Forum: Author Hangout

On the other hand, given the legal issues and social prejudice against it

That probably holds true for almost any type of relationships which do not fit into the standard mold described by most religions.

Personally I think any relationship is okay as long as no form of force is used to maintain or create it. As long as the relationships are based on true caring and love between all members in it. Its none of my business. OF course that rule does not exist for the government or other social groups.

Fore

Called out as a warning to people in the path of a golf ball.
Maybe fore shadowing is a warning of a golf ball's shadow?

I don't think dolphins are familiar with golf balls ;)

They are intelligent enough; their problem is holding a club in their flippers and then they could sort out those who pollute their seas

@AJ
I don't think dolphins are familiar with golf balls ;)
@sejintenej
They are intelligent enough; their problem is holding a club in their flippers

Dolphins used to be quite good golfers, holding the clubs in their mouths.
Unfortunately, they can't play anymore because of unintended consequences of a change to the rules of the game a couple of years ago.
The change was only intended to stop the use of long putters: they can no longer have a club touching, or being supported by, any part of the body above the elbows.

I'm going to borrow a line from The Flash when Joe finds out that Barry and Iris are an item.

I personally wouldn't consider that incest as berry is an adopted son. just a hell of an awkward situation.

Correct, not incest, but it was awkward. I wrote down the line when I heard it, but will have to look it up to get the exact wording.

Maybe "outcest"?

dolphins are rapist bastards

Of course they are; who has been appointed or given authority to marry dolphins? You need to remind the President that this needs to be arranged before he bothers about North Korea.

As for rape, show me one dolphiness who objects to a bit of hanky panky - the way they go after human males they seem to be nymphos. Having dropped one they are en route to the next one. Given the dangers of the sea they desperately need to keep delivering just to keep dolphin society alive

Just don't get dragged into their rape caves.

What a nightmare. I think I'll stuff a cork in before I venture there.

Diving in a narrow cleft (under one metre wide)in Gib a moray showed its head at crotch level - I got the hell out of there bl**dy quick.

That's why the best incest stories (for me at least) are the ones which are slow-developing, where the characters are conflicted and slow to act on their very real desires because of the heavy emotional costs they'll end up paying for the relationship.

Will wonders never cease? I have the same view on incest stories. Sadly, my expectations are disappointed most of the times.

The problem is the US public, with Harvey Weinstein as an inciting point and now focused on Roy Moore, is hypersensitive about underage. AI saw this on Twitter tonight A man 32 yrs old doesn't ask little girls out on a date which I would agree with - except that the 'little girls' she was referring to were 16 and 17 years olds of legal age. They were certainly

There has always been some degree of social stigma to so-called May-December romantic relationships. And the younger party doesn't even need to be a teen. The younger party could be 30, but if there's a 30 year difference in age, some people will still find it objectionable/creepy.

The Weinstein scandal shouldn't have much impact on teen/teen romance/erotic stories. Even if one or both of the teens is underage, it still won't draw the same level of outrage of a story involving a romance/sexual relationship with a teen/decade or more older adult.

Not by itself, but it appears to have unleashed a flood of "me too's" which IMO is morphing into a near hysteria amongst the observers in the general public.

Yes, for older man / very young woman. The issue with Weinstein is that he is accused of going after women half his age.

True, but in my story the guy is a 19 year old college student while the girl is a 14 year old 9th grader.

I look at it this way, the public outrage factor is highly dependent on the ratio of older / younger.

as long as the younger isn't pre-teen or younger, anything under 1.5 will generate minor levels of public outrage. Which is not to say it won't be highly offensive to certain individuals, there just won't be enough of them to create a large public outrage effect.

Anything over 2.0 will generate at least some public outrage regardless of the age of the younger party. Severe public outrage is possible but not guaranted if younger is underage.

Don't forget, Lolita, involving a romantic/sexual relationship between an adult male and a 12 year old girl got dead tree published in the 1955 and was even made into a movie which has been shown on broadcast television in the US.

even if some readers choose to fap at the thought.

Some people choose to be ostriches on the issue of kids and sex and get very upset if someone comes along and pull their head out of the sand.

Anyone who think kids going through puberty aren't interested in or thinking about sex is delusional.

Onset of puberty is sometime between 10-14 for girls and 12-16 for boys. And there are documented cases of it happening much earlier.

My understanding of the Weinstein situation isn't so much the age difference as the way he forced them to do things due to his position of power and authority. That's a different issue.

Ack, your right. I was confusing Weinstein with a different case, former judge and US Senate candidate Roy Moore who has been accused of sexual misconduct with girls aged 14 to 17 (at the time) when he was just an ADA in his 30s.

I was confusing Weinstein with a different case, former judge and US Senate candidate Roy Moore

I thought the GOP could not possibly find anymore with a more contemptible character than Donald Duck to stand as a candidate for them ... but I was wrong.

was even made into a movie which has been shown on broadcast television in the US.

Two movies, in fact, and with respected, well-known casts too. The 1962 version starred James Mason, Shelley Winters, and Peter Sellers; and the 1997 version, Jeremy Irons and Melanie Griffith.

I don't think it's a hysteria.

I agree, but I don't think the recent outrage has been merely about women finally overcoming their reluctance to speak out, rather it's about breaking down the barriers that have continued to exist in the entertainment industry long after they'd been largely broken down in most other workplaces.

A few months ago on Twitters someone posted pics of three now adult actresses when they were in there teens. I commented that of the three

There's your problem. Twitter is one of the most aptly named social media services. 90+% of it's users are twits.

Again, no one is declaring Moore guilty of a crime, they're simply saying they don't want such a creep to serve in Congress, only in the Presidency.

As far as I know there are no accusations that the Idiot in Chief has pursued jailbait, though he has made some very creepy comments about his own daughter.

Trump and Roy Moore are very different kinds of creeps.

but they both pursued women with NO interest in them

No, Moore is accused of pursuing teen girls, as young as 14, when he was in his 30s.

Most states these days are 18 to be with someone well over that age, but some are still 16.

You are mistaken. Most states have general age of consent at 16 only

Here's a map showing age of consent by state. https://www.ageofconsent.net/states

Only 11 states are as high as 18. Another 8 are 17 and the remaining 31 states and DC all have general unrestricted age of consent at 16.

