rather than just giggling at me behind my back.

If I post something that egregiously wrong on, say, a German-language forum, I'd hope someone would let me know rather than letting me get in the habit of error.


Andreaa, et. al., please don't let me dissuade you from posting here. I won't call you stupid or anything. However, if you insist that "alot" is a word that you enjoy typing, I might think of a different description of that behavior.
Top
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by cthia   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:16 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12104
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

SWM wrote:Cthia, I have to agree with themonster. It is just as inappropriate for a fifteen-year-old to take advantage of a twelve-year-old as it is for a 23-year-old pretending to be a fifteen-year-old taking advantage of a twelve-year-old. Do you disagree? Do you think it would be appropriate for a fifteen-year-old to take advantage of your twelve-year-old niece?


I agree that it is just as inappropriate for a fifteen year old to take advantage of a 12 year old as it would be for a 23 year old to take advantage of a 12 year old.

But this statement
The only meaningful difference between the 15 year old boy and the 23-year-old is eight years of experience in manipulation tactics.

You agree with that???
Who the hell is concerned with manipulation tactics. I am concerned with the sexual subject matter that a college grad, that has participated in countless Greek orgies and the like, can introduce to a 12 year old, as opposed to the average fifteen year old whom may be a virgin himself, or at least as clumsy and unsure of himself as a twelve year old.

Granted, there may not necessarily be a difference in sexual experience in every case.

But I am betting that the average fifteen year old's sexual experience is nowhere near a twenty-three year olds. I had completed my undergrad degree and my masters at 23!

But this statement threatens to give me apoplexy.
And if Prolong allows a 30- or 40-year-old to look as young as a 23-year-old today, I'm not sure that one of them pretending to be 15 is any worse than the 23-year-old doing it.


You don't see a difference in sexual experience?
Really?
You're pranking me, right?

Now let's make one thing perfectly clear. I don't want either anywhere near my niece in that capacity. But the fact of the matter is that one of the above scenarios is actually legal in some states. Blame your politicians, not me.

My sister will be facing this possible scenario next year when my 12 year old niece enters High School.


This statement
Either she's competent to consent to sexual congress or she isn't.

Makes me want to secede from the union.
It is this kind of thinking that is repulsive.
Consent...as in under 16. If age is 16, in some states she is considered competent to give consent.
And a older man could receive the sentence of a misdemeanor, same sentence as a 16 year old and a 15 year old. Despicable.

It seems you are only concerned with the legal ramifications of said hookups.

I am concerned moreso with the emotional, physical, traumatic and social considerations as well.

My niece will definitely be kept out of this forum.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by TheMonster   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:38 pm

TheMonster
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1168
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:22 am

cthia wrote:But this statement
The only meaningful difference between the 15 year old boy and the 23-year-old is eight years of experience in manipulation tactics.

You agree with that???
Who the hell is concerned with manipulation tactics. I am concerned with the sexual subject matter that a college grad, that has participated in countless Greek orgies and the like, can introduce to a 12 year old, as opposed to the average fifteen year old whom may be a virgin himself, or at least as clumsy and unsure of himself as a twelve year old.
You don't consider the subject matter to be part of the predator's manipulation tactics? I have an earthier description for what people like this do to their victims. It starts with "mind-" and rhymes with "truck". I called it that when I was barely a teenager myself, when my eldest sister's first husband did it to her, and he wasn't particularly older than she; he's just a sleazy SOB.
But this statement threatens to give me apoplexy.
And if Prolong allows a 30- or 40-year-old to look as young as a 23-year-old today, I'm not sure that one of them pretending to be 15 is any worse than the 23-year-old doing it.

You don't see a difference in sexual experience?
The sexual experience gained after age 23 is orthogonal to the threat model. The techniques used to entice someone into going along with the experience are far more important in my analysis. It may well be that an older person is better at those techniques, but that doesn't mean that a younger person is inept at them.

