Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

The story description says that the body of the girls goes through puberty as normal; its the mental development that doesn't.

No.

It states;

They continued to develop physically, but without changes wrought by puberty.

It does not state the lack of changes are purely mental, in fact it suggests the lack of changes are physical as well.

Recent example: A candidate for political office was accused of pedophilia for approaching young women of 16-17 yo. when he was in his early twenties some 40 years ago. Ephebophilia? Yes. Pedophilia? No.

But he was still accused of being a pedo.

So much for people being able to think.

I would dare guess that many people believe pedophilia is defined as having sex with a very young person - and that they are not aware that the dictionaries have other words that make fine distinctions. All authors on SOL, by definition, know every possible definition of every possible word, and, therefore, do not need to think to choose the right word instead of the almost-right word.

I have seen, many times both in the press and in blogs, comments, etc, that individuals are called 'pedo' if the girl is seventeen, even if the age of consent is lower.

So very true. Myself, I try to stick to the medical/psychiatric definition of a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

I mentioned her apparent physical age. She told me she suffered from a medical condition that slowed her physical development.

So is the concept legitimate? I would say Yes.

Did she mention if getting fucked would cure her..?

I have a relative who just got married. She's 25 now, looks about 12 still yet. 4'8", maybe 80 pounds.

Now I feel a little better about the main character in my latest story. She's 17, four-foot six, and longs to grow just six more inches. She doesn't date, because she worries that any guy she goes out with is a closet pedo.

She doesn't date, because she worries that any guy she goes out with is a closet pedo.

A pedo would be someone attracted in prepubescent kids. As long as she has boobs, that shouldn't be an issue.

As long as she has boobs, that shouldn't be an issue.

I've met daughters of friends in South America and Eastern Europe that had fully developed chest by the age of ~11. Physical development is a poor judge. None of them were mature in mind or emotions.

By the same token, I've met women that were mature of mind, but severally underdeveloped of body due to malnutrition, and other concerns, in their youth. While they were mentally/emotionally mature, their body was not fit for physical relations with anyone of any significant size. This was witnessed in multiple areas of the world.

The subject is a murky one usually. In the past, my personal high water mark is in the mental and emotional maturity realm. That was followed by physical compatibility.

I've met daughters of friends in South America and Eastern Europe that had fully developed chest by the age of ~11. Physical development is a poor judge. None of them were mature in mind or emotions.

Mental development and/or calendar age are irrelevant.

The medical/psychological definition of pedophile (which is all I will use) is someone attracted to prepubescent children. If they are physically developed, they are NOT prepubescent.

ETA: The record for youngest mother to give birth is 5 1/2. The case is from South America. It was medically documented. They had to do a C-section and the doctors noted that other than size, her internal organs appeared to be fully mature. They estimated onset of puberty at between 6months and 2 years of age.

Mental development and/or calendar age are irrelevant.

The medical/psychological definition of pedophile (which is all I will use) is someone attracted to prepubescent children. If they are physically developed, they are NOT prepubescent.

So you would not consider someone having sex with a physically developed ten year old a pedophile?

So you would not consider someone having sex with a physically developed ten year old a pedophile?

A criminal, yes. An asshole/abuser, yes. Pedophile no, no psychologist would consider him a pedophile either.

Word smithing the details doesn't change anything. There are some psychologist that have attempted to normalize pedophilia; they were soundly put down by their peers. IIRC, they tried to slip it into the DSM revision, and were promptly told no.

http://jaapl.org/content/42/2/191

As to this;

no psychologist would consider him a pedophile either.

The link provided, along with a few minutes of research, demonstrated that statement to be false.

Regardless of the adult's age, they are not a pedophile if their interest is in prepubescent children who are 14 YO or older.

A pedo would be someone attracted in prepubescent kids. As long as she has boobs, that shouldn't be an issue.

I don't actually give her a size. I just used words like dainty, and noted that she never wears a bra. No mater the actual definition, we are talking about a slightly insecure young woman who is admittedly a little weird. She's also a self described nerd-girl (She loves Doctor Who and My Little Pony, as does yours truly!) and identifies as gender fluid. That will come in handy when she accidentally miscasts a spell and grows a penis in chapter three. (she'll decide to keep it)

I also met a neighbours cute visiting cousin that was 22 years old(or older)years ago. Would have made her show ID to get into anything PG 13.

to fawn over her, etc would be Pedophilic due to her loli appearance....

Um no. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. As young as she looks, Miss Nagasawa isn't anywhere close to looking prepubescent.

So because the laws are written by gits, the tossers in the media get a free pass for being fucked in the head?

So because the laws are written by gits, the tossers in the media get a free pass for being fucked in the head?

Since when do the media need laws to be fucked in the head? Just look at the quality of newspapers today. And I'm not even starting about social media who almost by default invent their own 'news' and bribe, sorry, 'lobby' for law changes that protect them from actions against their lies and theft.

Since when do the media need laws to be fucked in the head?

Isn't it a law that they are fucked in the head?

But really, I meant that it seemed Ernest was giving them a free pass because of the laws.

Just look at the quality of newspapers today.

There never was a time when the "quality" of the news media was anywhere near what they want you to believe it is.

Don't hold back, let us know how you really feel about them.

In the US, generally, the different ages are dealt with by sentencing severity. For example, under the federal law, images of children under 12 carry a sentence double that of children above that age. The age is established not by the opinion of the judge, but by either direct or expert testimony and has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt..
And "child" or "infant" is the correct term for persons under the age of majority.

It is the correct term for legal usage. Not for general usage.
When I file a suit on behalf of a 17 year old it's "Jane Doe, an infant, by her guardian ad litem vs XYZ Corp."

Spinster

"Where does the term 'spinster' come from?

A single woman who is old enough to be married but isn't—and isn't likely to get married—is sometimes called a spinster. The word has an old-fashioned and dated feel to it, and because of that it can carry a whiff of impoliteness in certain circumstances. But in previous centuries, spinster was a valuable word that didn't carry any such connotation.

spinster

During the late Middle Ages, married tradeswomen had an easier time obtaining higher-status, higher-income work than their unmarried peers. Unmarried women ended up with lower-status, lower-income jobs like combing, carding, and spinning wool—hence "spinster."

When spinster first entered English in the mid-1300s, it referred to a woman who spun thread and yarn. Our earliest use comes from the allegorical poem Piers Plowman: "And my wyf ... Spak to þe spinsters for to spinne hit softe" (and my wife...spoke to the spinners to spin it soft).

Two historical facts led to spinster's evolution: the fact that most spinners in the Middle Ages were women, and the fact that it was common in legal documents to use one's occupation as a sort of surname (which is why we have Smiths and Bakers and Tanners and so on). Women who spun yarn or thread were given the title Spinster in legal documents.

The jump from spinner to single lady is likely an economic one. Some scholars suggest that during the late Middle Ages, married tradeswomen had greater access to raw materials and the market (through their husbands) than unmarried woman did, and therefore unmarried women ended up with lower-status, lower-income jobs like combing, carding, and spinning wool. These jobs didn't require access to expensive tools like looms, and could be done at home. By the 17th century, spinster was being used in legal documents to refer to unmarried women.

The -ster in spinster sounds modern to our ears—and maybe we can thank hipster for that—but it goes back almost 1000 years."

I can't see ever thanking hipsters for anything, except sarcastically. Unless it's for dying.

hipsters

There are dancers who stir their hips.

You can speak for everyone in the world, by making such an authoritative statement. How nice to know that we have you looking out for us all, able to make such a blanket statement.

Have you looked at the linked picture? She has breasts. It might not be so obvious with a male, but a prepubescent girl will not have developed breasts.

It specifies the same categories, with the clarification that there are pedophiles who are attracted to prepubescent children who only ACT with adults. Meaning, men OR women above the age of consent, who appear to be prepubescent.

Whoa, calm down. Yes, I was stating her face. Not her body. So you got that much right. if you saw her without knowing her walking down the street, wearing something baggy, so you couldn't see her frame, you'd probably be like "She's a kid." But this is all my opinion, and not fact, as judgment tends to vary from person to person.

Yes, but being attracted to teens is not pedophilic.

sorry, but some law makers and media people say it is unless the teen is 18 or 19 years old.

but some morons say it is unless the teen is 18 or 19 years old.

FTFY

Most of the time trying to fight linguistic drift is futile, and often has little to no upside.

However in this specific case, this particular linguistic perversion does real harm, so it's worth fighting it whenever it comes up.

Not law makers, media. Law makers know better than that, and stick to strictly the ages of those involved.

They stick to the ages in writing the law. That doesn't mean they stick to such when pontificating from the bully pulpit.

They stick to the ages in writing the law.

Technically, their staffers and various lobbyists write the law, they just vote on it.

Media people can't help but be stupid.

For the most part, people who go to school to get into the media are the only ones too stupid to get into teaching programs.

A: Medically, it's called precocious puberty, and it can and does happen.

A child suffering from precocious puberty is NOT prepubescent. Prepubescent is not an age, it's a child that has not yet started puberty. Precocious puberty is early onset of puberty, so such a child is NOT prepubescent.

B): Depending upon the picture AND the viewer, those are SUBJECT to interpretation. YOU may think the young lady has large and developed breasts. Her actual measurements may support your OPINION, but in the eyes of someone else, they may be considered small.

But I do know this. Not only does she star in video on YouTube titled 'Lolita Complex' (first page of the Duck-Duck-Go search for her name),

Hebophiles - generally 11-14. That modern psychology attempts to differentiate that from pedophiles is disturbing to me.

Hebophiles - generally 11-14. That modern psychology attempts to differentiate that from pedophiles is disturbing to me.

I'm mixed on that one. From an "evolutionary biology" standpoint. 11 to 14 years of age would likely have been in puberty for anywhere from 1 to 5 years in general. (Starting puberty at the age of 9 is reasonably common)

Anybody who has spent much time around animals will tell you how that one plays out, so the biology aspect stands.

And that biology aspect is why the psychologists will distinguish between them. Nature has instilled those instincts and drives in all of us to varying degrees.

Now acting on them is an entirely different matter, as people who want to function in society can't just running around doing things on impulse/instinct alone all the time.

There also is the physiological side of it, where even despite what the biological imperative may be trying to goad us into doing.. The body in most cases "is not ready" for pregnancies and according to the actuaries, probably won't be until they're ready to enter their twenties.

All that said, while the psychologists may make distinctions, most laws do not. "Pedophile laws" can get people for doing something with a 17 year old just as readily as it could a 6 year old. The legislative approach being used isn't healthy, but it's better than doing nothing. if only by the skin of their teeth.

They really need to do more about distinguishing between the pubescent and the pre-pubescent. Of course, then they have to figure out "what's different" from a legal standpoint, and how to codify it. Not an easy task.