Thanks for the correction. It's been awhile since I looked it up.

There are quite a lot of states where it is not an offense to have sex with someone aged 14 provided the difference in ages is less than 4 years.

Check details at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States.
A quick check suggests that is so in Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In Hawaii and Maine the age difference may be up to 5 years.

The 5 year grace period would cover 19 and 14, as in my story.

I was thinking it might be helpful for your story. If you're prepared to adjust the ages to get the age difference below 4 years you could find a suitable state in most regions of the country.

In the book I made her 14 to get her into 9th grade and the high school. Having her be that young is important to the resolution of the story.

I'm just brainstorming here - it is your story - but how important is it for the age difference to more than 4 years?
I cannot see what difference it would make to your story if he started college in the same year as she started high school. That would allow, depending on the state you chose (with many suitable options), for your story to have parents checking the law after their relationship starts and becoming terrified by the significance of her birthday being a bit before his.

So folks are calling Moore a pedophile for asking out 16 and 17 year old girls when it's legal in 31 states today. It's still creepy, but I bet they didn't know that.

No, one of his accusers was only 14 at the time. And allegedly, he had her stripped down to bra and panties and was groping her before he came to his senses and let her go.

They're conflating.

Yes, they are.

So folks are calling Moore a pedophile for asking out 16 and 17 year old girls when it's legal in 31 states today.

The general public doesn't understand what the word pedophile means anyway. The technical psychiatric definition is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children (so generally, 9 and younger).

There is a separate term for an attraction to teens, but I don't know what it is.

It gets even more complicated for marriages.

If one partner (usually the girl) is under 16, they now have a problem when going to Germany. On arrival the underage wife will be taken in custody by the social wellfare office and the husband arrested for sex with a minor. Their marriage is null and void according to a new german law.

HM.

Their marriage is null and void according to a new german law.

Which new law? A legal marriage contracted in a foreign country is legal in Germany as well. Germany can't nullify a legally contracted marriage from another country.

became effective 22.July 2017
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderheirat#Deutschland

HM.

That just means, you can't marry a German citizen younger than sixteen in Germany. A marriage legally contracted under another country's law is still legal in Germany, too, and a German court can't void it. They didn't change Art. 13 EGBGB, the relevant norm for foreign marriages.

ETA: For everyone's reading pleasure:

Art. 13
Marriage

(1) The conditions for the conclusion of marriage are, as regards each person engaged to be married, governed by the law of the country of which he or she is a national.

(2) If under this law, a requirement is not fulfilled, German law shall apply to that extent, if:

1. the habitual residence of one of the persons engaged to be married is within the country or one of them is a German national;

2. the persons engaged to be married have taken reasonable steps to fulfill the requirement; and

3. it is incompatible with the freedom of marriage to refuse the conclusion of the marriage; in particular, the previous marriage of a person engaged to be married shall not be held against him or her if it is nullified by a decision issued or recognized here or the spouse of the person engaged to be married has been declared dead.

(3) A marriage within the country may only be celebrated subject to the form provided for here. A marriage between two persons engaged to be married, neither of whom is a German national, may however be celebrated before a person properly authorized by the government of the country of which one of the persons engaged to be married is a national, according to the formalities prescribed by the law of that country; a certified copy of the registration of the marriage in the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages, kept by the person properly authorized therefore, furnishes conclusive evidence of the marriage celebrated in that manner.

No, you can't marry anyone younger than 18 in Germany.
These changes in German law were made to go against the many existing child marriages between refugees.

No german court is needed to void these marriages. For marriages above 16 but below 18 there is a court order necessary to void it.

Diese Regelungen gelten auch für Ehen, die im Ausland geschlossen wurden.

As far as I understand their logic, the foreign marriage still exists – outside of Germany – but in Germany it's treated as non-existing. "If you don't like it, don't come to Germany, go elsewhere!"

HM.

No. A German citizen can still legally marry at 16 but he/she will need a special permission to do so.

Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB)

§ 1303 Ehemündigkeit

Eine Ehe darf nicht vor Eintritt der Volljährigkeit eingegangen werden. Mit einer Person, die das 16. Lebensjahr nicht vollendet hat, kann eine Ehe nicht wirksam eingegangen werden.

The bold text means nothing else than there are exeptions from the general requisite to be eighteen. That aside, Art. 13, 1 par. EGBGB didnt change and its the only relevant norm for legal foreign marriages.

Diese Regelungen gelten auch für Ehen, die im Ausland geschlossen wurden.

And this means, as a German national you can't legally marry - no matter where - without being eighteen or a special permission.

California
The age of consent is eighteen. With parental consent, there are no age limits regarding the minimum age for a couple to marry. (Other statutory laws apply.) California offers some spousal rights for registered same-sex domestic partners. this if from findlaw website

Their marriage is null and void according to a new german law.

FYI. You'd have the right to feel insulted if I wrote that sentence without a capital for 'German'.

The relevant rule is that a capital is still required when a word is not being used as a noun, but is directly referring to a proper noun.

Some examples ...

Swiss cheese means cheese made in Switzerland: the word Swiss needs a capital because it refers to the proper noun Switzerland.
In contrast, swiss cheese, a type of cheese with holes in it, has a lowercase because the reference is indirect. The word swiss is referring to a style of cheese which was derived from a proper noun.

Similarly with french toast, but Waldorf salad and Napoleon brandy require capitals because the directly refer to a hotel and a person.

Note that some words have lost their direct connection when they were misused by many over time. Examples include xerox, hoover, and radar, which at one time would have required capitals, but it's generally accepted these may now be written with a lowercase.

A somewhat contentious issue arises when people being using a trademarked name as a verb, for example to google something. The company which owns the trademark for 'Google' works hard telling others that the word, and all words derived from it, must have a capital. They are frightened the value of their trademark may be eroded if it ends up going the same way the Xerox and Hoover trademarks went.