I'm pretty sure that a 23-year-old who is successfully able to impersonate a 15-year-old can do every bit as much damage as a 30- or 40-year old.
Now let's make one thing perfectly clear. I don't want either anywhere near my niece in that capacity. But the fact of the matter is that one of the above scenarios is actually legal in some states. Blame your politicians, not me.
Please cite a state where a 23-year-old sexual predator (pretending to be 15) having sex with a girl under the age of consent is "legal".
This statement
Either she's competent to consent to sexual congress or she isn't.

Makes me want to secede from the union.
It is this kind of thinking that is repulsive.
Consent...as in under 16. If age is 16, in some states she is considered competent to give consent.
And a older man could receive the sentence of a misdemeanor, same sentence as a 16 year old and a 15 year old. Despicable.
Why should a 30-year-old get a different sentence from a 23-year-old for the same crime of knowingly having sex with a 12-year-old?

It seems you are only concerned with the legal ramifications of said hookups.
Well, you're talking about "sexual predators", which carries a strong connotation of illegal behavior. Your immediately following paragraphs talk about "crime" and "statute of limitations". It sure sounds like you're talking about the need to modify laws to keep up with prolong.

But I also talked about the non-legal aspects of training girls (and boys while we're at it) to be suspicious of being manipulated into doing certain things. Any such training that limits itself to "boys who look like they're a lot older than you" is misguided. I like the idea of teaching girls to stay away from any boy they're afraid to introduce to Mom and Dad, especially if the introduction can go like my introduction to The Bride of Monster's father:

Between her and her mother, they thought it would be a great idea for him to show me his collection of guns and a sword taken from a Japanese soldier in the war. As the father of two daughters (and the grandfather of four granddaughters and two grandsons), I now think every boy would benefit from knowing that his girlfriend's parents have a nice collection of weapons.


I think you'd better not bring up a subject like this if you don't want to have an honest discussion of it, and instead cast aspersions on the opinions others express in response.

By saying "STAY AWAY FROM MY NIECE!" in bold print, you've pretty strongly implied that I qualify as a "sexual predator" myself. Frankly, I resent the hell out of that. That's the kind of aspersion that ruins people's lives, and it's not to be tossed out casually.

And you don't know enough about what my thinking is to brand it "repulsive". You've seized upon a few phrases as if they represent the sum total of my thinking on the subject, rather than specific aspects of it.
Top
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by NortonIDaughter   » Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:20 am

NortonIDaughter
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:09 pm

Borealis wrote:
Third, careers. It's already been mentioned how in a military organization the rank structure would get skewed or else stagnation in the promotion process would occur. But who's to say someone would spend 250 years in the military? Eventually, you would think they'd get bored and move on to something different. There are a lot of other careers I think I would have liked to try, but won't have time in my lifetime to do. Imagine if I had 300 years to do try those...


In picturing the integration of the TQ, I sometimes worry about the opposite-- what chance does anyone without prolong have of getting a decent job in the SEM, given that they don't have the requisite decades to rise in their fields?

The RMN doesn't seem to have necessarily planned to lose their most experience people every couple of decades; although Honor has spent time thinking about various other people shifting careers, the only person we've really seen do it is Terekhov.

Now, the war probably has had a lot to do with the way the RMN views its members for almost as long as they've had prolong-- but we don't know that modern Honorverse society has fully adjusted to the idea that you can leave a job after 50 years, and then come in to another field 50 years behind the people who came into it as grad students or whatever. All the speculation we've done about the lack of upward mobility, etc is going to work against switching fields and starting over again.

In a weird way, the SEM has been incredibly lucky to have had this war-- because of it, they've annexed two major territories, made new allies and trade partners, pushed the envelop on new tech. (And now they're poised to reframe the galaxy to their liking as the SL goes down.) And on a gruesome but practical level, attrition has let people rise to the top much more quickly in various sectors. What would they be facing without that incredible advancement?
Top
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by Brigade XO   » Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:43 am

Brigade XO
Admiral

Posts: 2475
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:31 am
Location: KY