But starting from the "old time family values" position that people aren't supposed to be having sex until they're married, which isn't supposed to happen until after they've graduated High School. We get the arbitrary line set at or near 18 in most cases. That it also matches up with legal adulthood in most other respects makes it simple to codify, even if it doesn't reflect reality(or biology) very well.

All that said, while the psychologists may make distinctions, most laws do not. "Pedophile laws" can get people for doing something with a 17 year old just as readily as it could a 6 year old.

1. At least in the US, there are no "pedophile laws". Pedophile is not a term the law uses at all.

2. A 17 year old is over the age of consent in the majority of US states*, and can legally have sex with an adult of any age.

*US states split three ways (not quite evenly) with age of consent at 16, 17, and 18. IIRC 16 is most common and 17 least common, but 16 + 17 still covers close to 2/3rds of the states.

But starting from the "old time family values" position that people aren't supposed to be having sex until they're married, which isn't supposed to happen until after they've graduated High School.

Actually, that's not "old time family values". Not having sex until after marriage yes, mandatory school attendance until age 17-18 is a relatively recent thing.

In 1890, the median age of consent in the US was 10.

Even today, there are a few states where kids can legally get married below the age of consent provided they have parental consent. The age of consent laws in those states typically contain an exception for marriage.

Two teens under the age of consent voluntarily engage in sex. If statutory rape charges are filed, the charges seem to always

Not quite. I have heard of cases where the girl was charged.

The US states kind of split into two groups on this.

While today, all 50 state's age of consent laws cover both genders, there are a number of states where historically, the age of consent laws only applied to girls/women. There was no minimum age of consent for boys. In those states, with minor on minor sex, they will almost always charge the male regardless of relative age.

In states where even historically, the age of consent laws always applied to both genders, my understanding is that in minor/minor cases, they tend to charge the older of the pair.

I think it is safe to say that the laws regarding under age sex need to be modified. I think it is also safe to say that considering our society's attitude toward sex that those laws will probably never be changed to something reasonable.

It's a tossup, IMO. The Baby Boomers are no longer the largest voter block, and they're starting to die from old age associated item. old age is also starting to remove them from decision making positions as well.

Generation X is a more mixed bag but seems to be a lot more open about things, given that the tail end of Gen X was leaving the coveted market demographics when Game of Thrones became a smash hit on HBO, for example.

The Millenials and later remain the ones that will be interesting to watch. More specifically, starting with the people born after 1990 in large part, and it covers nearly all of them born after 2000.

They grew up online. Granted, I was online as a teen in the early 1990's, but that was BBS trolling more than anything else. Porn was on the internet during the 1990's but it took work to get to much of it(unless you wanted to be virus bait).

By the time 2003-ish rolled around, FREE porn that wasn't virus bait was starting to become widely available, and the provisions for protecting minors from finding it is laughable at best. As a 28YO streamer I've watched on occasion commented about his teen years: "Yeah, you'd go to the site, you'd get a prompt saying you must be over 18 to continue. I clicked on it and continued on my way to free porn."

Of course, people could make comparisons to earlier versions of pornography as "not being that influential on things, but I have to wonder. Playboy and Hustler had signifcant social impacts through the 1970's, 80's and 90's as well influencing a number of children getting their illicit "forbidden" porn experience. Be it from finding their parents (not so) secret porn stash, a sketchy uncle, or "knowing the right people."

But after Y2K, any kid with an internet connection didn't need to find the Dad's "secret collection" or "know a guy." All they had to do was ask Google. And maybe find a way around any parental controls their parents think they had setup to prevent them from finding that stuff.

But even more relevantly to them: The ones born after 1990 also came of age while in possession of a Cell Phone that had a built in Camera. By 2004 it was becoming near impossible to get a phone that did NOT have a camera. I remember that because it started to become an issue for people who worked in secure areas(like I did some of the time) due to security regulations at the time. (Less so in 2004, but much more so by 2007)

I still want to call them "Generation Sext" for being the first generation that was able to do that as a teenager.

It is going to be very interesting to see what that generation does both as they become parents themselves, and their voting and political power grows. I strongly believe they view a number of laws on the books to be severely outmoded and very old fashioned and certainly don't reflect reality. The laws on the books as it relates to teenagers and imagery in particular needs an overhaul.

They were written in an era where creation and distribution of Imagery took effort and normally involved either a commercial interest, or a well heeled personal one.Now just about anybody can both create and distribute, and the ISP's have been rendered effectively immune to liability on the distribution side.

I don't see the Baby Boomers doing anything about laws involving "illicit" photos of underaged photos of themselves, because they probably don't have any.

The Post-Millenial crowd on the other hand? That's going to be interesting to see play out. Doubly so as they become parents.

There are probably a few camps in play there, the ones who still have said photos and just hope they don't get caught.

The ones who had said photos, but deleted them out of fear over legal consequences for still having them.

And then the ones who simply viewed the entire experience as "a mistake" and would love to claim they never did it.

With of course the much MUCH smaller(according to most surveys) number who didn't participate in such things for whatever reasons.

If those groups get a chance at changing the laws, they probably will. But doing so while the Baby Boomers are still near their peak power isn't going to fly far.

Try making a change to the current one man - one woman laws regarding marriage to make plural marriage legal. The religious community will object. We have already seen that with the changes made to same sex marriage. Laws related to making prostitution legal are opposed by the religious community. There are more examples, but not worth citing further examples.

The Religious community can object all it wants, it did against gay marriage after all. It's going to lose, more likely than not. The change is like to be by judical action to begin with, much as happened with gay Marriage, but it is coming. And sooner rather than later more likely than not, the legal challenges are already underway and given some of the judicial decisions made regarding gay marriage, it's going to be hard to reconcile those rulings against multiple marriages and say the one stands but the other cannot. Because "love is love" right?

We get the arbitrary line set at or near 18 in most cases.

I agree the line is arbitrary. Problem for lawmakers is, women generally begin to come into sexual readiness at different ages between 14 and 18 subjective to the individual. Short of a battery of test for physical and mental readiness, a one size fits all age is necessarily 18. There will be a few on either end of that scale that don't fit it, but the majority do.

a one size fits all age is necessarily 18.

A one size fits all age is necessary for the law to work.

To say that 18 is necessarily that age is complete bull shit.

Among the US states, the most common age of consent (with no limitations), is 16.

A one size fits all age is necessary for the law to work.

To say that 18 is necessarily that age is complete bull shit.

Among the US states, the most common age of consent (with no limitations), is 16.

Perhaps you should consider the context of my post for what it is rather than what you would have it be.

I agree the line is arbitrary. Problem for lawmakers is, women generally begin to come into sexual readiness at different ages between 14 and 18 subjective to the individual. Short of a battery of test for physical and mental readiness, a one size fits all age is necessarily 18. There will be a few on either end of that scale that don't fit it, but the majority do.

The entirety of my post was predicated on the law and those that make them. You actually stated the same thing (quoted in italics). It might be a good idea for you to read in context before attempting to call bullshit.

. It might be a good idea for you to read in context before attempting to call bullshit.

I did.

women generally begin to come into sexual readiness at different ages between 14 and 18 subjective to the individual.

This is not correct. Sexual readiness (which I would define by fertility and activation of the libido) occurs at onset of puberty, and by 14, 80-90% of the population will have at least started puberty and a significant percentage will have already finished. If a woman is just starting puberty at 18, she has a serious medical problem.

There are also mental, emotional, and social aspects that affect whether a woman is ready to engage in sexual activities.

True, but it's not a given that a woman wouldn't or couldn't be ready earlier.

The mental, emotional and social aspects have all been negatively impacted by modern societies efforts to prolong childhood rather than preparing kids for adulthood starting at an early age.

Those are the physical aspects of sexual readiness. There are also mental, emotional, and social aspects that affect whether a woman is ready to engage in sexual activities.

Agreed.

Leaving mentally acuity out of the equation

How exactly do you intend to leave that out of the equation? It is more than simple physical development. Pedos go after the child mentality as much as the physical form. If it were solely physical, they would go after underdeveloped adults, of which there are many to be found in the world.

The current state of play in many jurisdictions is people in possession of various cartoons and photos of nudes who are under the age of consent or look to be under the age of consent are committing a crime and are being called pedophiles by the cops and media despite never having has sex with any person under the age of consent, nor them being sexual aroused by persons under the age of consent.

Today there is a major disconnection between what the laws say, what the media and cops say, and what the community in general understands what it means - and none of them agree on the same meaning.

I'm mightily impressed with EB's post here, and not at all surprised at the lack of attention paid to it by other posters here who seem to be splitting pubic hairs as seen from inside their rectal orifices. (I s'pose the view suits them, and hair splitting is a team sport on SOL forums.)

The fact is that in the US at least, police and prosecuting attorneys have turned the situation into a blood sport, and the so-called counseling professionals have gained an entire new and highly profitable empire for themselves.

As EB can attest, having a CARTOON, or a collection of Frank McCoy STORIES, or a NUDE PHOTO on your computer can lead to: 1) a felony conviction; 2) a lengthy prison sentence, or at minimum, YEARS of probation; 3) a LIFETIME of sex-offender status; 4) permanent UNEMPLOYMENT.

Sure, y'all scream that Pedo's deserve everything they get, nobody has sympathy for them. But does having drawings, story collections, or nude photos constitute pedophia and child molestation crimes? In the US (and Australia, according to EB) YES IT DOES.

As for the US, being convicted for possessing these things leads to LIFETIME PUNISHMENT. One is NEVER off the hook; the stigma, sex-offender registration, and felony conviction all combine to guarantee a lifetime of unemployment except at the most menial, lowest paid levels--if even that is available.

So EB's point (and mine) is that the creeping demonization and political opportunism of even the slightest of offenses is resulting in punishments that FAR EXCEED those for other offenses.

In short, you're far better off committing murder, than being found with what the authorities consider to be child porn on your computer, even drawings, stories, or nude photos of your toddlers in the bath.

I was not discussing child porn, nor does it appear anywhere else except your post and EB's. Child pornography is separate matter entirely from age of consent.

Regarding child porn, there isn't anything to add to EB's post. It's gotten out of hand and fled to the corner of asininity and insanity. There are large collections of what used to be considered priceless art that now would be considered child porn.

So EB's point (and mine) is that the creeping demonization and political opportunism of even the slightest of offenses is resulting in punishments that FAR EXCEED those for other offenses.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the 'land of the free' has more people in prison per capita that ANY other country in the world.

Nor should anyone be surprised that US law and US justice parted ways long ago, now they are utterly divorced.

It is probably fair to say that part of the blame is in badly written laws, another source of blame is mixing politics with lawmaking, a third can be blamed on the legal system itself, from self serving lawyers to incompetent judges. Oh, and lets not forget the intrusion of religion into the mix.

Most people agree that certain things should be illegal, but the devil is in the details. Drafting a law isn't easy, the more complicated you make it the more loopholes are created, add 'interpretation' and the whole mess becomes what exists today.