Dictionaries and style guides do not agree. They consider the rules of grammar rather than the value of others' property. They maintain that a capital is required whenever 'Google' is used as a noun, and also as an adjective as in 'a Google search'. However, they (well, CMOS and the Oxford Dictionary, at least) maintain that lowercase should be used for the verb 'to google'. I presume their rationale is that the trademark is no longer being used when a verb is created from a (proper) noun but will then be frequently modified with '-s', '-ed', and '-ing' endings.

I hope you find this informative - that is my intention - and you don't feel like I'm picking on you. :-)

no picking feeled. :-)

HM.

no picking feeled. :-)

Did your smiley face actually mean [sic]?

I meant to express that even if it would have been intended as picking, I appreciate the information.

Your question made it clear that using smileys can also cause misunderstandings.

HM.

Your question made it clear that using smileys can also cause misunderstandings.

Not really. I wanted to be certain I had not misunderstood before this very pedantic picking on you. :-)

Re your:

no picking feeled. :-)

FYI, never 'feeled', always 'felt'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_irregular_verbs

FYI, never 'feeled', always 'felt'.

Oops, it 'feeled' right to me, so I didn't look it up.

Languages are messy. I'll never understand why two irregular verbs like feel and kneel aren't treated the same.
feel, felt, felt
kneel, knelt, knelt; but also kneel, kneeled, kneeled.

Same problem in German, there is a tendency towards usage of irregular verbs as regular verbs.

HM.

Understood, which makes him a pedophile (of teen girls only, at this point). But that's not the point I was making in calling them both creeps. The creepy thing was Moore's frequenting malls and schools trolling for teens, along with Trumps' 'grabbing 'em by their pussies'.

Dating a teen is bad enough (for a thirty-year of DA, who should have known the illegality of his actions), but his approach was just plain creepy to the max!

From discussions elsewhere, it seems nobody knows of has brought forward(rightfully so!) any evidence as to how "developed" the 14YO actually was. Also, age of consent where he was at the time was 16.

His "established pattern" was dating 16/17 year olds where it was legal for him to do so. The 14 year old seems to be an outlier(particularly since they only found one), suggesting she probably "looked older" and he wasn't verifying age very closely.

Still creepy, but he probably isn't in the "league" a lot of people are trying to place him in. Also, he stopped working "the shallow end of the dating pool" shortly thereafter, and no evidence has come to light suggesting his return to it, decades later at this point.

Which makes efforts to compare him to Weinstein rather odd.

From discussions elsewhere, it seems nobody knows of has brought forward(rightfully so!) any evidence as to how "developed" the 14YO actually was.

From legal and social mores perspectives, how developed the 14 yo was is irrelevant.

There's still people on Twitter today claiming that asking out girls of legal age who work at the mall is pedophilia and child abuse.

Yep and that's a problem, but it doesn't have that much to do with the Roy Moore case. The Washington Post found 5 girls that say they dated him when they were teens and he was in his 30's and was an ADA.

Three of them don't have anything bad to say about him.

The one who was 14.

That leaves open the possibility that as soon as she told him her real age he left her alone.

Except by her account, he was stripped down to just his underpants and had her stripped down to just bra and panties and was fondling her before she said she was uncomfortable and he took her home.

The bra & panty heavy petting (if true) is probably enough to make a statutory rape charge stick in most states and when she told him her age wouldn't be relevant.

The final accuser claim that he sexually assaulted her in his car.

The only think keeping him from facing criminal charges for the 14 YO and the one who is claiming she was assaulted is the statute of limitations.

The final accuser claim that he sexually assaulted her in his car.

And that one, from my understanding is the person with a yearbook signature from Moore that looks suspiciously like the signature a legal clerk working for Moore used a couple decades later, where those extra (extraneous) initials actually belonged to the clerk, signifying it was "signed for"(and by whom) rather than "signed by."

So it's probably a false claim somebody thought they could bolster their case with by copying Moore's signature off of one of the legions of legal documents his offices have produced over the years... They just happened to choose the wrong document to copy off of.

Again, no one is declaring Moore guilty of a crime, they're simply saying they don't want such a creep to serve in Congress, only in the Presidency. :(

And only if they're named Clinton.

It's NOT something that most women make up. Instead, most instances of women withdrawing complaints is because they can no longer withstand the tremendous social pressures.

Agreed.
Sadly however there are those few making up accusations about this. Just today my local newspaper here in Germany reported the case of a model who had accused two men for raping her. She was found guilty, fined 20,000 Euro and forbidden to repeat the accusations. The decision is final.

HM.

The closest 'forbidden love', short of incest, is now human/alien love, which just comes across as silly/unrealistic in most instances.

There is always bestiality. Thinking Horndog has some dog porn.

A girl and her dog is always more realistic than aliens.

What about an alien dog?

It might have to be "A Boy and His Sheep"

Can Little Bo Peep solve the mystery of why her boyfriend seems strangely disinterested in having sex with her?

So you brought your sheep to school with you, instead of trying to find one there?

Ewe bastard! :)

The problem with most human/alien romances is that the aliens aren't fully fleshed out and read like a bad actor in a monkey suit. It spell 'Camp" from the get go.

Worth putting in the Author's Course 100

Oh yes

OOOOOHHHHH YEESSSSSS!!!!! (actually some of the letters may be lower case, but usually it takes a whole line of dialog for the two words. Sometimes "fuck my ass" is added.

I really don't get the obsession with anal sex

There was a fabulous exchange in the Australian TV show Underbelly which began with a statement like that.
The very trashy wife of a career criminal was chatting with a friend in her home and said, "I don't understand mens' obsession with anal sex. My guess is it'd hurt like buggery."
The house was bugged by the police and two officers were listening in. One asked, "Did she really just say that?"

My guess is it'd hurt like buggery."

The house was bugged by the police and two officers were listening in. One asked, "Did she really just say that?"

Given it was Australian the police officer had to be an immigrant not conversant with English street talk. In this context the speaker need not have had that experience - it merely means that it hurt like he imagines buggery would hurt.

Reminds me of the reference in Florida Friends whilst discussing double penetration that "the first time always hurts" or words to that effect.

The phrase 'to hurt like buggery' is a very old term to mean something that hurts a lot, but I sincerely doubt if more than about 1 in 50 of the people know what the word buggery actually means, but they'll be familiar with the phrase usage.

