SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
LaminatorX
on Wednesday August 26 2015, @09:48PM
from the mental-image-from-headline-far-more-salacious-than-actual-situation dept.
from the mental-image-from-headline-far-more-salacious-than-actual-situation dept.
He's a bloodhound for the digital age. Much the way other dogs can pick up the scent of a fugitive or a cache of cocaine, Bear the labrador can smell the components of electronic media, even a micro-card as small as a fingernail that a suspect could easily hide.
From the article:
The 2-year-old rescue pooch nosed out a thumb drive that humans had failed to find during a search of Fogle's Indiana house in July, several weeks before he agreed to plead guilty to having X-rated images of minors and paying to have sex with teenage girls.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Porn-Sniffing Dog Helped Bring Down Subway Star Jared Fogle
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 92 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Your lucky color has faded.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:01PM
Since not all usb drives are contraband, it sounds like you can hack this dog with a 'sacrificial' thumb-drive - hide the one you care about up as high as possible and then put another plain drive close to dog-level. Once the dog has found that drive the handler will be faced with a living version of the halting problem. [wikipedia.org] Is the dog still alerting on the lingering smell of the first drive, or is there another one nearby?
(Score: 5, Informative) by nyder on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:20PM
I would think the lesson would be to encrypt your data.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:31PM
> I would think the lesson would be to encrypt your data.
Because people never screw that up.
We've had a million stories about general data security. This story is about dogs, talking about dog-specific countermeasures is interesting. Same old baseline advice to encrypt is hardly novel. Layers man.
(Score: 1) by terrab0t on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:44AM
I'm sure I've seen this discussed in full before, but in this case the police had a warrant to completely search his home and personal records. If they found a storage medium with encrypted data on it, he would be compelled by the court to decrypt it for them –possibly with a second court order, but if the police obtained the warrant they would get that too.
Some people suggest pretending you have lost the ability to decrypt the data. I don't know if that's ever been tested in court. It might work in this case though. It was a USB thumb drive hidden away somewhere. He could say he hasn't used it in an long time and has long since forgotten how to decrypt what's on it.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine there is no way to prove a suspect is capable of decrypting a drive unless it can be proven that he used it recently, ie. a witness recently saw him use it or it's the OS drive for what is clearly his main PC.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:54AM
except for that whole fifth amendment thing. in the US, its unconstitutional to order a person to hand over evidence that incriminates them, which includes passwords and encryption keys. as we all know though, the constitution is merely a relic of the past that gets ignored wholesale these days.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:19AM
as we all know though, the constitution is merely a relic of the past that gets ignored wholesale these days.
Indeed. Courts too often 'interpret' (modify, really) the constitution in the way that is most convenient for the government. Furthermore, the government wants people to be ignorant of the concept of jury nullification and will often try to eliminate jurors who are aware. They want to completely strip us of all of our means of stopping government overreach.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:38PM
Thank you for bringing the 5th Amendment issue up. IMHO it is a very interesting legal question. Courts are leaning toward saying the 5th Amendment protects against forced decryption, but there is a split. The split is between a federal circuit court and a state supreme court.
(Score: 2) by http on Thursday August 27 2015, @04:00AM
It's long been the standard in USA law that you can't tell a defendant to do the work of the prosecution - this being the origin of their 5th amendment. IIRC, the Fricosu case tried an end-run around this to get the defedant to provide a password, but was smacked down by the 11th circuit panel.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:29AM
IIRC, the Fricosu case tried an end-run around this to get the defedant to provide a password, but was smacked down by the 11th circuit panel.
Huh? [wikipedia.org] Looks to me like they ruled otherwise, even if it never went to the highest court. So, it appears as though they simply ignored the constitution.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:42PM
The original poster cited the wrong case. The correct reference is US v. Doe, which by itself doesn't help much since Doe is a pseudonym. It was, however, the 11th Circuit which ruled on this.
(Score: 4, Funny) by e_armadillo on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:22PM
No. Don't do the shit he did, or anything like it, and you should be OK to keep your storage devices wherever you like.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:27PM
> No. Don't do the shit he did, or anything like it, and you should be OK to keep your storage devices wherever you like.
Yeah, sure. [prwatch.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by e_armadillo on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:25PM
how did this become a conversation about citizen journalists in syria?
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:34PM
> how did this become a conversation about citizen journalists in syria?