Go back a few generations and you'll find that people were prosecuted for the crimes they committed. There were exceptions, plotting treason for instance. But more recently the focus has widened to include prosecuting for 'intent', to such a degree that it becomes farcical.

To compound that situation there are the widespread inconsistencies, exceptions, exemptions, ad infinitum.

The purpose of the law (under discussion) is the desire to protect children from sexual abuse. Society wants to protect children. The issue arises when you start to define 'abuse'.

There are, as discussed, laws limiting the age at which sex is legal. The age varies, the 'crime' is coloured by the relative age of the two parties. The issue very quickly ignores the question of abuse to the person(s) involved and instead revolves around the subjective generalisations.

Thus we have a TV series about pregnant 16 year old girls which at no time shows the father of their child being arrested, charged and imprisoned, what message does that send.?

We have a 14 year old girl who takes a naked selfie, posts it online and is subsequently arrested, charged and found guilty. Does she really deserve to live for the rest of her life on the sex offenders list.?

Yes it is easy to cherry pick, but that does not mean those cases are exceptions, nor does glossing over them help those involved.

One of the few things certain in the entire mess is that young people will continue to explore their sexuality despite what the law, politicians, priests, reporters and the various 'professionals' do or say.

Another certainty is that the prison population will rise, the sex offenders list lengthen and children will still be abused, a lot of them whilst in care.

Oh, and thanks to society as a whole, many will do that exploring furtively, in uncomfortable places, ill-informed, rushed and fearful of discovery. But then isn't that how it should be?

Who would dare to suggest that regardless of those involved, it is enough that sex should be comfortable, relaxed, loving and SAFE.

I believe somewhere in the boxes of stuff I inherited from my parents is a set of 1950s encyclopaedias. It contains a substantial section on art, including nude portraits of young children. I think there would be trouble if the publishers tried to reprint it nowadays.

Question is would you be prosecuted for possessing those encyclopaedias. If yes, how about all the artworks, especially religious ones, with assorted naked cherubs, if not, how exactly is the line drawn, painted, printed etc?

at US law and US justice parted ways long ago, now they are utterly divorced.

It is probably fair to say that part of the blame is in badly written laws, another source of blame is mixing politics with lawmaking, a third can be blamed on the legal system itself, from self serving lawyers to incompetent judges. Oh, and lets not forget the intrusion of religion into the mix.

Most people agree that certain things should be illegal, but the devil is in the details. Drafting a law isn't easy, the more complicated you make it the more loopholes are created, add 'interpretation' and the whole mess becomes what exists today.

Go back a few generations and you'll find that people were prosecuted for the crimes they committed. There were exceptions, plotting treason for instance. But more recently the focus has widened to include prosecuting for 'intent', to such a degree that it becomes farcical.

To compound that situation there are the widespread inconsistencies, exceptions, exemptions, ad infinitum.

The purpose of the law (under discussion) is the desire to protect children from sexual abuse. Society wants to protect children. The issue arises when you start to define 'abuse'.

There are, as discussed, laws limiting the age at which sex is legal. The age varies, the 'crime' is coloured by the relative age of the two parties. The issue very quickly ignores the question of abuse to the person(s) involved and instead revolves around the subjective generalisations.

Thus we have a TV series about pregnant 16 year old girls which at no time shows the father of their child being arrested, charged and imprisoned, what message does that send.?

We have a 14 year old girl who takes a naked selfie, posts it online and is subsequently arrested, charged and found guilty. Does she really deserve to live for the rest of her life on the sex offenders list.?

Yes it is easy to cherry pick, but that does not mean those cases are exceptions, nor does glossing over them help those involved.

One of the few things certain in the entire mess is that young people will continue to explore their sexuality despite what the law, politicians, priests, reporters and the various 'professionals' do or say.

Another certainty is that the prison population will rise, the sex offenders list lengthen and children will still be abused, a lot of them whilst in care.

Oh, and thanks to society as a whole, many will do that exploring furtively, in uncomfortable places, ill-informed, rushed and fearful of discovery. But then isn't that how it should be?

Who would dare to suggest that regardless of those involved, it is enough that sex should be comfortable, relaxed, loving and SAFE.

      
awnlee jawking10/18/2019, 7:39:16 AM

@graybyrd
Sure, y'all scream that Pedo's deserve everything they get, nobody has sympathy for them. But does having drawings, story collections, or nude photos constitute pedophia and child molestation crimes? In the US (and Australia, according to EB) YES IT DOES.

In the UK, stories are legally okay since they're not considered pornography, but that doesn't prevent discrimination against the authors - a civil servant was sacked for writing torture-porn about an all-girl pop group. However all the rest apply.

I believe somewhere in the boxes of stuff I inherited from my parents is a set of 1950s encyclopaedias. It contains a substantial section on art, including nude portraits of young children. I think there would be trouble if the publishers tried to reprint it nowadays.

AJ

Replies:   joyR  LupusDei
      
joyR10/18/2019, 7:52:40 AM

@awnlee jawking
I believe somewhere in the boxes of stuff I inherited from my parents is a set of 1950s encyclopaedias. It contains a substantial section on art, including nude portraits of young children. I think there would be trouble if the publishers tried to reprint it nowadays.

Question is would you be prosecuted for possessing those encyclopaedias. If yes, how about all the artworks, especially religious ones, with assorted naked cherubs, if not, how exactly is the line drawn, painted, printed etc?

Replies:   awnlee jawking

If the photos are not "obscene" they are not subject to child pornography laws. That's what permits nudist sites on the web to continue to offer photos of nude children of all ages without prosecution.

I believe somewhere in the boxes of stuff I inherited from my parents is a set of 1950s encyclopaedias. It contains a substantial section on art, including nude portraits of young children. I think there would be trouble if the publishers tried to reprint it nowadays.

I think this is the most important and insane problem in this whole discourse -- the (over-)sexualization and taboo-ization of nudity.

Born in the seventies in part of Europe where preschool children where not necessarily expected to wear swimming suits even on public beach (and actually, in my "zeroth" preschool class for six year old we had unisex changing rooms), I was growing up convinced that by about now casual nudism will be universally accepted non-issue. I'm therefore totally shocked by the insane neo-Victorian wave we're living through. I blame killing nudism on financial interest of porn industry, and still hope it will only be a short lived abnormality.

As EB can attest, having a CARTOON, or a collection of Frank McCoy STORIES, or a NUDE PHOTO on your computer can lead to: 1) a felony conviction; 2) a lengthy prison sentence, or at minimum, YEARS of probation; 3) a LIFETIME of sex-offender status; 4) permanent UNEMPLOYMENT.

THe US is less clear cut than that. You're actually safer in the US than much of the rest of the world. Canada and Australia are far more restrictive. Ernest speaks from experience in Aussie land, and Canada's situation has been hashed over on here in the past.

The Sex Offender registry is another matter and entirely out of hand. Some of the things that can get you placed on it are completely stupid and really should be struck down by the courts as both cruel and unusual and not worthy of the "crime" in question.

Politicians keep adding things that will put people on the sex offender registry and it will lose all meaning, because a significant portion of the population will, or should be, on it. (They just happened to never get caught)

THe US is less clear cut than that. You're actually safer in the US than much of the rest of the world. Canada and Australia are far more restrictive.

In some ways the US is more clear. Due to the 1st Amendment, the legal definition of child pornography is strictly limited to real images of real children. Neither drawings nor text stories qualify as child pornography.

However, some people have been convicted on obscenity charges for pedo stories/art. However, with obscenity charges, more is needed than just basic pedo sex. All of the cases I am aware of involved not just sex, but the violent rape and/or torture of children under 8 years of age.

Using the physical attributes only

I'm not suggesting that the law should follow that.

However, the mental/emotional aspects are as much of a matter of training/preparation as they are age. Modern society has been trending for some time towards extending childhood beyond all bounds of reason rather than preparing kids for adulthood.

At some point, telling people they have to wait long past when their sex drive becomes active is just cruel.

I'm not suggesting that the law should follow that.

It sure read that way to me. Especially after your vehement bullshit call when I was only speaking to the law.

Sexual readiness (which I would define by fertility and activation of the libido)

Problem for lawmakers is, women generally begin to come into sexual readiness at different ages between 14 and 18 subjective to the individual.

Not sure what there was to miss-understand about the word between. Between as in 15, 16, and 17. Somewhere in those years (subjective to the individual), the vast majority will become ready physically and mentally. Before and after there will be a smattering of late and early bloomers, but they are a definite minority.

The subjective element is why 18 is a safe line for a politician/law maker to define what is necessary without finding themselves out on their arse next election cycle. Which btw was how those states comprising 97 million people found themselves with an 18+ limit to begin with, and why more are soon to follow.

Between as in 15, 16, and 17. Somewhere in those years (subjective to the individual), the vast majority will become ready physically and mentally.

Having the age of consent at 16-18 is a relatively recent phenomenon.

If it weren't for modern society's unreasonable efforts to prolong childhood as long as possible, and parents actually made an effort to start preparing their kids for adulthood before then, there is no reason that the vast majority couldn't be ready by 14.

While some delay beyond puberty is readily justifiable, and a fixed age is necessary for enforcement, personally, I think having it at 18 will have long term negative consequences for society. There are already people advocating pusing the age of consent pushed out even further, when we can't keep the vast majority of kids from having sex before 18 now.

I might not see it as quite so unreasonable/harmful if there was a universal and absolute exception to statutory rape laws for cases where both are under age.

ETA:

That setting the age of consent at 18 is politically safe and easy, doesn't in anyway shape or form make it right or proper.

If it weren't for modern society's unreasonable efforts to prolong childhood as long as possible, and parents actually made an effort to start preparing their kids for adulthood before then, there is no reason that the vast majority couldn't be ready by 14.

The actual purpose of raising the age of consent from 10-14 was to reduce child prostitution, trafficing and "imposition" from authority figures - not to prolong childhood.

The actual purpose of raising the age of consent from 10-14 was to reduce child prostitution, trafficing and "imposition" from authority figures

Just because those were the justifications used, that doesn't mean it was the real purpose.

Genuine trafficking cases are exceedingly rare (they always have been).

There are other (better) ways to deal with "imposition" from authority figures. Deal with the authority cases from the side of the authority.

Several states have made it illegal for teachers to have sex with students regardless of age, even if it was an 18 year old HS Senior it would still be illegal.

Doctor/patient sex is illegal in most states with a few exceptions.

It was the real purpose. Child prostitution and trafficking was rampant. This gave a simple and easy means to prosecute the customers and bosses who ran the system. It was a way to deal with authority from the side of authority.
It was also part of the movement to get girls to stay in school. If they didn't have value on the street they were more likely to do so.
The passage of these laws led to great reductions in the numbers of very young prostitutes on the steets.

I suggest you go back and count up the electoral college votes for states that are 17 and up. Then go state to state as I have looking for legislation related to moving that age upwards.