I know what buggery means and I have never in my life heard or seen the phrase "hurt like buggery" before this thread.

Hell, I lived in Manhattan and visited San Fran fairly often, and no one there has so much trouble they use the phrase.

Maybe they have acclimated to it. ;)

I know what buggery means and I have never in my life heard or seen the phrase "hurt like buggery" before this thread.

It's an Australian thing, and British. 'Bugger' and related words are particular favourites among the uncouth working classes of my generation - almost as popular as 'bloody'!

The idiomatic uses we have for them include:

Exclamations
You bugger! = (insulting) You rascal/fiend!
Poor bugger! = (affectionate) You poor thing!
Bugger! = (more polite than) Fuck!
Bugger off! = Get lost!
Bugger me! = I'm very surprised!

Adjectives
bugger all = nothing/very little
it's buggered = it's broken
I'm buggered = I'm tired
I'm buggered if = I don't know/understand
it's a bugger = (frustrated) it's difficult
hurts like buggery = hurts a lot

Phrasal Verbs
to play silly buggers = to behave in a stupid and annoying way
to bugger up = to mess up a task
to bugger about = to waste time

Occasionally, we will even use it with the original meaning, as in:
he's a bugger = he's a poof

It's an Australian thing, and British. 'Bugger' and related words are particular favourites among the uncouth working classes of my generation - almost as popular as 'bloody'!

Whilst I recognise all the quotations from my long-ago youth the word seems to be being replaced in this area at least. We would often replace it by "fuck" as in fuck off you bastard or muck as in muck about or "Oh shit!" etc

the word (bugger) seems to be being replaced

With what, "Gay off!"

the word (bugger) seems to be being replaced

With what, "Gay off!"

R T F P

Read the Fucking Post (and fuck off ;-) )

Based on my relatively limited time there, the term "buggery" is pretty well known in Australia.

Bugger me! I agree with you?

Given it was Australian the police officer had to be an immigrant not conversant with English street talk.

You misunderstood. Mea culpa.
The police officer was conversant with street talk. Their comment was a statement, not a question, joking about the redundancy of someone saying buggery would 'hurt like buggery'. I should have transcribed the words as, "Did she really just say that!"

Similarly, the problem with most stories with significant stroke content is that the women aren't fully fleshed out - they're just there to be wet all the time and shout 'Oh yes' occasiona

For the few I tried reading the word "most" certainly didn't apply. Ergo, if you write stroke stories I will not be reading them

For the few I tried reading the word "most" certainly didn't apply. Ergo, if you write stroke stories I will not be reading them

That's just gone whoosh over my miniscule brain. Please could you elucidate. Would you substitute 'all' for 'most', for example?

I was referring to the quoted phrase

Similarly, the problem with most stories with significant stroke content is that the women aren't fully fleshed out -

and suggesting that my experience has been that all .....

It could be if the bestiality is a kink between two humans.

Except, that's hard to create a romance story out of.

Now, if you turned "A Boy and His Dog" into a romance between the two title characters, you'd be onto something.

That kind of story is out there, you need to search for Zoophilia (under story type on SOL category search) rather than bestiality.

Zoophilia Different from bestiality, it's about relationships between humans and animals, not just sex.

ETA: there are 262 stories on SOL tagged as Zoophilia

But if so, he should simply label it as straight-up porn and be done with it.

But if his story is more touchy feely emotional bonding between a human and an animal, then straight up bestiality, then labeling it as the latter will cause him more problems then not.

I'm still not sure I believe that despite seeing it from several sources - it might be a case of telling researchers what they want to hear, like Masters & Johnson

It could also be a case of sample selection bias whether selection by researchers or self-selection like an internet survey.

I don't get the appeal, personally.

No pregnancy risk.

No pregnancy risk.

Yeah, and you can trick God into thinking you're still a virgin.

But we have reliable contraceptives now, and theology that isn't fucking retarded. Despite the right wing's efforts to prevent access to both.

Yeah, and you can trick God into thinking you're still a virgin.

The I can think only one story what gives a reason given for anal besides "she likes it".

In 'A New Past' by Charlie Foxtrot, the initial excuse for anal sex is that the MC's girlfriend's grandmother would not pay for college and cut from her will any of her three (known) granddaughters who lost their virginity before marriage.

Granted, there might be stories where the male protagonist convinces his female sex partner to try out anal since he enjoys fucking and being fucked by guys as well.

No pregnancy risk.

Isn't that where lawyers who go into poli-ticks come from? ;)

Acceptable age-difference formula: x ≥ y/2 + 7 x= chick's age y= Bro's age

What? Surely that should be x ≥ the lesser of (y/2 + 7) and (y - 4).

it basically means,

If the girl is younger than you, than you take your age, divide it by two and add 7 years

20/2 +7 = 17
18/2 +7 = 16
16/2 +7 = 15

it basically means, if the girl is younger than you, than you take your age, divide it by two and add 7 years

I got that, but it also means guys under 14 can only date chicks who are older than them. That can't be right!

This current Roy Moore controversy was the first time I'd heard of the 'half plus seven' formula, although I'm fine with 'half plus four'

The first time I heard of the 'half plus seven' was here on SOL with a story titled Fifty Percent Plus Seven by Richard King

https://storiesonline.net/s/72699/50-plus-7

The first time I heard of the 'half plus seven' was here on SOL with a story titled Fifty Percent Plus Seven by Richard King

I'm pretty sure the first time I heard this calculation mentioned was in 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes' (1953 movie) with Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe.

This current Roy Moore controversy was the first time I'd heard of the 'half plus seven' formula, although I'm fine with 'half plus four'

half plus four is a little too much pedo for real life.

22m would be 15f
20m would be 14f
18m would be 13f
16m would be 12f

And let's not start with 14m and lower....
Half plus 7 is good because it bottoms out at 14m14f

Article 113 of the Bro Code: A Bro abides by the accepted age-difference formula when pursuing a younger chick. Acceptable age-difference formula: x ≥ y/2 + 7 x= chick's age y= Bro's age

Don't know if someone else brought it up, but sometimes around the late 19th century, that one "flipped." Previously, the reverse of that formula was possibly being used to determine selection criteria for men seeking wives.