By you saying that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 27 2015, @12:17AM
Exactly, and secondly, the way privacy is eroded is to find a disgusting defendant with whom almost everyone cannot identify. The primary magic spell over rationality employed by authoritarians, is to find someone really horrid, and say: "do you support what he did? You must if you care about privacy."
In this case, I doubt there is anything outside the pale -- surely the search occurred in the context of a warrant. But something to be aware of is how easily the police-state can win ever more power just by picking gross defendants, and using them as a test cases for the expansion of abusive power.
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:24AM
Actually, that is NOT what I said. I said, as a law abiding citizen, you could place it wherever you want, instead of hiding it in the hopes that nobody finds it. If you want to protect your privacy, or are worried about abuses of power, don't pin your hopes on a "maybe" like a decoy, i.e. "maybe they will think thats it and go away." Place your faith in a known solution like strongly encrypting your data and "forgetting" your password if asked for it, and it really doesn't hurt to keep your nose clean . . .
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @07:27AM
> that is NOT what I said. I said, as a law abiding citizen, you could place it wherever you want
Potato Potato.
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Thursday August 27 2015, @06:51PM
Oh yes, because saying there is a better way to deal with your concerns is saying you have no concerns . . .
Tomato . . . Orange
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:27PM
> Oh yes, because saying there is a better way to deal with your concerns is saying you have no concerns . . .
Go back and read your post again. The only "better way" you proposed is "don't do the shit he did, or anything like it."
Once the intellectual bankruptcy of that statement was shoved in your face, you started grasping at straws about encryption.
Don't be a coward, own what you said or admit you made an error. But pretending you said something that wasn't even remotely like what you said is just ego preservation for someone whose ego is too weak to accept responsibility for their own words. What you wrote is clear for anyone to read, denial is just stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @07:35AM
Disagree. Every time I read about people getting arrested on a weak suspicion, and having all their hardware confiscated, I think about that I should have an off-site backup. Oh sure, I'd probably get my stuff back in a couple of years when they finally admit I'm innocent, but by then it will all be outdated anyway, and unless I want to go off-grid, I'd have to buy a new computer for the time in between.
At least with an off-site backup, I'd be able to restore everything, like I would when buying a new PC, rather than needing to start my digital life over from scratch. Oh, there may be a few sites that still use the password I remember, but most are using unique passwords, so without my password manager, I wouldn't be able to access most stuff, including my e-mail (including password reset mails).
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Thursday August 27 2015, @06:53PM
You may be surprised, but I completely agree with your solution.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:04PM
Because as we all know, innocent people never get abused by the government. As soon as you're employed by the government, you become a perfect being incapable of breaking the law, making mistakes, or succumbing to basic human nature that every other government in the history of the world was subject to. The US government is special, you see. Especially if you ignore all the abuses it already committed. Then it has a perfect track record!
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:23PM
Yeah, and stashing a decoy thumb drive to distract from your real thumb drive is going to make the situation soooooo much better . . .
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:37PM
You are smarter than everyone else, aren't you?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by e_armadillo on Thursday August 27 2015, @12:02AM
No
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday August 27 2015, @12:16AM
I have a feeling that 90% of viewers would call that a 100% redundant answer to a hypothetical question...
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @12:41AM
I didn't say anything like that. I'd say a better bet is to use strong encryption whenever possible, though.
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:16AM
Sorry, I took your reply in the context of the fork this discussion fell into. In terms of keeping private shit private, I agree 100% -- encryption is the far superior away.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:18AM
far superior *way.
knew I should preview . . .
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:52PM
God allows men to have female children as their mates: Deuteronomy 22 28-29, hebrew.
Feminists should be killed.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @12:19AM
Ahhh man!
What's wrong with you? You've lost your mojo.
Its like you are just going through the motions now.
Do you need some love?
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 27 2015, @04:39PM
I'd love to see you try that shit with me, Fizzbuzz. I'm six feet tall, wear steel-toed mens' workboots for the comfort, and am well-trained in the ancient and dishonorable art of kicknutsu. Assuming yours have dropped, anyway, you're going down...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:47PM
Just hide your flash drive in the baggie with your pot. Fido will never smell it there.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:18AM
Do flash drives really have that unique a smell that a dog can identify it and not all the other plastic items in a house? I am very skeptical.