You can call it self-righteous but that would be a lie. I'm stating the lay of the land, nothing more, nothing less. It is your subjective view, which does not make it right, but self-righteous in itself.

Physical facts can be verified by multiple studies; mental acuity facts can be verified by multiple studies.

As for imposing western values on anything, show me where I stated anything of the sort. I've held my comments to the U.S. only in regards to sexual readiness. I am fully aware of what goes on elsewhere in the world. The only thing that would apply on the subject would be the physical readiness, but as established already, that isn't even half the picture.

Only a fool would attempt to apply one societies view of mental acuity upon another. Apples and oranges comparison there. One you made when you attempted to paint my comments as applied to the rest of the world when I did no such thing.

because we are not the United STATE of America, where the Federal Government is the almighty and only rule of law that applies

As a sidenote, someone talked me into watching one episode of TV show with Kiefer Sutherland as president - maybe Lone Survivor or something like that. In that episode, Sutherland was ranting about how any sane society could allow kids to get married at under age 18, even with the consent of parents, and proposed to change the law so it would be illegal everywhere. I figured if the program cannot understand that such a law is a matter for the individual states, and not the federal government, the program also probably gets other things wrong too. I never watched another episode.

Especially when you consider that under state laws of 18, that someone 16 could be with someone 14, have an actual physical relationship AT THAT AGE, and suddenly because of an arbitrary and societal imposed limit, suddenly find one member at age 18 and the other at age 16, and the one now 18, even though they've been sexually active for TWO YEARS, now finds themselves guilty of statutory rape and considered a child molester.

Close in age relationships are not criminalized in these states (an incomplete list.) I notice NY isn't included but it provides it's own form of Romeo & Juliet law that insulates anyone under 18 from prosecution for rape with children above the age of 10.

Different types of Romeo and Juliet Laws can be found in the following states:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming

Remus - the age of consent in NY is 17, not 18.

I wouldn't have a problem with that personally as long as they were 15 up to 18. Below that, no one is going to convince me it would be a good thing.

Do you really think it should be a felony crime (that's what statutory rape is) if two 14 year olds get caught having sex with each other? Which one should be prosecuted? Or do you think both should be criminally prosecuted?

Or do you think it should be illegal but not prosecuted.

When we make laws that are widely ignored, that we know are going to be widely ignored, it brings all of the law into disrepute. Long term this will have negative consequences for society.

However, unlike then, people generally do not mature as fast as they used to mentally.

Yes, because deliberate efforts have been made to prolong childhood and for no other reason.

Do you really think it should be a felony crime (that's what statutory rape is) if two 14 year olds

Not in that situation. Misdemeanor yes, one that gets wiped from their record at age of majority. As for any sentencing, mandatory counseling to assure it didn't hurt them mentally.

An 17 year old with a 13 or younger year old would be another story.

The only other way about it is to throw out all such laws. Make anyone of any age fair game. I hope you don't think that would be a good idea.

As for this;

Yes, because deliberate efforts have been made to prolong childhood and for no other reason.

Barn door met the horses south side. What's done is done, with no chance of putting it back in a shattered bottle under current US society. No one has to agree or disagree on that, it is what it is now. Short of a complete collapse of society, it ain't changing.

What's scary to me is, anything you post on the Internet must be considered a lifetime record. Some things are better left unsaid or challenged. It amazes me when a group of otherwise computer literate persons choose to go on record about some things in light of that.

It amazes me when a group of otherwise computer literate persons choose to go on record about some things in light of that.

Unless you post to Yahoo Groups... :)

I don't think Ned's Social Academy will forget, but yes, yahoo is toast ;)

Free speech, if you elect to use it, always has consequences.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but in recent years, more and more people are paying those "consequences." Free speech hasn't been free for a long time now.

We can stamp our feet, jump up and down in moralistic rage, and generally make a spectacle of ourselves over it. But that will seem cold comfort in a 5x9 cell while also trying to avoid the butt rangers in the exercise yard.

Have at it friend.

Silence leads to even worse oppression than a 5x9 cell.

That may be philosophically true, but it's of little comfort to those who get selectively singled out as examples to discourage the others. This has always been true: the hammer first falls on the nail standing proud.

"antifa" is short for anti-fascist, isn't it?

most people don't know that facism is a branch of socialism with the only significant difference being the facists are more nationalist than the general socialists who are globalists.

Eh, fascism isn't a branch of socialism. That is actually a modern "fake news" myth that is gaining traction in our modern "alt-truth" shit.

True, the Nazi party were literally called "The National Socialist Party", but you only have to google a bit to find the claim that they are socialist debunked by snopes and all the other fact checkers. It's a deliberately misleading name right up there with The Democratic Republic of somewhere.

True, the Nazi party were literally called "The National Socialist Party", but you only have to google a bit to find the claim that they are socialist debunked by snopes and all the other fact checkers. It's a deliberately misleading name right up there with The Democratic Republic of somewhere.

First, anyone relying on the veracity of fact checkers, especially nowadays, shouldn't be so quick to invest in a "real good real estate deal" if offered by an unknown salesman. Just suggesting.

Second, I took your advice and came up with a blog where a guy researched that question by zeroing in on government spending by Germany in the 1930's. It seems the government spending was about 40% of GDP with spending on social programs, i.e. non-military, being about 80% of that. Hardly the characteristics of a hard right-wing capitalistic society.

So if it walks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I ain't gonna call it a dog. I'll call it a duck.

The snopes article on "were the nazis socialist" might by written by a leftie for all I know, but it is chock full of impeccable sources who address those quotes you put in your reply. It's well worth a proper read.

The main differences between the socialism of Russia and that Facist Italy and the Nazi Germany is the Russian version promotes a single world socialist government and the other two promote nationalist government

Then we simply don't even agree on what the word "socialist" implies. The nazis called themselves "socialist", but no serious scholar I've read thinks that was anything but a smokescreen. Scholars are even keen to distinguish between communism, Stalinism and socialism.

I'm a history buff, I'm in Europe, I've met a lot of the locals. Take a country that is the classic "true socialist", namely Sweden. Lovely very-well-working country, Nothing like fascists. Of course there is a nationalist party in Sweden, who call themselves "democrats"....

For that matter, the democratic and republican parties in the US have basically flipped mid last century. What a party is called, what it puts in its manifesto and what it _really_ stands for are three different things.

My biggest shock has been meeting the first crop of new grads whole grew up in east Germany and graduated in a unified one. They were almost all extremely racist without knowing it, and saying shocking things about eg jews that really confused me. Fascism is alive and well too, sadly, and the parallels between those angry youth I met in Germany and the modern alt-right Americans I meet is, horrifically, stark.

... namely Sweden. Lovely very-well-working country, ...

That was true until a few years ago. I thought it was impossible but they managed to totally ruin their own country in a matter of just a few years by pulling in way too many immigrants that contribute nothing to the country except rape and robbery. Next to that they managed to change the "sex-laws" so that the only way to have sex between two consenting adults without being called a rapist is to have a written contract that both agree to have sex. No joke. You could be prosecuted for rape just because the condom accidentally broke. It's still a very beautiful country but you have to stay far away from the bigger cities because the social structure there is nothing like it was 5 years ago.

ETA: the "sex-contract" is not a law but without it you could be accused of rape the next day.
Sweden's new sexual consent laws

What complete rubbish!

Anyone who wants to know about what Sweden is really like, I'm happy to answer questions.

What complete rubbish!

Anyone who wants to know about what Sweden is really like, I'm happy to answer questions.

My daughter had a long term relation with a Swede at the time when the import of huge numbers of immigrants started so I learned first hand how it started. That relation ended eventually but I can read the news and I try to always read 'both sides' so I think I'm quit well informed. If you can point out reliable sources that prove that most of the immigrants cause no problems and are productive members of the Swedish society then I'm very interested in them.
As for the sex laws, it's obvious that Sweden is much stricter in enforcing the new laws. Over the last few years there were multiple stories about how that worked out where I have not seen the same stories from countries that are supposed to have the same laws (the UK for example). My feeling is that it is somehow connected to the immigrant problem.

the only way to have sex between two consenting adults without being called a rapist is to have a written contract that both agree to have sex.

If that were true then Sweden would denude itself of trees to print all those contracts. Of course the need to get every contract witnessed might dissuade some people from their daily nookie, or it might promote more threesomes. As the report stated, Sweden is not the first to adopt such laws, the UK etc already has them, and whilst the UK Gov might wish to control and/or curtail all manner of enjoyable things, 'sex contracts' are still limited to a sub group (pun intended) of those practising BDSM.

If that were true then Sweden would denude itself of trees to print all those contracts. Of course the need to get every contract witnessed might dissuade some people from their daily nookie, or it might promote more threesomes. As the report stated, Sweden is not the first to adopt such laws, the UK etc already has them, and whilst the UK Gov might wish to control and/or curtail all manner of enjoyable things, 'sex contracts' are still limited to a sub group (pun intended) of those practising BDSM.

I clarified that it's not a law. What I was trying to point out is that having casual sexual contacts is very tricky because ANY non-consensual sex is now considered rape (which is good in itself). The problem is that it's now way too easy for a partner to change their mind AFTER the act and you can instantly become a rapist. The contract I mentioned is no joke as it is used by some to avoid mentioned problems. There are even app's for that with added paragraphs against leaking any footage. So no law but it is real and not limited to only the BDSM scene.

way too easy for a partner to change their mind AFTER the act and you can instantly become a rapist.

"I'm sorry, miss, but these notes are counterfeit"

"Oh no, in that case I've been raped"

"I'm sorry, miss, but these notes are counterfeit"

"Oh no, in that case I've been raped"

Unless the enterprising girl had a 'party' with several guys...

"Oh no, in that case I've been graped... There was a bunch of them"

Then we simply don't even agree on what the word "socialist" implies. The nazis called themselves "socialist", but no serious scholar I've read thinks that was anything but a smokescreen. Scholars are even keen to distinguish between communism, Stalinism and socialism.

Bandwagon, appeal to authority, mild gas lighting, mixed with a few straws. Interesting. Maybe you should specifically quote some of those scholars names so we can all learn.

My father was in Operation Undertone. The information passed to me by him, and others that fought alongside him, doesn't match up with what you're stating. I'd be really interested in reading something that claims otherwise, especially the basis for that claim?

My biggest shock has been meeting the first crop of new grads whole grew up in east Germany and graduated in a unified one. They were almost all extremely racist without knowing it, and saying shocking things about eg jews that really confused me. Fascism is alive and well too, sadly, and the parallels between those angry youth I met in Germany and the modern alt-right Americans I meet is, horrifically, stark.

Ever wondered how it come that way? Look at Putin's Russia, they are even using the "third way" rhetoric. When you encounter a flaming "anti-fascist" in 97.5% cases you see a pure breed fascist. That one fascists yell at, and potentially want to kill other fascists of different "color" (be it political identity, national flag or skin tone) is nothing new.