Caldron addresses part of this problem and leaves it very much open. Do people get married "till death" or do they find alternatives?
It is also talked about with Honor marrying Hamish and Emily.
It is going to become a greater point of concern as the differences between civil contract and religious unions/sacrements evolved or fail too evolve to address the realities of people living active lives for well beyond a hundred years.
One possibility is that instead of life long marriage, there develops contract relationships. Essentialy partnerships between individuals for specific periods with options for renewals. Remember that even in religious marriage, there are LEGAL components. That is both within the religious context. is divorce or nullification of vows even possible - typically yes but with great difficulty depending on the religion. In one modern religion at least, divorcing a wife (not, apparently a husband) is as "simple" as going through a format of telling people the wife is no longer a wife.
I'll stop before I wade into the deep end of the pool too far on moral and practical issues of setting up a "business" relationship for sharing wealth, producing & raising children, plus defining expectations of duties and responsibilities within a partnership or company.
Mariage is essentialy a contract even if the terms are not all written down.
That whole "for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health" verbal vow fairly well settles the idea that you can't just leave because you don't like what happens later vs current expectations. Getting out has evolved some penalties. There is the whole pissing off God and then there are divorce settlements at the same time. Sometimes there are seriously angry relatives not to mention a spouse…….oh joy.
Top
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by Theemile   » Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:48 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3942
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Toledo, OH

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but the Honorverse is still a society just starting to come to grips with the changes Prolong allows.

In 1900, the last non-Prolong receipants in Manticore were retiring from their careers - in 1922, many are probably still alive, but are geriatrics. That next generation has just gotten to the point where their forefathers had to retire and are still going strong. So in essence, the career stagnation point has only been hit in the last 10-20 years. This, obviously has not been an issue in Manticore with the War and economic expansion allowing workfore to expand (in fact in many fields, Prolong probably has not allow the workfore to keep up with demand.

The SLN, on the other hand has been dealing with the beginnings of this for a full generation or more. It is resulting in the long stagnant careers other have mentioned.

But, no one has really dealt with all the ramifications yet. No one has hit 150 years old, let alone 300.
There will be a period of ~200 years where geriatric services will be in little use for 1st tier systems, and knowledge may be lost. The full implications will not be felt for another 200 years and may take another century or 2 to cope.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by TheMonster   » Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:48 am

TheMonster
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1168
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:22 am

Brigade XO wrote: In one modern religion at least, divorcing a wife (not, apparently a husband) is as "simple" as going through a format of telling people the wife is no longer a wife.
Specifically, the husband must tell the wife "talaq" three times. There is some disagreement about whether he can simply say "Talaq, talaq, talaq." in a single sentence or has to "cool off" and try to resolve any marital disputes between utterances, but there is broad agreement that a man can divorce a wife unilaterally. The word "talaq" refers only to a divorce initiated by the husband. If a wife initiates the divorce, it's called "khula", and it requires her to petition a judge of Islamic jurisprudence for the divorce.
Mariage is essentialy a contract even if the terms are not all written down.
A lot of people say that marriage is a contract, but it's a very peculiar sort of contract, in that often, some of the parties to the contract are too young to enter into a contract under most legal systems, and may not even have been born yet.

To illustrate with my own case, my marriage has thus far been a contract between myself, The Bride of Monster, and both Monsterettes (and arguably the grandkids too), neither of whom had been conceived at the time we entered into the contract. I guess you could say TBoM and I "signed the contract" for them as we would have any other contract, but I'm not familiar of any other contract where one of the parties is allowed to serve as proxy for another party's consent like that.

It is precisely to protect the interests of the minor children who cannot consent to the "contract" that regulating marriage (in ways that are not appropriate to a contract solely between consenting adults) is a legitimate state interest.

(I realize that many marriages never produce offspring, but it is precisely those marriages that are most easily dissolved.)
Top
Re: Prolong and Unforeseen Considerations
Post by cthia   » Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:19 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12104
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

TGIF
I have put the kids to bed and can now spend time addressing certain rude behaviour in this thread.
By kids, I am referring to my career responsibilities and many other obligations.
By rude behaviour I mean certain Monsters of society that has found their way into forums.

At present...

Dear TheMonster,
I have a problem with the correct use of who and whom.
I am not alone. Many people have this problem. Search the internet, you'll find many sites offering help.