Perhaps there has been some parallel construction here.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 27 2015, @06:12AM
The dog is probably picking up on the chemicals that are used to produce silicon chips. The chemicals used to produce plastics are going to be completely different from the ones that are used to produce chips.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:57PM
Did you not notice how the silicon chips are entirely enclosed in plastic?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by etherscythe on Thursday August 27 2015, @06:15PM
Hypothetical exercise: drop your average flash drive in water. Leave it submerged for a minute. Does it still work? Doubt it! Air permeates better than water, as well. Smells are going to seep out. And that's assuming there isn't residue on the outside from the factory.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @07:29AM
> Perhaps there has been some parallel construction here.
What would be the point? TFA says they had a warrant and they had already done a conventional search of the house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:40PM
> Do flash drives really have that unique a smell that a dog can identify it and not all the other plastic items in a house?
(Score: 2) by _NSAKEY on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:13PM
This is just like Lucky and Flo, the counterfeit DVD-sniffing dogs in Malaysia [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:16PM
Although the dogs are sponsored and publicized on the premise that they can detect counterfeit DVDs, they have no ability to distinguish between counterfeit DVDs and any other polycarbonate optical disc. The dogs' abilities were first demonstrated in May 2006 at the FedEx shipping hub at London Stansted Airport, though inspectors found all the discs the dogs detected that day to be legitimate.
Aha. I wonder what ethics smells like.
Although you might be able to differentiate between factory-pressed discs and burned ones? That still doesn't get you quite far enough, though.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:27PM
It pretty much doesn't matter if the dogs could tell counterfeit vs legit, or if the Fogle dogs could smell porn or just any thumb drive.
The police ALREADY had a search warrant at the time the dog was employed. Innocuous CDs or thumb drives wouldn't be hidden.
So undeclared CDs are "suspect" in FedEx cargo.
And Fogle's hidden thumb drive was already covered by the warrant.
This has nothing at all to do with ethics. (Except perhaps the ethics of tt0396171 to submit the story with "Porn sniffing" headline and LaminatorX's approval of that clearly invalid headline. Just because the NBC source used it doesn't mean that we have to stoop that low).
Allowing those inflammatory words just gave a lot of people on this thread (you included) to spout nonsense and vent rage about a claim the police never made. The dog found the thumb drive. So what? The warrant in hand covered ALL such storage devices.
Why are you so up in arms about this? You let NBC play you with a title?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:40PM
You mad bro?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:18AM
The police ALREADY had a search warrant at the time the dog was employed. Innocuous CDs or thumb drives wouldn't be hidden.
It's almost like you're saying, "If you're innocent you've got nothing to hide." Out the window with him!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:20AM
Why are you so up in arms about this? You let NBC play you with a title?
Pot: kettle. I'm not up in arms; I just like to cut through the bullshit when people make claims that are clearly twisting the truth. I have very little patience for people who start a conversation ostensibly about a certain specific topic and it turns out they're misleading you.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:25PM
Sounds like they just caught another person who looked at images and videos. Apparently he also had sex with some 17 year old prostitute (The most horrible crime of all...). Unless he actually raped someone, this isn't going to change a damn thing. The people who actually rape people to make this stuff are still out there.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:40PM
I was wondering about that. Seems like it was worse - actively soliciting for sex with girls as young as 14. Some people will make an argument that's not pedophilia since they are past the age of menses. But he is also accused of encouraging the director of his charity to make hidden-cam videos of girls as young as 9.
Source: http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/heres-every-terrible-thing-jared-fogle-accused-doing-166485 [adweek.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:04AM
Its not pedophilia, for the exact reason you give. The very definition of "pedophilia" is "sex with a prepubescent". A 14 year old would be either pubescent (hebephilia) or post-pubescent (ephebophilia). The big difference between pedophilia and hebephilia/ephebophilia is puberty, you know, those physical changes that happen when a person becomes sexually mature. There is plenty thats immoral and wrong about pedophilia, but nothing at all immoral or wrong about hebe/ephebophilia.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:26AM
No. Just stop.
Age of consent is not the same as age of puberty. OK? And taking porn photos/movies requires age of majority in most sane nations. OK?