Also in more current times, longevity/mortality studies also reflect that men in particular seem to reap a longevity bonus from having a younger spouse, while women seem not to. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers, but I think a 12 year spread was the point of diminishing returns for the male.

What was in it for the female? Nothing, the same studies indicated it shortened their life expectancy, with more pronounced effects noted in the wider age gaps.

What was in it for the female? Nothing,...

What a crushing statement. I feel my self-worth rapidly diminishing.

As someone else said before, the timing on the allegation against Roy Moore is of a concern, because he's been in the public eye for decades, yet only now is anything being said. I did see a report about most of the allegation are from when he was in public offices he was elected to as a Democrat, but I'm not sure on the timing of things, because I've not read all the reports or checked into it enough.

You are off on the timing. At the time he was supposedly dating teenagers as young as 14, he was and ADA (Assistant District Attorney). While the DA is elected, ADAs are not. It's a civil service position.

She said she told Moore how old she was "at some point." It may not have been before the alleged incident.

Assuming for the sake of argument the accusation is true, even if she lied to him and told him at the time that she was older, it wouln't matter for a criminal prosecution.

The way most states statutory rape laws are written, even deliberate fraud about age by the minor wouldn't be a valid defense against a statutory rape charge.

It's stupid in my opinion, but that's the way the law is. As a wise man once said, "The law is an ass."

What's protecting Moore from a criminal prosecution over that particular accusation is that it is well past the statute of limitations.

In a recent UK case, a judge accepted

In the US, it has nothing to do with the quality of the judges.

The law is explicitly written as a strict liability offense. It's irrelevant whether or not the defendant intended to have sex with someone under age or whether or not the defendant knew their partner was under age.

Yeah, the case you mentioned with the 12 year old is kind of extreme to be claiming a mistake of age.

But what about a 15 year old? Or 15 years 11 months? 15 years, 11 months, and 29days?

Under US law, you are expected to be able to tell the difference by sight between someone legal and someone one day shy of the birthday that would make them legal. And if you make a mistake, too bad.

But what about a 15 year old? Or 15 years 11 months? 15 years, 11 months, and 29days?

means you have to ask to ID and go by the don't open until date.

means you have to ask to ID and go by the don't open until date.

Evan if she has a quality fake ID, that won't matter under US law.

don't open until date.

i think you missed the humor :)

Under US law, you are expected to be able to tell the difference by sight between someone legal and someone one day shy of the birthday that would make them legal.

That's not a problem in Australia. Someone there can apply for a photo-ID, a drivers learning permit, on the same day they reach the age of consent, their 16th birthday.

That's not a problem in Australia. Someone there can apply for a photo-ID, a drivers learning permit, on the same day they reach the age of consent, their 16th birthday.

The problem with the US law, is that if a 15 year old shows you a fake ID, good enough to fool a cop, that says she is 18, that's still no defense against a statutory rape charge.

The problem with the US law

There appears to be a 'one of the innumerable' missing from that statement. :-)

If you pick up someone in a bar drinking alcohol that should be reasonable grounds of legal age, due to them having to show ID to the barman, but they could be a mature looking 15 y/o with fake ID and you're stuffed.

Depends on circumstances. There was a case ,many years ago of a 14 year old obtaining a driving licence from her state and using it as evidence of age before shooting porn.
They considered a rape type charge against the film makers but I understand that it was dropped because the state itself had acted on false information, perhaps forged information

The problem with the US law, is that if a 15 year old shows you a fake ID, good enough to fool a cop, that says she is 18, that's still no defense against a statutory rape charge.

I've read, in some states, the courts accept the defense pleading a 'mistake as to the wrongful nature of the act' in cases of statutory rape.

In a recent UK case, a judge accepted a man's claim that the 12yo he had sex with looked a lot older. But then our judiciary is of very low quality :(

In my opinion, the felony 'rape' shouldn't be treated the same as a traffic accident, i.e. a crime of negligence. Therefore the intent to have sex with an underage is required and the defense "I didn't and couldn't know" is allowed. Whether the allegation is true is a matter of the state of the evidence.

I'd be careful with judging from the distance without to truly know the specific circumstances of a trial. A look at the fashion runways and the twelve-year-old models walking on them tells me it can be difficult to guess a girls age.

by 14 or 15 it's tough to tell

... and there are no double-D cup sizes on fashion runways to guide you either.

I reckon 12 is an exception but by 14 or 15 it's tough to tell.

Given that the age of consent is fourteen in Germany, do you think it would be easy to make such a distinction depending on visual clues? Luckily German laws don't treat sexual crimes as a negligence offense, so the intention to engage a minor is a necessity for a criminal conviction.

I think he likes teen girls. I don't think he's a sexual abuser. Neither of those are absolute positions, depending on further evidence. The original WaPo piece quoted a then 17 year old as saying that she dated Moore for 2 or 3 months and he kissed her twice. In the same piece a then 14 year old said they got down to their underwear at his place and when she said "stop" he took her home. She said she told Moore how old she was "at some point." It may not have been before the alleged incident.

Even if you believe he got undressed with the girl, neither of those sounds like the later accuser who said when in a car, after having just met, he forced her face into his groin.

Further, the Post tracked the girls down, not the other way around. Not sure how exactly the Washington Post found them, but still. As to Ms Groin, her yearbook claim that was used as evidence to back her claim might be a forged signature from one Moore's former assistants(who often signed papers on his behalf), not himself.

Was that before or after he was a judge?

Before.

It's possible Moore did what they claim, but why hasn't anything been done or said about it until right now.

Yes, the timing is a bit suspicious.

However:
This all happened well before the internet, and even if it was talked about, at the time, it wouldn't have gotten national coverage. And given when it happened, you'd probably have to go through the local paper's off-line archives to find any coverage it may or may not have received at the time.

As for doing anything about it, they only accusation that would have warranted a criminal investigation back then was the one who claimed to have been 14 at the time. However, it would have been the local DA that would handle any prosecution, and he worked in the DA's office as an ADA.

Until now, the highest elected office he has campaigned for is State Supreme Court. This is his first time running for Federal Office (US Senate).