I'm a history buff, I'm in Europe, I've met a lot of the locals. Take a country that is the classic "true socialist", namely Sweden. Lovely very-well-working country, Nothing like fascists. Of course there is a nationalist party in Sweden, who call themselves "democrats"....

I thought that "classic socialism" was state ownership of the methods of production. Throw in private property also. Under those yardstick, Sweden is capitalistic. Government owns 48 businesses and is in the process of divesting a bunch of them. Control is about 40% of business. Sweden is also 3rd highest in Europe (behind the UK and Finland) in private property ownership. Neither are indicators of a "classic "true socialist"" country.

What Sweden actually is is a capitalist country that uses high taxes to fund generous social welfare programs. Sort of "compassionate capitalism".

Regarding the economies of northern European countries, I'm mindful of an incident in the current U.S. election process. It seems Bernie Sanders, a rabid socialist running in the Democrat Party, kept calling Denmark socialist. A high government official called his campaign to chastise him for it, saying they were far from socialist. I thought that was humorous when I heard about it.

Collective ownership is communism. Sweden is not communist.

Regards Denmark, although you can doubtless find lots of politicians to claim otherwise, the normal Dane - I know many - is proud of their socialist country, and only doesn't think to call it socialist because they have never experienced a country where healthcare is a privilege.

Of course it's the French with the seemingly best healthcare. At least, that is what the Danes and Swedes I know complain.

Do you really think it should be a felony crime (that's what statutory rape is) if two 14 year olds get caught having sex with each other? Which one should be prosecuted? Or do you think both should be criminally prosecuted?

Most such laws, if they've been recently passed ones at least. Include a "Romeo and Juliet Clause" for the 18YO dating the 16YO, it varies from state to state, but it isn't as cut and dry as it used to be in the 1990's and earlier. Where the moment you turned 18, if you met up with your SO who was still 17(in some states), you could be slapped down with statutory rape charges.

Most allow a "grace period" ranging from 2 to 7 years. Yes, in some cases a 22 year old could safely engage in sexual acts with a 16 year old and be legally safe. Just don't try that in your late 20's or early 30's, they'll try to nail you to the wall for that.

And I thought I was cynical about the government.

And I thought I was cynical about the government.

Not cynical, realistic. "The land of the free" is not as free as you night think it is. It's not like China but the differences are getting smaller every day.

And I thought I was cynical about the government.

Not to get into polyticks, but a certain wannabe strongman claims he could stand on NY's 5th Ave and shoot somebody down, and his fanboiz wouldn't care. It's actually worse than that: his gummint can take out 100 dissidents a day and nobody gives a shitz. It's all fake news, anyway. 'Cept for Pravda.

Given the stereotype you seem to have in your head about me, you'd be wrong. First clue - I don't drink beer.

Irrelevant. Alcohol in any form is not a prerequisite to the problem.

Alcohol only adds to the fire when people run their mouth without thinking.

As for stereotype, there isn't one. The problem runs deeper than a stereotype. Every 'stereotype' from backwoods redneck to inner-city Antifa liberal goons are subject to the problem.

Alas, another fail. It surely appeared to lack follow through in logic.

10/20/2019, 4:16:11 PM

You can trust the government to safeguard your freedoms.

We must put our trust in the private sector - like Microsoft, Facebook, and the many companies that have a recording telling you - "we value your privacy."

We must put our trust in the private sector - like Microsoft, Facebook, and the many companies that have a recording telling you - "we value your privacy."

I'm assuming some sarcastic tongue in cheek there?

your

you're ...

"Your" means belonging to you. "You're" means you are. It seems to me in the context presented "your" is correct. Your...predilections are those belonging to you. Not you are predilections.

Take another look at the last sentence in the post by Remus2 that StarFleet Carl was replying to.

Yep, it was a typo. You're would have been correct in that last sentence. Of everything that was said, picking out a typo to comment on is sad in my opinion.

As for certain other racial stereotypes - have you SEEN a Popeye's Chicken commercial?

For those of us who have NOT seen the commercial, would you mind describing it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4v6ZZutQdE

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Popeye%27s+Chicken+commercial

Supposedly Cajun style fried chicken and shrimp. Their commercial spokes person is a black woman.

The real Cajuns are mostly white (there's a bit of Native American and African in the bloodline, but not enough to make their skin tone darker than Mediterranean Europeans). They actually originated with french fur trappers in what is now Canada. They migrated south to the Gulf Coast before the Louisiana purchase.

Pretty much standard fare commercial for the present day. I'm not sure what you see here.

I suspect your message was misdirected.

I suspect you're correct. :) It should have been directed at SF Carl. Anyhow, the comment stands. That linked commercial didn't look unusual in today's world. Maybe he was suggesting that it was racist? How about it, Carl?

edited for spelling

Basically due to the black people, chicken & waffles thing, it's a stereotype.

So there is something wrong with stereotypes, especially when they're accurate? Some of the best fried chicken I've ever eaten was at the soul food restaurant in the inner city of Detroit.

In the same vein, I've never understood the American left's preoccupation with racial profiling in criminal or terrorist cases. Here we have a readily identifiable physical characteristic (along with height, weight and gender) that helps to either identify, or eliminate, potential suspects. Yet police agencies aren't allowed to use it?

Same argument regarding potential terrorists and keeping the country safe from them at ports of entry. Something the Israel does on a routine basis. And when they started, successful interdictions went way up, i.e. internal violence dropped like a stone.

Someone help me out here as to how the aversion to "racial profiling" makes any sense whatsoever in these cases.

edited for piss poor initial writing

When looking for threats, a law enforcement officer should look at the entire group of people. I don't see it as a problem if that officer focuses the majority of their attention on the individuals who are most likely to represent the specific type of threat. If you are looking for Islamic terrorists, then you should focus on people of Middle East descent without ignoring the rest of the people. If you are looking for people out to steal something, you should focus on the local groups who are known to be involved in that type of criminal activity without totally ignoring the rest of the people.

This is what used to be referred to as "common sense". However, sadly, sense is not common today. It appears to be all too rare.

Some of the best fried chicken I've ever eaten was at the soul food restaurant in the inner city of Detroit.

Right, but Popeye's isn't soul food, it's Cajun.

Right, but Popeye's isn't soul food, it's Cajun.

So you believe that Cajun cooking is soulless ??

:)

So you believe that Cajun cooking is soulless ??

Well, it will burn your tongue like it was cooked in the fires of hell itself.

Well, it will burn your tongue like it was cooked in the fires of hell itself.

So..?? Hell is claimed to be full of tormented souls, so it is hardly soulless.

I would hope it's soleless

Nope, Cajun includes recipes for cooking flatfish. :)

Right, but Popeye's isn't soul food, it's Cajun.

Then color me confused as I thought this whole subtopic got started when SF Carl made the point of an African American appearing in a Popeye commercial and questioned whether or not stereotypical thinking was being introduced.

I thought this whole subtopic got started when SF Carl made the point of an African American appearing in a Popeye commercial and questioned whether or not stereotypical thinking was being introduced.

Which I thought odd, and noted above, because the Cajuns, while they have some African and Native American in their bloodline, are primarily of French descent. But Popeye's very explicitly advertises it's food a Cajun cooking.

One thing that does go to possible stereo typical thinking is that they are a Louisiana company and their adds that show a distinctive location are all set in the New Orleans French Quarter, but today that area has a large African American population, therefore black spokes woman, even though the food is NOT culturally African American.

Which I thought odd, and noted above, because the Cajuns, while they have some African and Native American in their bloodline, are primarily of French descent. But Popeye's very explicitly advertises it's food a Cajun cooking.

As I pointed out to Carl, it was less about a stereotype and more about their root customer base. They started in Loisianna, called themselves Cajun, and expanded from there. To do anything else would have been a stupid marketing move.

Feather not dot... not many of us run around with feathers these days, and eight out of ten Indians are Hindu. Not all of the latter wear the tilak/bindi/kumkum either.

As for the commercial, the predominant customer base for the areas of early Popeye's locations were and still are black. Any other spokesperson wouldn't work near as well. Being black should in no way preclude a person from landing a commercial gig just because they are black. Where it would met the test of a stereotype is if the manner of speech, dress, and overall presentation was geared towards that stereotype.

As for Nations, I've made that point in the past on this forum. I may be eastern band born and raised, but still part of the Nation.

As for Nations, I've made that point in the past on this forum. I may be eastern band born and raised, but still part of the Nation.

Are you talking about the US..??

If so, can you please explain how the further west you go, the closer you get to the far east...??

Cherokee/Tsalagi Native Nation.

Less than 5% of the TOTAL population are LGBTQ, with less than 0.5% than really are transgender. Yet it seems that so much is being spent on advertising to those groups, while ignoring everyone else or forcing it upon us.

During acquisition of my business degree, I was taught that advertising dollars typically follow the size of the market being pursued. Yet it doesn't seem that principle is being followed here. Unless the homosexual community in the U.S. is far more wealthy than the typical American consumer. Ditto for transsexuals. Or transgender or what have you. This is a classic "tail wagging the dog" scenario.

Or it's a classic interference by government fiat. Or fear of interference by government fiat into the business world. I've wondered myself why a higher proportion of black Americans seem to be appearing in commercials than their presence in the population. The only explanations I can come up with are:
1. Virtue signaling,
2. Reverse racism, i.e. the thinking that (finally) race no longer matters and doesn't need to be emphasized, or
3. Attempts to social engineer the populace into a preferred way of thinking, this last for the LGBTQUVWXYZ and transsexual communities.

Maybe it's a combination of all three.

During acquisition of my business degree, I was taught that advertising dollars typically follow the size of the market being pursued. Yet it doesn't seem that principle is being followed here. Unless the homosexual community in the U.S. is far more wealthy than the typical American consumer. Ditto for transsexuals. Or transgender or what have you. This is a classic "tail wagging the dog" scenario.

You're forgetting the rich, white, liberal-minded consumer who wants to see "inclusive" advertising and media products so that they can assuage their concerns over "those poor oppressed minorities."

Edit: You need only look at where most of the "buying power" for the 18 to 35 demographics reside, what their politics are, and the advertising, as well as casting, decisions make sense.

thus reinforcing the stereotype of blacks eating chicken

I have some African-American acquaintances who both cook and eat fried chicken. I guess I should tell them they have to stop because the practice feeds a stereotype.

thus reinforcing the stereotype of blacks eating chicken.

How is this a stereotype? I've never gotten that. Everyone eats chicken. White people eat chicken, red people eat chicken. Asians eat chicken. If there were blue and green people they would eat chicken too.

ETA: The most popular chicken chain on the planet (KFC) has a Confederate officer/gentleman as a spokes person.