You have interrupted other threads with this same nonsense. I have nicely acknowledged the problem then, and I promise to attempt to do better, even if only the attempt takes on the form of using who in all cases because its more correct than not. lol

I suggested the solution that if my incorrect use of the two forms wastes your time as you've stated then steering away from posts where you know for certain that these inconsistencies lurk might be a reasonable solution to you.

Immediately you pulled in your horns and claimed a personal affront, by stating "You don't own this thread."
Out of all your assumed superiority of the use of the English language Mr. Houseman, you are now feigning ignorance in reading comprehension, by suggesting that I purport to own any thread or that I have tried to deny any poster passage, or that I have not indeed went out of my way to welcome any poster to my threads by oftentimes acknowledging and responding in an attempt to give a poster positive feedback and satisfaction that his or her post has been read, by someone.

You are the one who threw out that your time was being wasted because I don't take time to proofread.
Just why you think that someone who has a problem with the two cases is suddenly going to achieve mastery upon his second reading is beyond me but certainly not unlike the illogical irrational thinking of a certain Houseman-type.

Since you put your almighty time up as a devout consideration, then I rightly suppose it would be down right inhospitable and rude of me not to at least give it a cursory consideration.

The result of that cursory consideration was an acknowledgement and a warning that I have a problem with the two forms and that I wasn't likely to pass my writings through a grammar checker because of considerations regarding my own time.

That is the only solution available to me of satisfying your superior sense of grammatical excellence, unless your solution was always to be that I not have use of the forum.
In which case I submit to you Mr. Houseman, that you are the one who does not own the forum!
And no one appointed you to stand great grammatical guru at the gate, you pompous twit!

Ah, but his feelings are hurt when people call him names.
Actually, I am painfully aware that a lot of people think it's bad form to point out errors in grammar and spelling. Somehow it's not bad form to call folks like me names (of which "anal retentive" is probably one of the milder sort). Funny how that works.

Again, at the first sign that the prodded bull has its own horns, he feigns indignance and tries to justify his own faux pas--his own tactless acts that violate accepted social norms, standard customs, or rules of ettiquette.

I assure you Mr. Houseman, regarding your rudeness, crudeness and ill-advised social bedside manner you are not as painfully aware of it as others are about you.
And if calling you names affronts you...leaves me completely and utterly unmoved!

One of my foreign friends, upon reading your post, took the time to ring me up to remind me of a conversation we had when I visited Romania. They were talking and one of their idioms came up. Upon asking what it meant they explained it...

Some foreign phrase which essentially translates to "deal with the duck."
Its actually very similar to an English phrase taken one step further.
"If it quacks like a duck, its a duck.
If it barks like a dog, its a dog.
If it bites like a dog, its a problem."


She thought your rudeness was a perfect opportunity to conclude my understanding of that phrase.

With the invention of the internet, your rudeness has even traveled abroad to affront the sensibilities of very good people. And of course your rudeness, attempt to embarrass and offhanded brusque dismissal of accepted standard faux pas, is such an insignificant sleight as opposed to my misusing two often misused and innocuous words like who and whom.

Once again you tried to reign in your horns after prodding the bull.
If I walk out of a restroom with three feet of toilet tissue stuck to my heel, I'd like someone to tell me about it rather than just giggling at me behind my back.

I am sure anyone would agree that they'd like to be told.
I doubt that anyone would want you to rudely scream it from across the way.
Interrupting a thread in that manner is essentially the same and satisfied nothing but your own sense of sick grandeur, and served to do nothing but kill what I and friends of mine was hoping to be a very good thread.

If your intentions truly were altruistic, and you truly were concerned about people laughing behind my back, you would have sought the more discrete path. Emails are available.

We all know what you were really trying to do, don't we Mr. Houseman, you were trying to initiate giggles by casting your own aspersions on my education.
You feel superior to everyone who isn't a perfect grammar master. Because that's enough for you to know, without knowing any thing profound about the person, to make that assumption.

You knew exactly what you were doing, and your initial condescendingly confrontational tone made it quite clear.