You think 'it's also interesting he's now standing as a Republican after decades as a Democrat' and you are 'suspicious of the timing of who brought this to the attention of the Washington Post at this time'. If you believe in a democratic conspiracy to influence the election, why not just say so? Your insinuations weren't very subtle, anyway.

I have no interest in US party policies and would think the validity of the accusations is more important. As a voter I'd prefer to know it before, rather than to hear about it after the election.

Let's just assume it is an accusation brought forth by Democrats at precisely this time to influence the outcome of the election and they have known of this for decades; would that change your vote if the accusation proves to be valid?

You are going on and on about how "suspicious" the timing of revelations about his past are. It NOT SUSPICIOUS. It's ABSOLUTELY ROUTINE!
EVERY TIME someone stands as a candidate for a much higher office than they've ever sought before, the opposing party will look into their past for whatever skeletons they can find, as it should be. This time there were some so egregious that senior members do not want to have anything to do with him.

It suspicious because the reports indicate people have known about them for years, but only NOW is it a problem to be made public. And if you can't see that's an issue, I can suggest a good eye doctor for you.

You suggest others decided to keep these facts hidden for many years.
Have you ever heard of libel laws? They make it far to risky for anyone to publish such details without an extensive investigation sufficient to defend whatever claims are made in the courts. How many organisations in Alabama have the skills and resources to do that? How many would risk pissing off their readers in a very "red state" by doing so? Who could justify the risks just to take down a lowly state official?
However, once he was standing for election to the US Senate it became an issue of national importance, one that a national newspaper was willing to take the associated risks, and had the skills and resources to do the job properly.
Not for the first time, you've become too tiresome to be bothered with. For my sake, I'm going to resist any temptation to respond to anything you post for about a week, and I'll hope for the best after that.

It suspicious because the reports indicate people have known about them for years, but only NOW is it a problem to be made public. And if you can't see that's an issue, I can suggest a good eye doctor for you.

This is simply a reminder (and info to those who didn't see it first, second and third time round that the publisher reckons he is unfit for office (and may have been "persuaded" to issue the reminder)

Is Ernest Bywater a real person or a Russian bot stirring up trouble to interfere in U.S. elections?

It would show that neither party candidate is worth voting for.

To discredit your opponent is a time honored method to win elections. If it generally bothers you that much, who do you vote for?

I go by voting agin people.

'Agin' as in 'the whole world seemed agin him'?

It suspicious because the reports indicate people have known about them for years, but only NOW is it a problem to be made public.

For this part I'd agree with JohnBobMead. As long as he didn't cross legal bounderies why would anyone care about his habbit to chase young girls? When he applies for a high official position, the rules change. I would assume he's either too careless or, which is worse, too stupid to be elected for the office.

To discredit your opponent is a time honored method to win elections.

I would say it's a tried-and-true method to win elections; I don't consider there to be any honour in it at all.

There's not enough facts out there to say who did what or why

THAT IS A COMPLETE LOAD OF CRAP!

Mitch McConnell, the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate, thinks he knows enough of the facts and this is what he had to say about Moore:

"He's obviously not fit to be in the United States Senate ... And we've looked at all the options to try to prevent that from happening."
- USA Today, Nov. 14, 2017

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/11/14/mcconnell-says-roy-moore-not-fit-serve-senate-wont-rule-out-expulsion-option/863619001/

"He's obviously not fit to be in the United States Senate ... And we've looked at all the options to try to prevent that from happening."

As far as I am concerned, that comment could have been made about most politicians, including the ones already elected.

I just think the timing is very suspicious.

If it were occcuring on it's own, without all the others coming forward concerning people with power and sexual predation, one might find the timing obviously political, yes.

But it's not happening in a vacumm.

It's just one of many revelations of sexual predation that are occuring at this time.

In Moore's defense, I don't get the impression that he was using his political position at the time to coerce the women he approached. And as has already been discussed, except for the 14-year-old, all the women he approached were of legal age; in that case, the question is did he stop at the time he found out she was 14, or did he persist for a while afterwards? If he stopped as soon as he found out her age, cool.

I have to admit that in this particular case I'm of split opinion. Personally, I don't want him in office. But that has to do with his previous actions in office. The age differential between Moore and those he was seeking out to hopefully get involved with doesn't really bother me thst much, since they were of legal age. This does presume that once they informed him they weren't interested in him, he left them alone.

If he persisted after being told they weren't interested, that's a problem. If he was actually banned from certain shopping malls because of how he was going about approaching the women involved, that's a problem.

But the age differential?

While society frowns on it, it's legal. If it's legal, it's not grounds for disqualifying him from office. And it's the age differential that seems to be getting a lot of people upset.

And a lot of people on social media are slinging around terms that clearly aren't acccurate. He's not a pedophile; while he focused on young women, he focused on physically mature young women, which would make a true pedophile throw up.

The timing is just too perfect to disrupt his campaign for anyone to not be suspicious of it.

I see nothing suspicious in the timing. As DS noted:

Until now, the highest elected office he has campaigned for is State Supreme Court. This is his first time running for Federal Office (US Senate).

It is entirely understandable that a highly respected national newspaper like the Washington Post - which, BTW, is renowned for its general bias towards conservative causes - could not justify the effort required for a detailed investigation of rumours about him as long as he was only running for statewide offices, but that changed once he became a candidate for the US Senate.
Your professed suspicions of the Washington Post's integrity seem unfathomable to me. You regularly relay comments here on political topics - as if they were facts - from much less trustworthy sources.
I am confident that before running the story, the senior editors at the Post would have insisted their journalists collected a substantial body of corroborating evidence from various independent sources. Do you think Bob Woodward, who still works there as an associate editor, would remain silent if his newspaper was publishing a story on such a contentious issue if it didn't have evidence to substantiate its claims?
As to the likelihood he never committed a criminal offense, so what? If the Post's report has any credibility at all he is at best an opportunistic, amoral sleazebag, seeking to exploit the immaturity of young women up to the greatest extent the law does not prohibit. If the Post was aware of such serious allegations, once he stood as a candidate for such a high office, is it not duty-bound as a responsible newspaper to seek to validate those claims, and then make voters aware of the evidence regarding his truly despicable character - before they have the opportunity to elect him?