How is this a stereotype? I've never gotten that. Everyone eats chicken. White people eat chicken, red people eat chicken. Asians eat chicken. If there were blue and green people they would eat chicken too.

Ever see "The Blues Brothers"? Aretha Franklin's soul food restaurant? Best part of the movie. And she said she had the best damn fried chicken in Chicago.

My early years were more along those lines regarding fried chicken. Not KFC. Not Popeye's. I always thought fried chicken was ethnic black at the time. After my mother's of course.

Not KFC. Not Popeye's. I always thought fried chicken was ethnic black at the time. After my mother's of course.

I am lilly white. My mom did oven fried chicken. My personal experience is the exact opposite of what you describe.

Ever see "The Blues Brothers"? Aretha Franklin's soul food restaurant? Best part of the movie. And she said she had the best damn fried chicken in Chicago.

Using that as 'undeniable proof' presumably means you believe that when a Chicago married couple argue, they do so in song, outside on the street and every passerby joins in.

Must be fact, it's right there in the same scene.

Oh, and for a real quote by Aretha herself, not scripted;

"The milk of kindness flows through my body, I shall follow Jesus to the Taco Bell and give thanks."

So chicken isn't her #1...

:)

Less than 5% of the TOTAL population are LGBTQ, with less than 0.5% than really are transgender. Yet it seems that so much is being spent on advertising to those groups

Trivia, but somewhat relevant to this forum: marketing to LGBT is invisible to those who aren't. It's a very interesting physiological thing. An excellent article about it https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/how-subarus-came-to-be-seen-as-cars-for-lesbians/488042/

Advertising dollars that paint brands as inclusive are actually aimed at heterosexuals. That some watchers don't like it really says those watchers are in a minority, and tells us interesting things about the sentiment of the wider public.

Advertising is generally hard headed business. If brands try to distance themselves from the right they are telling their buyers - which in the examples I can think of are the majority - what those buyers want to hear.

If brands try to distance themselves from the right they are telling their buyers - which in the examples I can think of are the majority - what those buyers want to hear.

If as you say the majority of buyers like brands too distance themselves from the right, how come the current president is Republican, by majority vote.?

There is no such thing as 'majority' vote when it comes to elections for President of the US. The only votes that count in any way are those of the Electors, and they cannot be forced to vote for any particular candidate, no matter how lopsided the vote in their state may be. The state legislature is free, at any time, to appoint any electors they wish, ignoring the vote totals in their state.

First off, the party that gains power has to be elected by majority vote, so any president chosen can only be from the elected party.

Since the legislature is made up of elected officials the voters could, if they wanted to, demonstrate their disapproval by not voting them back in next time around, so the voters do have a say, albeit after the fact.

The electors vote, the majority wins, so, a majority vote.

If in fact the electorate have absolutely no say, if for instance the legislature were appointed, not voted into office, then any pretence of democracy goes right out the window.

So, as convoluted as it may be, the voters DO have the ability to force change, they just don't have the WILL to do so, or, they are happy with the status quo. If they did have the WILL, they would still need a majority.

When anything is put to a vote, the majority wins. Unless you know of an instance where a vote was cast, votes counted and the minority declared the winners...?

the voters DO have the ability to force change, they just don't have the WILL to do so, or, they are happy with the status quo.

I rather guess that they are un-/mis-informed unless they have other news sources available besides the established "news" channels. The 'WILL' is more in how much time they are willing to spend to find those alternate and, hopefully, more reliable news sources.

When anything is put to a vote, the majority wins. Unless you know of an instance where a vote was cast, votes counted and the minority declared the winners...?

The US constitution requires 2/3rds super majorities for certain votes in Congress, so no a simple majority doesn't always win.

The US constitution requires 2/3rds super majorities for certain votes in Congress,

It also requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment.

The Presidential election was intended to be 'republican' (little 'L') in character, NOT 'democratic' (little 'D'). So insistence on democracy means rejecting the Senate, President, and Supreme Court as undemocratic.

To be pedantic , the United States is defined as a "federal constitutional representative democracy."

As an aside;

To quote Benjamin Franklin "A republic, if you can keep it." It appears you couldn't.

There have been many lawsuits in this regard (all now mooted as the SC says this is a political question).

It was my understanding that what the Supreme Court ruled was not that it IS a political question, but that WHEN it is a political question, the courts cannot interfere. It left open judicial review when gerrymandering is for other reasons, such as racial.

Whenever the court overturns legislation which was passed by majorities. Happens all the time.

Except the VOTE was won by the majority. What a court does is immaterial to the question of whether the majority or minority of voters win.

Cute misdirect, but no prize for you, sorry.

Courts make law in the US. And Federal judges are not elected. Perhaps you missed that.

Missed it? No.

Is it relevant? No.

The subject was voting, not law or courts or judges.

So, whilst your misdirect is amusing, it's not at all on point.

Thanks for playing, but you claimed that laws and elections are made by majority vote. They aren't.

Actually YOU brought courts judges etc into the mix. As for laws, since I spoke only of voting, there was no claim concerning how laws are made.

You might in future consider actually reading posts made by others, it would assist you in avoiding spurious claims and outright inaccuracies. Just a thought.

Oh. And you have still evaded answering the question. Not a surprise, just an observation.

Enjoy your day. :)

If in fact the electorate have absolutely no say, if for instance the legislature were appointed, not voted into office, then any pretence of democracy goes right out the window.

Sorry to say, the partisan warfare extent in the US has severely distorted the electoral process. One party has effectively gained control of numerous state legislatures and using that power, have gerrymandered the electoral districts to give themselves a nearly inviolate election advantage. Following that is the proven "incumbent advantage" which in effect prevents any effective challenge. Then comes the disproportionate effect of campaign finance, even further enhanced by the US Supreme Court decision that "corporations are people" and their privilege to vote with their dollars is regarded as a Constitutional right. This is further abetted by the fact that voters face only the choice of "Frick" or "Frack" as partisan-screened candidates on the ballot, meaning that only loyal party partisans will be elected to power.

To say that the American "democracy" is a democratic process subject to the wishes of the electorate is to also believe that a chained and whipped dog is free to choose its master.

To say that the American "democracy" is a democratic process subject to the wishes of the electorate is to also believe that a chained and whipped dog is free to choose its master.

Ahh, ok, that explains why in 2016, The Economist Intelligence Unit downgraded the United States from a "full democracy" to a "flawed democracy" in its Democracy Report. (An annual study of the "state of democracy" around the world.)

There were a number of reasons the nation's rating fell, but one of the most important was the American public's declining trust in government.

Ahh, ok, that explains why in 2016, The Economist Intelligence Unit downgraded the United States from a "full democracy" to a "flawed democracy" in its Democracy Report. (An annual study of the "state of democracy" around the world.)

That's not surprising when you look at the date of the report. 2016 was the year of the last Presidential election. America's declining trust is well understood when those facts are considered.

That's not surprising when you look at the date of the report. 2016 was the year of the last Presidential election. America's declining trust is well understood when those facts are considered.

And the fact that poll after poll shows that some 80% of the American people want universal health care, and the controlling powers steadfastly ignore them? And that's only one of many issues that cause disaffection with our government.

And the fact that poll after poll shows that some 80% of the American people want universal health care, and the controlling powers steadfastly ignore them?

That depends on how you define "universal health care". Most people think that means some form of insurance for those not yet insured. Somewhere around 25 million. But I don't think the 157 million already insured through plans at work want to support a government takeover of the healthcare system ala Obamacare. You saw what animosity that generated when passed.

When informed of the reality of the plan supported by the Democrat party candidates, most oppose it. So I'm not really sure that I can agree with the statement that 80% of Americans want "universal health care". Most I believe are like me -- they want to keep their private insurance and find someway to take care of the uninsured that doesn't disturb what they already have.

they want to keep their private insurance and find someway to take care of the uninsured that doesn't disturb what they already have.

Basically they want some FM* solution that doesn't add to their taxes or affect what they, themselves have.

*FM=effing magic

during the 2016 election poll after poll showed Clinton would have over 80% of the vote,

My recollection is somewhat different. What the polls said, as I remember them, was that the chances that Clinton would win were around 80 percent - not that she would get 80 percent of the vote.

during the 2016 election poll after poll showed Clinton would have over 80% of the vote

That's simply not true.

eta: I was actually tracking state-level poll results pretty closely during the 2016 election, for reasons that aren't particularly relevant... but upshot is I recorded the results of basically every state-level poll published by a major pollster regarding the 2016 presidential and senate elections.

I wasn't tracking the national ones, because the electoral college makes them fundamentally irrelevant, but IIRC they topped out at about +4% Clinton. (She actually got +2%.)

On the state level, though, the highest percentage I've got for Clinton in any poll in any state is 63% (one California poll and two Maryland ones... she actually got 61.73% and 60.33%, respectively). This does not, in any way you figure it, add up to 80% of the national vote.

I don't know about every poll that was conducted in every state, however, every poll that made it on to the international news and seen down here should that Clinton had 80% or more of the vote in the polls mentioned, yet the voting didn't even come close to that.

There was no poll conducted by any reputable polling agency that claimed anything even remotely like that.

Possibly you (or perhaps your news source) are misunderstanding the meaning of something like FiveThirtyEight's statistical projections, which as I recall were hovering around 80% Clinton at one point. But that 80%, as PotomacBob says above, isn't a percentage of cast votes, it's odds of victory. It means that in 80% of the simulations FiveThirtyEight ran, Clinton won, while in the other 20% Trump won.

I don't recall the precise numbers for the national polling, and as I said, unlike the state-by-state polling, I didn't record them, but they certainly never gave Clinton vote percentages higher than the low-mid-50s nationwide.

Isn't "reputable polling agency" an oxymoron...?

And the fact that poll after poll shows that some 80% of the American people want universal health care, and the controlling powers steadfastly ignore them?

Add in the that 100% of those don't want to pay for it. TANSTAAFL.

that explains why in 2016, The Economist Intelligence Unit downgraded the United States from a "full democracy" to a "flawed democracy" in its Democracy Report.

Which is to say that prior to 2016, The Economist Intelligence Unit had zero comprehension of how US Presidential elections work.

out of the 5 EC inversion inversions in US presidential Elections, 3 happened in the 19th Century. So no, what happened with Trump in 2016 is nothing new, and it's NOT getting worse than it was before.

Which is to say that prior to 2016, The Economist Intelligence Unit had zero comprehension of how US Presidential elections work.

Obviously you even handed, well balanced and utterly impartial judgement is beyond reproach...

...or at least beyond comment.

The state legislature is free, at any time, to appoint any electors they wish, ignoring the vote totals in their state.

I believe Amendment XIV, Section 2 says you can't do that. Quoting:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

{emphasis added}
It seems a strict reading of that section says that's a nice way for the state to lose it's representatives in the House, i.e. by denying their citizens their right to vote for their electors. In any case, the SCOTUS will certainly weigh in on such a weighty question. And I wonder how Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will decide? Throw in Amy Barrett once she replace RBG.