These are not difficult concepts to realize. Laws exist to protect kids from predators, be that other people, or sadly, even their own family. In some places, there is even a notion of statutory rape which is probably the only gray area here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:07AM
The post you replied to was about two things: semantics, and morality. You completely ignored the issue of semantics and went ahead using broad, loaded terms "kids" and "predators." You completely dodged the issue of morality by talking about laws instead. Well done.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @06:25AM
You speak of law, not morality or whether or not the definitions presented were correct.
And taking porn photos/movies requires age of majority in most sane nations.
So there are some nations you would deem "sane" where that is not the case?
Laws exist to protect kids from predators
Laws don't exist solely for children. A child's life is not worth more than an adult's life.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @06:20AM
A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent people. Not sure how someone could disagree with that, yet the media, normal people, and even politicians often do not understand what it actually means. A pedophile is not necessarily a rapist, for one.
There is plenty thats immoral and wrong about pedophilia
The actions or the fantasies? Pedophilia can also refer to mere fantasies. I believe rape is wrong regardless of whether they're children, but if it is just a fantasy, I do not see the issue.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:45PM
Its not pedophilia, for the exact reason you give.
Legal terms are defined in the context (or, the actual text) of the laws in question. This is like going into a Computer Science class and arguing that a pointer is a type of dog.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:07AM
The correct legal term here is not be "pedophilia" either, its "statutory rape" or "carnal knowledge".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:33AM
And sometimes legal terms are confusing and should change. For instance, "intellectual property" is nothing more than a propaganda term designed to cause confusion, despite the fact that it's used in the legal world. Likewise, the legal world's definition of "pedophilia" should not be used if they define it as anything dissimilar to the above. It would only create confusion and further perpetuate the myth that pedophiles are necessarily child molesters, or that anyone who had sex with someone below the age of consent is a pedophile.
There are many words [gnu.org] we should avoid using in certain contexts. If language indeed evolves, and it does, then it can also evolve in positive ways that allow us to communicate more clearly. Reject terms that are designed to sow confusion or spread propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:25PM
who thinks this sounds like complete bullshit? Even worse than all the pseudo-scientific crap the FBI made up as "evidence" in the late 90's and 00's that they got busted over?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:35PM
I agree. Between the SCOTUS-approved ability of handlers to trigger a signal any time they like, and another excuse for parallel construction, my first thought is how excellent this is for (a) getting probable cause for a search any time you like, and (b) covering up some kind of illegal and/or warrantless surveillance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:44PM
While all that theoretical stuff is interesting. TFA says the dog was used in this case after the house had already been searched conventionally. You can choose to believe the whole story is made up, as some sort of conspiratorial cover for future abuses. But that's a level of paranoia you might need to get a diagnoses for.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:57PM
Not only that, but why on earth would this guy be targeted by TPTB?
Did he leak some kind of secret FDA information about that one weird old trick to keep belly fat away that's crucial to the New World Order? Is there an insurance file I should be seeding???
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:11PM
See here: He was known to police since 2007 [mysuncoast.com].
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:08PM
Apparently you have not been paying attention for the last six years. The tinfoil hat brigade was only wrong about how prevalent surveillance and parallel construction were.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:32PM
You don't seem to understand how parallel construction works. The idea is to hide their crazy, unlawful methods with the most unremarkable cover story. Like an "anonymous tip" or a "dui checkpoint." Using an electronics sniffing dog - of which there are only 4 in the entire country - draws attention to the area of the investigation that can least stand up to scrutiny. They goal is to be as bland as possible so no one even thinks it is worth looking at. This is the opposite.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday August 27 2015, @12:31AM
No, you're not the only one. I'm not sure how any of this gets challenged though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @10:42PM
brb burning house down
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:53PM
"Tech Sniffing Dogs?"
Won't be too much longer and we'll have drones that do this, like the hounds in Fahrenheit 451.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:31AM
In Soviet Russia, Tech sniffs dogs!
*Tech-Sniffing
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Touché) by darkfeline on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:09PM
>paying to have sex with teenage girls
Gee, that sure sounds like rape, or child abuse, or what have you. God forbid I ever give a kid a buck for mowing my lawn or something, that be child labor, that.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:38AM
None of the articles linked, or linked from the linked article mentioned anything about the age of the minors involved.