Let me congratulate you on your attempt to embarrass me. You succeeded. Though not in the manner in which you think. I was embarrassed for Americans that one of us could think so much of our own self importance that they could do such a thing.

That post was specifically set up for my foreign friends. They are interested in American thoughts about the social, religious, emotional and other unseen effects of living significantly longer. They are all medical doctors and their interest is purely clinical. They also wanted me to list political as a consideration but I explained to them that political discussions had its own forum.

You destroyed that thread right from the start, as was your intention. The social rules of society and the rules of the forum fail to matter to you, rather your own importance.

Your type was probably cheering from Houseman's own indulgence in self importance. It's obvious you didn't learn anything from its aftermath.
Incidentally, Andreea perceived of the connection between you and Houseman.
Reel in your horns once more and feign concern.
If I post something that egregiously wrong on, say, a German-language forum, I'd hope someone would let me know rather than letting me get in the habit of error.

Apples and oranges, and you damn well know it. Insult my intelligence even more, thank you.
I am not trying to learn English as a foreign language.

Egregious? Which means abominable, appalling, frightful, shocking?
Surely Reginald Houseman shit you right out of his self important ass.

Yes you knew exactly what you were doing, and your initial condescendingly confrontational tone made it quite clear.
Well, maybe when people live to be more than a century, they'll have time learn that "alot" is not a word. (There is a word spelled "allot", but it has a completely different meaning from "a lot". When you allot the cookies, if one child gets a lot and another does not, expect a lot of complaining.) If this were the first time you'd typed that, it would be easy to think you just forgot to hit the spacebar or your fingers slipped, but I've seen you do it, well, a lot. Since you brought up education, I can take the opportunity to school you on grammar and spelling.

Obviously any side-effect of prolong would be more advantageous and desired if it were to erase humanity's grammatical errors rather than its rude, condescending, self important social miscreants--the socially inept.
Sure.

I challenge you to find any social gathering that would be more concerned about a person's grammar than their manners. I certainly know which would be laughed behind their back, right after they're shown the outside by the nape of their neck and the seat of their pants. Just one social setting other than your own back yard.
Since you brought up education, I can take the opportunity to school you on grammar and spelling.

So you won't mind if I take a moment to school you?.
Alot is not a word. There is a distinct difference of using existing words incorrectly rather than using words that are not words.
I personally like alot. I will campaign for its use. Let's examine it.
A and lot, separated by a space. Can and not, separated by a space. What and ever, separated by a space. Counter and clockwise, extra and ordinary. They all represent commonly used dual word combinations that have been simplified to one form. Compound words. They have evolved. The phenomena represented by the big word called etymology.

Now I am sure that a and lot represents an egregious use of alot.
The English language is not static. No language should be.
Language learns itself. It is ever changing.
Our experiences shapes our need to reassemble language to its original form. In the beginning there was just one language, before peoples were scattered.

It is why we as people, in our ever need to communicate come to use words as a means to this end.
Words are not meant to use us.

I was with a group of irate women, angry over an older boy that had gotten away with rape with one of their young daughters. He was 15, she was 14. Since they had been going out for a few weeks he felt like she owed him. Apparently the justice system did to.

One of them said "We should bobbitt his ass."
Bobbitt, I asked?
"Yes, Lorena Bobbitt."
Ah, you see, experience creates new words.
And one of my favorites. "She Jap Slapped him."
To Jap Slap someone, is to slap them when they are not aware of the incomming slap. (I.E Sneak attack) Comes from when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor
-Urban Dictionary


Please don't try and force your self proclaimed importance and assumed mastery and understanding of the English language on us mere mortals. And before you send off your next post, perhaps you should spend less time proofreading your work for correctly placed quotation marks rather than the substance between them.


So you think that appearing young somehow empowers sexual predators. I don't know how a 15-year-old boy taking advantage of a 12-year-old girl is any better than a 23-year-old pretending to be a 15-year-old doing the same thing. Either she's competent to consent to sexual congress or she isn't. And if Prolong allows a 30- or 40-year-old to look as young as a 23-year-old today, I'm not sure that one of them pretending to be 15 is any worse than the 23-year-old doing it.