ETA: It struck me after I posted this just how apropos the title of this discussion is given the direction it's taken.

:)

Can't be, given the Constitution gives the State Legislature the absolute right to determine how electors are chosen.

Couldn't agree more. But read that Section that I posted. Amendment XIV threw a monkey wrench into a lot of the Constitution. Such conflicts almost guarantee a SCOTUS review if appropriately petitioned.

We all remember the companies lining up to be first to distance themselves from Trump and drop his daughter's fashion brand etc, right? I think they were pandering to the (silent) majority.

If as you say the majority of buyers like brands too distance themselves from the right, how come the current president is Republican, by majority vote.?

He isn't. Trump lost the election by more than 2.8 million votes. That he's occupying the White House now is entirely because of how his minority was distributed.

He isn't. Trump lost the election by more than 2.8 million votes. That he's occupying the White House now is entirely because of how his minority was distributed.

Another way to say that Hillary's majority was concentrated, like in just a couple of states. Take away California and she lost the popular election also. Take away New York to boot and she loses bigly. In 48 of 50 states.

Another way to say that Hillary's majority was concentrated

Hillary didn't have a majority either. Her vote total was around 48%.

Actually, 1824 was the first US presidential election where the national popular vote was recorded.

That's 49 elections in total from 1824 to today. Of those 19 were won by a plurality with and 5 had EC inversions (winner of the popular vote lost in the EC)

Of the 5 inversions, only 1 of the inversions (1876: Rutherford B. Hayes) had a true majority in the popular vote.

So in total, that's 23 pluralities out of 49 elections. Around 47% of US presidential elections end without a majority in the national popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%27_presidential_plurality_victories

Trump lost the election by more than 2.8 million votes.

No, he didn't. The nation wide popular vote in presidential elections is legally meaningless.

There isn't one national election for president. There are fifty separate Presidential elections all done at the state level.

The other thing that everyone talks about is just a massive preference poll.

No, the other thing decides who votes in the real election. It's been hidden from the general voters, but you are voting for a slate of electors, not a presidential candidate.

No, the other thing decides who votes in the real election. It's been hidden from the general voters, but you are voting for a slate of electors, not a presidential candidate.

Lazlo Zalezac explored this point in "The Reset Manifesto". Admittedly only a fictional story but the reasoning put forth, that of direct election of individual electors, is fascinating. Being that the Constitution wouldn't prohibit it. I wonder how a legal challenge to the concept would play out at the SCOTUS.

but the reasoning put forth, that of direct election of individual electors, is fascinating.

Actually, when the states first switched from the state legislature selecting the electors to using an election, that's actually how they did it. It didn't last very long though. IIRC that only lasted a couple of Presidential election cycles.

The Florida legislature appointed a slate of electors in 2000, per their powers under the US Constitution.

As I recall, those electors were never installed and never voted. IIRC, the Florida Legislature took that action, choosing electors favoring Bush, on the fear that the Florida Supreme Court (which was ordering recounts) rulings would end up delivering Florida into the Gore camp. But the U.S. Supreme Court, which stopped the recounts ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, delivered the state's electoral votes to Bush anyway, so the action of the Florida Legislature to name Bush electors was unnecessary.
I, personally, was hoping to see the election go to the House of Representatives, simply because I've always wanted to see that happen but, in my lifetime, it's never occurred. I believe that's what the Constitution calls for. The House would have been given the choice - select the electors chosen by the people, including the changes that came as the result of state-ordered recounts, or select the electors chosen by the state legislature. Since the House (and a majority of House state delegations) was controlled by Republicans, there's little doubt they would have chosen Bush as President - and, in the meantime, I was denied what may have been the one opportunity in my lifetime to see a president chosen by the House - as prescribed in the Constitution.

I, personally, was hoping to see the election go to the House of Representatives, simply because I've always wanted to see that happen but, in my lifetime, it's never occurred.

It's never happened in the history of the US.

Not so. It happened in 1824

1824 was a four-way race between Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Crawford, and Henry Clay — all Democratic-Republicans, the Federalist party having recently fallen apart entirely (the Federalists didn't even succeed in nominating a candidate in 1820).

No candidate secured a majority of the electoral votes. Jackson had the plurality, with 99, then John Q. Adams (84), Crawford (41), and Clay (37). Because no one had gotten the required 131 EVs, it fell to the House to choose between the top three candidates: Jackson, Adams, and Crawford.

Henry Clay, the fourth-place candidate, was also Speaker of the House at the time, and he threw his support behind Adams, and the House appointed Adams President.

This pissed Jackson the hell off, because he'd gotten the plurality of both electoral vote and popular vote (in the states where it was used) and believed that he should rightfully be President. That led directly to the splintering of the Democratic-Republicans into Jackson's populist Democrats and Adams' National Republicans (predecessors of the Whigs, no real relation to today's Republican Party). Jackson ran against Adams again in 1828 and won with a sizable majority.

Jackson also pushed for the popular vote, and by 1832, only South Carolina's electors were still chosen by the legislature.

Bob, you're a bit off target with this. When a presidential election goes to the House of Representatives they vote from the top three candidates. There are no electors involved.

https://www.usa.gov/election

The House would have been given the choice - select the electors chosen by the people, including the changes that came as the result of state-ordered recounts, or select the electors chosen by the state legislature.

The House would have been given the choice - select the electors chosen by the people, including the changes that came as the result of state-ordered recounts, or select the electors chosen by the state legislature.

I can't find the section you quoted at the provided link.

As I understand it, given two slates of electors and two electoral ballots from one state, the House would actually have three options.

1. accept the first.

2. accept the second.

3. Reject both.

When a presidential election goes to the House of Representatives they vote from the top three candidates. There are no electors involved.

In 1876, the House decided the election by choosing which sets of competing electors would have their votes counted.

According to the following link, you are mistaken.

I believe you are correct. What you posted actually makes more sense to me.

That he's occupying the White House now is entirely because of how his minority was distributed.

Pause to consider that concept.

So, you consider a minority of people won because they were more widely spread (diluted) across the states...?

Yet not so diluted as to lose in all those states... Hmmm

I'm aware that 90% of statistics are invented and 10% are massaged to fit the desired outcome, but really, does your concept seem at all logical..?

Without those 100 counties being counted by or for anyone, she received 11.5 million FEWER votes in the assorted state elections than Trump.

If we're going to decide elections based on "if's," the Libertarian would have won unanimously if all the votes for everybody else were not counted for anyone. If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass every time it jumped. If the inch of rain that fell had been snow it would have been 10 inches deep. If the South had won the Civil War ...

@BlacKnight
Trump lost the election by more than 2.8 million votes.

No, he didn't, because there are only 535 votes in a Presidential election. He won by 74 votes. That's a majority vote.

The context was buyers' support for the right wing. The electors are irrelevant in that context; it is about actual people casting actual votes in the popular election. And in actual fact 2.8 million more Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump.

Donald Trump does not enjoy the majority support of Americans. He didn't even get the plurality, even in 2016 - Hillary Clinton did. And at this point, according to several recent polls, the actual majority of Americans want him impeached and removed from office. (Also about 4% apparently want him impeached but not removed from office, and I don't even know what's up with those people.)

(Oh, yeah, and it's 538, not 535. DC, despite being denied voting representation in Congress, does get electoral votes.)

Out of the approximately 3,100 county or county equivalents in the United States, he won 2,500 of them - 84% of the geographic country voted for him.

Yeah, see, that's not how votes work. Acres don't get votes. People do.

Phrasing it another way - 88 of the top 100 most populated counties voted for Hillary. Without those 100 counties being counted by or for anyone, she received 11.5 million FEWER votes in the assorted state elections than Trump.

Go on, keep inventing fantasy worlds where you've disenfranchised enough Americans that Trump can actually win an election.

The context was buyers' support for the right wing. The electors are irrelevant in that context; it is about actual people casting actual votes in the popular election. And in actual fact 2.8 million more Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump.

Given that about 4.5 million of that plurality occurred in California where verification of (or even support for) proof of citizenship is (how shall I say this tactfully?) ahh somewhat lax, the contention that more Americans voted for Clinton than Trump can only be true if we count all of America, i.e. Mexico and Central America. Otherwise? Not so sure.

The Federal government is in the process of investigating potential contamination of California's voting lists by non citizens due to the state's motor voter law and lack of rigorous controls to ensure only citizens are registered. How California wants to choose their own state officials is up to them. But when it affects the rest of the country, real citizens get concerned.

have you SEEN a Popeye's Chicken commercial?

Yes I have. As for a stereotype, they are trying to project a New Orleans image. Several of their commercials are set inside old district New Orleans. Their first restaurant was in Arabi, Louisiana.
It was started by Alvin Charles "Al" Copeland, who grew up in New Orleans St. Thomas public housing project. That he used the local imagery shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone given his background. That he played to the predominant customer base shouldn't surprise anyone either.

Stereotype? Only for someone looking for one.

The point was, no matter your social and or political predelictions, every group is subject to the same problem.

It is an unfortunate side effect of the survival instinct that causes some people to seek as much personal power as possible.

The more powerful any human organization becomes and the longer it exists, the greater the probability it will attract and end up with a 'power for it's own sake' person in charge with more of the same in the upper management waiting for their chance to take over.

The other side of the coin is that if no one had a desire for power, there would be no leaders and human organization might never have progressed further than the basic family unit.

The other side of the coin is that if no one had a desire for power, there would be no leaders and human organization might never have progressed further than the basic family unit.

I don't view it so much as a desire for power. My feeling is that it is driven by a difference in philosophy. A large number of organizations active today can't accept the philosophy of "live and let live". For me, that philosophy was the seminal influence for the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, celebrating the individual. The following century saw the rise of the collectivist theory, i.e. defining people by their group membership (the capitalists, the worker, the bourgeois). Power is just the necessary vehicle for advancing whichever philosophy.

Well, ya pay your money, ya pick your poison. Myself, I wonder how this difference in viewpoint will eventually be resolved. Hopefully non violently. But I fear not.

Myself, I wonder how this difference in viewpoint will eventually be resolved.

What would it ever be resolved? Whichever group is in power, the others will be trying to unseat them.

Until the states agree to accept a way of cleaning up their voter lists with each person on it having to prove they're citizens and residents of the county they state they're residing in and allows them all to be checked against the other lists so people can't unlawfully register in two locations and vote twice

Sorry, but that is pure BS. Pure and simple. You might consider the kool-aid jug you're sipping from.

As of 2017, there were more than 1,000 PROVEN cases, with more than 900 convictions, of exactly what Ernest is talking about.

I think you should provide a source for that assertion; besides which, even it it were true, in a nation of 330 Million people, how is 1,000 relevant? Other than as an empirical bogeyman justification to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands otherwise entitled citizens from voting?