This is the first time Moore has sought federal office, but the third time he's run in a state-wide election.

State judicial elections, which usually don't get national news coverage.

The Post is DC's liberal rag.

Hmm. After a few minutes research I've concluded it probably is. I trust you'll understand that a foreigner who mostly reads the NY Times, because print versions are available in SE Asia, could gain the impression that the Post was considered the conservative alternative.

Its the NEW YORK Post, not the Washington Post, that is the conservative alternative to the New YOrk Times.

Its the NEW YORK Post, not the Washington Post, that is the conservative alternative to the New York Times.

THANKS for explaining the likely source of my misunderstanding.
I will cancel that test for dementia I just scheduled. :-)

I will cancel that test for dementia I just scheduled. :-)

Why pay for a test? Anyone who reads you posts will probably be willing to certify your dementia. :-)

Anyone who reads you posts will probably be willing to certify your dementia. :-)

Thanks? I led with my chin and you obliged me.
But really, they could, and some happily would, certify me as 'certifiable', but I haven't been here long enough for any to know whether my condition is a progressive illness or I've always been this way.

progressive illness

Do we want to bring up politics?

Do we want to bring up politics?

Somehow, we always bring up politics sooner or later.

Do we want to bring up politics?

No! It's difficult enough to swallow already.

Been awhile since we descended into puns.

Well, if you don't want to descend into puns, don't skydive over a bakery. :)

TWSS.

Very bunny.

we descended into puns.

And on the third dough we rose again. :)

And on the third dough we rose again. :)

That one takes the cake, and swallows too.

That one takes the cake, and swallows too.

Mmmm, the cake was delicious. :P

It's also interesting he's now standing as a Republican after decades as a Democrat.

Maybe it's the chosen atonement for his sins.

We get the best government the country can afford.

LSHIAPOFLO (Laughing so hard I almost passed out from lack of oxygen)

Any suggestion that we can afford the government we currently have is absurd. Go look up the National Debt some time. (this is not the current budget deficit, but the accumulation of rolled over debt from past budget deficits).

Just simmer down 80% of the military spending and come to a level with the rest of the world.

Just simmer down 80% of the military spending and come to a level with the rest of the world.

Which still wouldn't be affordable.

Just simmer down 80% of the military spending and come to a level with the rest of the world.

US Defense spending is not enough to make a significant difference, even if cut to a level with the rest of the world.

Comparative graph

What they need to go after is health spending. Obamacare did not go anywhere near far enough. They need something similar to Britain's NHS or Australia's Medicare. The population would be much healthier too. The life expectancy of US compared to other industrialised countries is a disgrace, even though they're spending about twice as much per person.

US Defense spending is not enough to make a significant difference, even if cut to a level with the rest of the world.

As a second perspective to support the above, While US defense spending is the bulk of the discretionary budget, once you add in non-discretionary spending (such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid, interest payments on the long term national debt), the US military budget shrinks to just 16% of federal expenditures.

Edited to add source. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

The life expectancy of US compared to other industrialised countries is a disgrace, even though they're spending about twice as much per person.

This is not accurate. Once violent deaths (murder, suicide, auto accidents) which impact overall live expectancy, but have no relationship to the quality of our health care system, then US life expectancy jumps to the top of the list.

This is not accurate. Once violent deaths (murder, suicide, auto accidents) which impact overall live expectancy, but have no relationship to the quality of our health care system, then US life expectancy jumps to the top of the list.

That seems highly plausible. I'll look into it. :-)
Would you agree the 'bang for your buck' the US achieves from its level of spending on health is a disgrace?

Just because a few others (the US is 8th on the list you cited) are even worse off, doesn't mean our debt to GDP isn't already dangerous.

I agree that "dangerous" was a poor word choice ... but I did qualify that with "- yet".
It's not at unsustainable levels yet, but the danger it will get there unless some drastic changes are made is real. In fact, as the likelihood of drastic changes being made anytime soon is so remote I think that is almost inevitable.
Two questions ... Can you tell me whether the ratio of debt to GDP over 100% include the Social Security Trust Fund, and if so what percentage of GDP that is?
I suspect the answer is no, it does not include promises it has made to itself (Treasury bonds), then the current trends are indeed scary.

Would you agree the 'bang for your buck' the US achieves from its level of spending on health is a disgrace?

Yes. We spend way too much, but that's mostly due to Federal Government mismanagement of Medicare and Medicaid.

It's not at unsustainable levels yet

I disagree, it's unsustainable now. In an economic crash, that could double or triple almost overnight and there wouldn't be anything the federal government could do to "stimulate" the economy.

Keynesian economists who say that kind of long term national debt are actually ignoring half of what Keynes said.

Yes, he said the government could stimulate the economy in down times through deficit spending, but he also said they needed to pay back that debt in the good times. There is nothing Keynes him self said that approves of deficit spending through economic boom times or the maintenance of ANY level of long term national debt.

ETA: US levels of national debt vs GDP, might be sustainable if the US were actually paying it down, but we aren't. The national debt in absolute dollars continues to increase year after year and that is NOT sustainable regardless of current debt to GDP levels.

I have some quibbles around the margins of your comments.

The national debt in absolute dollars continues to increase year after year and that is NOT sustainable regardless of current debt to GDP levels.

I totally disagree. I think the absolute level of national debt is irrelevant: it's only the ratio of that debt to GDP that matters.

There is nothing Keynes him self said that approves of deficit spending through economic boom times or the maintenance of ANY level of long term national debt.

I've never heard that, and I'm not doubting it is true, however, if so that would be one of the major mistakes which Keynes, like Einstein, made in an otherwise inspired body of work. I see no evidence that advanced economies cannot comfortably and indefinitely maintain debt to GDP ratios up to about 50%, and if the economy is not being severely mismanaged, probably up as high as 70%.
The main question is what purposes that debt is put to. If the US had been devoting its deficits to things like adequately upgrading its transport infrastructure, even at current levels it would not entirely be a bad thing. It did nothing like that. The net effect of its debt has been to rob future retirees and welfare recipients, Peters, to fund excessive consumption by those in the past and current day, Pauls. :-(

There can be no doubt, as it currently functions, the "third rail" of US politics, its Social Security system, is unsustainable. And this IS NOT because its "Trust Fund" is on course to run out in a few decades time. That fund is significant to the political debate, but it has NEVER had any tangible effect in the real economy (beyond modifying the effective rates of income tax individuals must pay). It is a complete fiction. AFAIK, everything paid into it comes straight back to the government as the fund is obliged to invest all of its "assets" in Treasury bonds. Nothing would change if it was legislated out of existence and the Federal government began paying retirees itself from its general coffers!