And considering that even an image from an anime can get you charged with possession CP in some jurisdictions nowadays I find it difficult to soundly condemn Fogle until I get more information.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday August 27 2015, @02:45AM
Follow up;
Both of the minors were 16 at the time. from some of the other info it appears that his interest is in middle school age girls.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:11AM
That would make him an ephebophile [wikipedia.org], not a pedophile. Kiddiefuckers should be brutalized and tortured just like they do to innocent children, but I don't see how anybody could say that having sex with sexually-mature individuals could be wrong in any way.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:18AM
> I don't see how anybody could say that having sex with sexually-mature individuals could be wrong in any way.
Really?
Including the mentally handicapped?
Because anyone who has spent time with one knows a young teenager is mentally handicapped.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @06:42AM
Everyone makes mistakes. Children and teenagers are simply put on a pedestal and society won't let them make certain mistakes. Sex is deemed evil and wrong (maybe not explicitly, but all the fearmongering reveals otherwise) and is said to rob you of your imaginary 'innocence' (which people at or past some arbitrary age no longer have). Even adults often have sexual encounters that they later regret, but when it happens to teenagers, it is deemed many times worse for little to no reason.
Because anyone who has spent time with one knows a young teenager is mentally handicapped.
I might disagree, but I have no idea what you mean by "mentally handicapped". Their brains aren't fully developed? Yes, but so what? How is that significant? A brain that isn't fully developed isn't by any means incapable of even necessarily unlikely to make good decisions. It isn't all-or-nothing. Most adults are not much better than overgrown children by my standards, despite their fully-developed brains. I might even go so far as to arbitrarily declare them "mentally handicapped", since anyone can do that apparently. Regardless, I don't see why that difference should make teenagers incapable of consenting. Yes, they will make mistakes just like anyone else, but so what? This is only a problem for abstinence-only puritan nutjobs who simply don't want to see their little babies grow up.
If, in the end, I do disagree after your definition of "mentally handicapped" is revealed, then since your statement was an absolute, it would be incorrect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @07:40AM
> Yes, they will make mistakes just like anyone else, but so what?
No they will make mistakes just like the way teenagers make mistakes. Not anyone else, teenagers.
This isn't about innocence, this is about not being capable of forseeing the consequences. You criticize my joking expression of a serious point for being "an absolute" and yet you've just spent an entire paragraph trying to define away the difference between mowing a lawn and engaging in the most physically and emotionally intimate act a human can do. That is a serious failure of analysis on your part and if you can't see that, you are deficient.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:56AM
No they will make mistakes just like the way teenagers make mistakes. Not anyone else, teenagers.
Right. It's inherently different. Because.
This isn't about innocence, this is about not being capable of forseeing the consequences.
Most people are largely incapable of long-term thinking. Teenagers are only slightly worse, at best. But even though it's unlikely that a given individual will be good at long-term thinking, that doesn't mean we should try to control their lives and obsess over things like sex. It certainly doesn't mean that they are *incapable* of making long-term decisions. You are confusing not having a fully-developed brain with not being able to make a foresee consequences whatsoever.
and yet you've just spent an entire paragraph trying to define away the difference between mowing a lawn and engaging in the most physically and emotionally intimate act a human can do.
There are plenty of differences between mowing a lawn and mashing genitals together. But the latter isn't magical or horrible in any way, despite what many seem to think.
You think it is "the most physically and emotionally intimate act a human can do", but that is obviously subjective.
That is a serious failure of analysis on your part and if you can't see that, you are deficient.
I guess you pulled that from the same place you pulled that "mentally handicapped" nonsense. You simply arbitrarily declare people to be "mentally handicapped" or "deficient" in some way, usually due to them thinking differently from you. In this case, you're doing it because I don't engage in magical thinking like you do on the topic of sexual intercourse. You have a lot in common with religious nutters.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:58AM
There's also another problem: Even if someone has trouble foreseeing the consequences of some action, that doesn't mean an individual should be stopped by government thugs from engaging in said action.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @04:48PM
I dunno if you are just an aspie or if you are a molestor in waiting but your failure to acknowledge the complexity of human interaction is really pretty creepy. I reminded of the quote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - you call it "magical thinking" because you can't understand it, maybe can't even recognize that it is going on.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:17PM
Nice work. You sure defeated me with your brilliant rebuttals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @08:42PM
> Nice work. You sure defeated me with your brilliant rebuttals.