Until the states agree to accept a way of cleaning up their voter lists with each person on it having to prove they're citizens and residents of the county they state they're residing in

Whilst what you suggest is simple common sense, the problem with 'proving' citizenship is that of acceptable ID. How would a born and bred american who does not drive or travel internationally prove citizenship?? A birth certificate isn't sufficient, only a government issued ID with photo is acceptable. Your suggestion would disenfranchise a whole slew of voters.

Wait, it's too late, it's already happening...

In 2018 Ten states had strict voter ID laws that require eligible voters to present certain forms of government-issued ID before they can vote.

Source

Anyway, doesn't the USA have SSNs. Also, hasn't the USA been taking birth foot prints for many decades that could be used if nothing else is available.

Since a social security card is not considered adequate proof of citizenship in Australia (to register to vote) why would it be valid in the US..?

As for babies footprints... Can you image the result of trying to compare an adult foot to a baby's footprint at a polling station...??? Comedy of the year? An amusing chapter in your next story?

It could be done in advance to get a photo ID card if that was all you had. However, there's no reason why the authorities that issue driver's licenses can't issue a similar style photo ID when provided with the same proof as is used to get a driver's license - that's what we do here.

Most states with VoterID laws do exactly that, in some cases they even offer transportation services, or will bring the needed services to you.

But according to activists, that places unreasonable burdens on the voter and unfairly targets minorities and the impoverished.

I wondered why offering someone a free Uber service was placing an unreasonable burden on them. Maybe I'm missing something?

Non-US citizens cannot legally vote in Federal elections.

Legally is the operative word. A cursory amount of research will show there is plenty of illegal votes being made.

But according to activists, that places unreasonable burdens on the voter and unfairly targets minorities and the impoverished.

I don't think the dead are a minority. But they are impoverished, their estates having been distributed to their heirs.

I don't think the dead are a minority. But they are impoverished, their estates having been distributed to their heirs.

Requiring I.D. is suppressing the feline and canine votes. Probably a few avians as well.

Anyway, doesn't the USA have SSNs.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with citizenship. Legal permanent resident aliens get SSNs.

Don't they note on the record the citizenship?

My Social Security card, which is an old as Methuselah (sp?), does not show citizenship.

Don't they note on the record the citizenship?

The SSA may have that information in the back end databases, but no, it's not on your SS card. All that's on the card is name and SSN.

In 2018 Ten states had strict voter ID laws that require eligible voters to present certain forms of government-issued ID before they can vote.

And under the guise of "suspect qualification" hundreds of thousands of US citizens have been disenfranchised -- which was the thinly-disguised intent.

Blind faith in polls isn't very bright. They are usually very subjective.

I, for one, do not believe that most of the political polls are manipulated for political ends. Polling is a business. If your polls are consistently inaccurate because of your political bias, you are going to lose customers.
On the other hand, the polls ARE manipulated - they are manipulated for the purpose of getting them more accurate.
If, for example, a poll asks questions of 600 people - how do you project that onto a voting group of, say, 100 million. You do it by breaking your 600 people into identifiable groups, and then ESTIMATING how many people of that group will actually turn up at the polls. That's where most of the inaccuracies come in - they guess wrong about how many of a particular group will actually vote. They may also not precisely identify the voting groups. And - worst of all - they may actually get a bad sample, one that is not representative of one or more of the groups.
The pollster I talked to said polls, almost by definition, are not scientific. They CAN make scientific polls - but it's expensive - it takes more people in the sample than political campaigns or news organizations can afford to pay for.
The one other thing he said: "No poll in the history of polling has ever found something contrary to the interests of whoever paid for the poll. If we did that, nobody would hire us and polling would cease."

I, for one, do not believe that most of the political polls are manipulated for political ends. Polling is a business.

Deliberate manipulation for political ends is not necessary for poll results to be highly inaccurate.

I'd love to see a solid analysis of polls vs election results for the last dozen or so presidential elections because there have been several high profile screw ups where they not only missed the margin, they got the end result backwards just within my lifetime.

As a first guess, I'd say the political polling accuracy is no better than 50%

As a first guess, I'd say the political polling accuracy is no better than 50%

If by accurate you mean precise to the percentage point, then I agree (not that you need my agreement for you to be right.) Almost no pollster precisely gets it right, especially on a state by state basis, and almost no pollster claims to do that. Almost all provide a margin of error based on the sampling size. In the 2012 presidential election, the averages of the public polls (excluding those paid for by candidates or political parties) picked the winner in every state except one. The state that was wrong was Indiana, in which the poll averages showed Romney ahead by 1 percentage point on the Friday before election day (Friday was the last day available in which pollsters had time to collect their data and analyze it then publish it before the election.) Instead of Romney winning Indiana, Obama won Indiana on the following Tuesday, IIRC, by less than 1 percent. The difference between a 1 percent loss and a 1 percent victory was still within the 3 to 4 percent margin of error, but huge in that it had the wrong winner. Does that mean the polls were biased in favor of Romney? Does it even mean the pollsters got it wrong since it was within the margin of error? I, of course, have no idea what the polls would have shown if they had been conducted on the day before the election instead of 3 or 4 days ahead - but if they had been conducted the day before, the results would not have been available to be published by election day, and there'd be no point in publishing them afterward since by then we had actual election results.
The polls in 2016 that people claim were so wrong actually nailed the nationwide popular vote. Where they were wrong was Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, where they said Clinton was ahead and which Trump actually won by a total in the three states combined of less than 80,000 votes. Those three states made the difference in the Electoral College vote between a Trump win and a Clinton win.

If by accurate you mean precise to the percentage point, then I agree

No, that's not what I mean. I would go by two criteria (both must be met). 1. get the winner right. actual election results are within the margin of error of the poll.

In the 2012 presidential election, the averages of the public polls

1. getting one election right proves nothing.

2. I don't accept cross poll averages as a valid metric for accuracy of polls. Two individual polls can be wildly wrong in opposite directions and have the average of the two come close to being right.

I, for one, do not believe that most of the political polls are manipulated for political ends. Polling is a business.

You are of course free to believe anything you wish regardless of reality.

It was on page 12 of the survey, where they talked about who they polled, that you found that they didn't poll registered or even likely voters, they simply went to a women's college and asked about 200 women who they supported for President. Political affiliation was 15% Republican, 55% Democrat, 20% Independent, and 10% other.

I used to interpret survey data professionally and found out early how results could be manipulated to produce the "desirable" answer. For political polls, it doesn't matter much. Just another way of lying. But if the answer produced is significant input into a go/no go decision on a multi million dollar project, getting it right becomes exponentially more important.

Now, in the example you give, even such a lopsidedly non random sample may produce acceptable results if weighted by the political affiliation of the respondents. But getting the correct results wasn't the intent of the polling organization. Such polls exist to fool the public into believing something that isn't true. They're attempting
to put a scientific mantle on a piece of political propaganda.

Unless a poll reports it's sampling methodology and target universe from which it was drawn so I can make my own decision on it's adherence to proper random sampling principles, I ignore it.

Now, in the example you give, even such a lopsidedly non random sample may produce acceptable results if weighted by the political affiliation of the respondents. But getting the correct results wasn't the intent of the polling organization. Such polls exist to fool the public into believing something that isn't true. They're attempting

to put a scientific mantle on a piece of political propaganda.

Oh, like "9 out of 10 (insert specialty here) recommend ____" based on a survey conducted at a (specialty) conference among attendees after sitting through an hour long presentation from ____.

Uhh, yea.

Unless a poll reports it's sampling methodology and target universe from which it was drawn so I can make my own decision on it's adherence to proper random sampling principles, I ignore it.

Every reputable pollster does exactly that - including the margin of error - but almost no broadcast channel includes that information even though it was given to them by the pollster. It takes up too much air time.

I'll stand by my quote in your post. I don't care if it's a reputable one like Rasmussen or a garbage one like the New York Times. If they don't provide the info so I can make at least a reasonable attempt at sizing up error bands, I ignore it.

Every reputable pollster does exactly that - including the margin of error - but almost no broadcast channel includes that information even though it was given to them by the pollster. It takes up too much air time.

Those polls usually have margin of error on the infographic, even if the talking heads never mention it.

Those polls usually have margin of error on the infographic

They claim a certain margin of error. That doesn't mean that what they claim is the real margin of error.

I proved to myself a while ago that sampling works. How? Simple. Computer simulation. Anyone with the skill and a statistics package can verify that the math of error bands, or confidence limits or margin of error or whatever else you want to call it, actually works the way the theory calls for. Those terms seem to be used interchangably. Inaccurately so. And while it is counterintuitive that accurate approximations of population characteristics can be obtained with minuscule samples, said simulations can prove it to you. So for those intrepid souls out there, go acquire a good text on the topic (I learned from R.A. Fischer's Statistical Methods for Research Workers), download a free stat package like R and have at it. You can even accomplish it in Excel. If you do, you'll develop an appreciation for Fischer's genius.

Where surveys run into trouble is not in the calculation of the level of uncertainty, that's pretty much mechanical, but the failure to adhere to the principle underlying the presumption that the sample as developed is actually random. It never is. Especially political polling. Reputable firms recognize that all sorts of bias are introduced when randomness of selection isn't present; they have various ways of dealing with it. All of which introduces even more potential bias. in some dishonest polls, said bias is deliberately introduced.

It's bad enough that survey sample must deal with the inherent incorrectness of an inaccurate sample introduced by chance. That is the results of the reality that even if all principles of random selection are adhered to, there is still the real possibility that the selected sample doesn't represent the true population.

And the average person doesn't really understand how to interpret that band, which is that within the band, any result is equally likely to occur. That means that with a 2.5% error band, if the true population value is 50%, any result from 47.5% to 52.5% is equally likely to occur. If the confidence limit is 95%, that means that error band is good 95 times out of 100. The other 5 times, you're screwed. Given that a high 2% error band is common in the political polls, that doesn't help your prediction all that much in close elections. But the talking heads only give what the center of the band says. Which generally is useful only if results are greatly skewed from 50%. Which doesn't really describe the U.S. electorate all that much.

Random selection means that each member of the target population has an equal non-zero chance of selection. Try getting that with a telephone poll that doesn't include cell phones. Which most don't. It would only work if the cell phone population is distributed the same as the entire population with regards to the topic being studied. How likely is that?

What about other forms of bias, e.g. dishonesty? I lie on every political phone survey when I can determine that the survey is sponsored by something I oppose politically. Why should I help them out? In fact, why should I participate at all? At least without compensation. All they're doing is gathering valuable data (my opinion), aggregating it, then making money off of it. None of which I get. Now if they pay me......

So unless I can get the information I need to calculate sample error and non-sample bias, I ignore it. But it seems that the talking heads at all of the networks are enamored of polling. Well, ya pay your money, ya pick your poison. Even so, some of it can be entertaining.