The only meaningful difference between the 15 year old boy and the 23-year-old is eight years of experience in manipulation tactics. If girls are taught to be on guard about such tactics only when used by boys who seem to be a lot older than they, they're being taught the wrong lessons. Prolong letting that "boy" continue to pass as 15 through his 30s just underscores how wrong it is.


All over America, rapists are getting off. High powered tactical legal jugglers are getting them off. These legal jugglers begin by seeking out accomplices--people to sit on the jury. People with thinking sympathetic to their plight. People just like...well, you, Monster.

At what age in a man's life can he, should he, unequivocally be held [absolutely] responsible for his actions? Thirty to forty years old and beyond, is certainly that time!

Sure, the justice system has its problems and uncertainties distinguishing that point of time in a man's life that he should be considered mature. Mature and responsible. Absolutely.
We'll visit some of those hideous inconsistencies later.

You don't understand, the unspoken premise that as a man matures he should become more responsible?
Should be held morally more accountable?

Two men are on trial for taking indecent liberties with a minor, one 23 and the other 40.
The 23 yr old will be convicted, but probably with a lighter sentence.
The 40 yr old will be convicted, but with a heavier sentence.
The difference ranges from 1-5, to 25-60 years depending on circumstances. Class A-D Felonies.
What plays an important role, is the attitude against the two perpetrators, all else being equal.
The jury is thinking, the 23 yr old hasn't grown up yet, but still must be punished. Too bad he's thrown his life away. At least that's what a good lawyer will have them thinking.

To the 40 year old..."That SOB, they should hang his sorry ass."
I know this first hand.
What's the difference?
The perceived notion that an undisputed adult, physically and mentally should be held one hundred percent accountable. Someone 30 - 40 years old, you're a grown man and should definitely know better!

[Sentence them both...but castrate the one before sentencing. The filthy SOB!]
You don't understand that?

Have you ever sat on a jury for this type case? It's an eye opener.
The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an "infant" are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. After reaching the initial age, there may be levels of responsibility dictated by age and the type of offense committed.

Under the English common law the defense of infancy was expressed as a set of presumptions. A child under the age of seven was presumed incapable of committing a crime. The presumption was conclusive, prohibiting the prosecution from offering evidence that the child had the capacity to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of what he had done. Children aged seven to fourteen (13 years, 364 days 23'59'59" aged) were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what he was doing and that it was wrong.[1] Children fourteen and older were presumed capable of committing a crime. However, the child could rebut this presumption by establishing that because of his immaturity he was incapable of understanding what he had done or the wrongfulness of his conduct.[2]


The spirit of this law is to protect criminals who don't know any better.
The mentally challenged, etc.
It is this type thinking that allows many to walk. That opens the door. A 23 year old isn't long out of High School, he hasn't let go yet. Hasn't completely grown up. Hogwash! But that empathy is used.
But a 30 year old and a 40 year old, should definitely know better.
But people like you, don't believe its any worse. That's why you are picked as a juror by the defense.

No wonder children cannot count on the legal system to protect them. Too many cancerous minds.

Legally, on paper it may not be any worse...the same lascivious infractions.
But if you think, seriously think, that in the minds and hearts of the average human, and especially to the victim's' family, that it isn't worse, that the average loved one doesn't want to castrate the 40 year old, then you really have issues.

And if you yourself don't feel that way, then I really wouldn't feel comfortable with you within 300 yards of my niece.

And at Honor Con, she will not leave my sight.


Your rudeness is appalling to people. You are aware of it, as this is not your first time to interrupt my threads, and you indicated that other people also think your habit is in bad taste which implies you've exerted your self importance over others as well and subjected them to your rudeness, and have been told. Yet the rudeness continues.

Only your time is important, not any of the other people that may actually have wanted to discuss the topic.

Is that why you name yourself TheMonster because that's what you intend to be?
You're rude, you're disrespectful and a malignant growth to society.
And if any aspersions were cast in your direction. You cast them yourself.
If my calling a quacking duck a duck offends you.
I am left completely and utterly unmoved.

Trataţi cu raţă

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top

Return to Honorverse