I'm sure you think so. But what other outcome could there be when you are accusing people of "magical thinking?" There is no rebuttal that could convince you otherwise. Either you understand what 99% of the rest of the population understands about being human, or you don't. You are like the blind man telling sighted people that color is of no consequence. Absolutely nothing the sighted could say would ever convince you otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:13AM
If you're arguing that nobody should be allowed to have sex until 18 because whatever, even the law doesn't agree with you: the age of consent [wikipedia.org] in most places is 16, though some places have it set as low as 14, and some places as high as 18 - it is completely arbitrarily where it is set, there is nothing that changes at 14, 16, 17, or 18 that suddenly makes one "competent" to have intercourse, it is set purely by emotion rather than by any kind of logic or evidence.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday August 28 2015, @03:25AM
But what other outcome could there be when you are accusing people of "magical thinking?"
I accused you of magical thinking because you seemingly state your subjective opinions (however popular they may be) about sexuality as facts and put sexual intercourse on a pedestal, much like religious nutters tend to do. The shoe fits. Lots of new age nutters don't think they're engaging in magical thinking either; they'd probably even have the same response to that accusation as you.
Either you understand what 99% of the rest of the population understands about being human, or you don't.
I don't care how popular your beliefs are, even assuming you are factually correct that 99% of humans believe as you do. Furthermore, what it means to 'be human' is also subjective. Using all this vague language and accusing me of not understanding it isn't helping your case.
Absolutely nothing the sighted could say would ever convince you otherwise.
The fact that you state your subjective opinions about sexuality as facts (How "intimate" it is relative to other things, etc.) and then make some subjective moral determination about how having sexual intercourse with young teenagers is immoral because they are "mentally handicapped" (never objectively defined either) is simply unconvincing.
Get new arguments that don't make you look like a puritan nutjob. It's not that I cannot be convinced by logical arguments; it's that I'm not the type of sucker who is awed by the illogical type of arguments you're putting forth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:18AM
lolwat? Sex is just sex, its not magic, despite how its portrayed in chickflicks.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday August 27 2015, @11:56AM
I agree to some extent, with regards to sexual encounters between adults and post-puberty teens. But I do see a difference between a money-based and an emotion-based encounter. I don't think it is ok to forbid teens sexual relationships with older persons if they want to, but I do think this shouldn't become a way of increasing their pocket-money. To make sex a business, I think the age barrier of 18 is quite reasonable.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @12:27PM
I don't see the issue. As always, there could be abuses, but if they ultimately consent, they are merely exercising their fundamental right to control their own bodies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @04:01PM
Now you've brought in another issue - prostitution. There cannot be an age barrier so long as it is illegal. If you don't want minors to make sex their for-profit business, it is critical that prostitution be legalized, else such regulation is impossible.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday August 27 2015, @07:20PM
It is legal where I live, as are brothels. But since you point it out, I checked on wikipedia [wikipedia.org], and you definitely have a point, as it is illegal in most countries. I agree, prostitution should be legalized.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @03:56PM
You think the mentally handicapped shouldn't breed? How pro-eugenics of you.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 27 2015, @06:44AM
Kiddiefuckers should be brutalized and tortured just like they do to innocent children
That would make you just as bad as they are, in my eyes. Instead of seeking rehabilitation, you seek vengeance. That's the Tough On Crime mentality that has created the mess we see today. So much for 'justice'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @04:14PM
You're right, of course. Kiddiefuckers are universally despised, its the one crime thats almost everyone in the world agrees is morally wrong and disgusting. The real problem is in how pedophiles are treated - the ones who don't act on it are lumped in with the kid rapists, which prevents them from getting the help they need, and many want. It'll be a long time before they're able to be helped, the ones who don't act on it but want help, since not only must the demonization of sex become a relic of the past, but so much the idea that the age 18 is some magical barrier that suddenly makes one capable of reproducing and otherwise behaving as the physically-mature human being that they have been for years. Even if these changes occur, a pedophile acts on their desires should still be considered a rapist, for pre-pubescent children should not be considered capable of consenting to an act they are not physically ready for.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26 2015, @11:48PM
Deuteronomy 22 28-29, hebrew.
Man + Girl is fine.
Kill feminists.
Marry young girls.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday August 27 2015, @12:37AM
Can I somehow subcontract him in an LLC to <sarcasm>makes lots of money</sarcasm> make my community safer?
/ strikethrough doesn't work, lets try sarcasm :)
Of course I'm against DEI. Donald, Eric, and Ivanka.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:33AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @05:20PM
may I be first to say.... ew