Germany has a similar fund, but they bit the bullet when it became obvious the fund was on course to run out. The fund cut the rates of benefit payments to retirees to maintain its viability. I don't know if their fund has the freedom to invest contributions it received as they see fit. I presume they do. Without that, if such funds can only invest in government bonds, they may as well not even exist.

In contrast, the benefits the US Social System are currently paying out are effectively "tied to train tracks" at the moment - just waiting for the "locomotive", intractable gridlock within Congress, to smash into them. Unless ways are found to cut those payments, reducing the maximum level of payments or increasing retirement ages, budget deficits will blow out to an extent that the US will follow Japan down the path they are on.

I totally disagree. I think the absolute level of national debt is irrelevant: it's only the ratio of that debt to GDP that matters.

You are somewhat correct the problem is not strictly the absolute level of the national debt, but the fact that it increases year over year every year, bad time or good. Constantly increasing debt can not be sustained indefinitely under any conditions. Eventually it will reach immediately catastrophic levels.

You are somewhat correct the problem is not strictly the absolute level of the national debt, but the fact that it increases year over year every year, bad time or good.

As I said, it was a "quibble" whether the absolute level or ratio is the relevant measure. That's a moot point when they are both headed in the same direction - which makes me wonder - why were you not an enthusiastic Clinton supporter during the last election given the amazing success Bill had in achieving significant budget surpluses. See this graph.
He was the first to do so since Truman who was - no surprises here - another Democrat.
Correction. I just spotted one more year. There was a tiny surplus in the first year of Nixon's presidency, handed over to him by Johnson, who was - surely you can see the trend by now - another Democrat.

That graph really is worth examining closely. It's easy to see a clear pattern of responsible Democrat presidents working hard to bring deficits down to sustainable levels - only to have Republicans to come along and every time they smash open the piggy bank and blow everyone's saving on their latest guerre d'année or welfare-for-the-wealthy scheme. When will the voters ever learn?

But, DS, you're still in your forties and you should be worried about what level Social Security benefits will be at the time you start receiving them. There's this bunch of ruthless, red, raving raiders of everybody else's piggy banks doing their utmost so your benefits will be much lower than you're told you may anticipate.

why were you not an enthusiastic Clinton supporter during the last election given the amazing success Bill had in achieving significant budget surpluses.

Because Hillary is not Bill.

But, DS, you're still in your forties and you should be worried about what level Social Security benefits will be at the time you start receiving them.

Yeah, I expect they will be nil.

Yeah, I expect they will be nil.

Damn! Is that all you have to say? I just worked really hard polishing my incendiary rhetoric (e.g. responsible Democrat presidents, guerre d'année, and welfare-for-the-wealthy), and I can't even get a bite?

responsible Democrat presidents

A set of one (Bill Clinton).

responsible Democrat presidents
A set of one (Bill Clinton).

Have a closer look at the graph I provided a link to.
The data suggests Kennedy/Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama all left the While House with lower deficits that they inherited.

The data suggests Kennedy/Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama all left the While House with lower deficits that they inherited.

It take more than merely lower deficits to make for a responsible President. Particularly because Congress holds primary responsibility for the budgets.

As to Obama, not for lack of trying, but he followed a Republican President with a Republican controlled Congress (I did say full control by Republicans was worse for the budget than full control by democrats) and Obama was faced with a split congress for most of his time in office with with the House of Representatives in Republican hands and the Senate controlled by the Democrats. The Democrats had full control only during Obama's first two years in office.

Note: the US constitution requires that all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.

It take more than merely lower deficits to make for a responsible President. Particularly because Congress holds primary responsibility for the budgets.

I concede that my last post, after you'd made that highly relevant point, was nothing more than an abuse of statistics, and made with the only intention of doing some 'shit-stirring' hoping to irritate some Americans.

For those unfamiliar with the British slang expression 'shit-stirring', the Oxford Dictionary definition of it is:

the activity of trying to make a situation in which people disagree even worse

Because Hillary is not Bill.

It's a fair cop, guv'na.

given the amazing success Bill had in achieving significant budget surpluses.

Bill Clinton had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress.

See this graph. He was the first to do so since Truman who was - no surprises here - another Democrat.

You are comparing the wrong factor to the graph. The president doesn't control the budget, Congress does.

Who controls Congress matters far more than who sits in the White House.

As I already said, Bill Clinton faced a Republican controlled congress and was willing to work with them. I do not believe that Hillary would have been able to do so had she become president.

In general, budget wise, the US tends to run lower deficits and/or surpluses when Congress and the White House are opposed. Full control by the Democrats will lead to higher deficits, but full control by the Republicans (see GW Bush) is even worse.

Bill Clinton faced a Republican controlled congress and was willing to work with them. I do not believe that Hillary would have been able to do so had she become president.

In general, budget wise, the US tends to run lower deficits and/or surpluses when Congress and the White House are opposed. Full control by the Democrats will lead to higher deficits, but full control by the Republicans (see GW Bush) is even worse.

I cannot argue with any of that.

Good luck, BTW, for the next few years with GOP control in the White House and both Houses of Congress.
It's a tough ask for the Democrats to win either House next year.
In the Senate, the Democrats need 3 seats to gain control, but only 8 Republicans are up for re-election, versus 24 Democrats plus two Independents who caucus with them.
In the House, with the effectiveness of the GOP's latest gerrymanders, a landslide to the Democrats in the popular vote may still not be enough to win control - as has just happened in Virginia.
People should probably stop referring to America as a (lowercase) "democratic" countries. At many levels that is certainly no longer so. I don't consider it undemocratic that Trump won the electoral college with a much lower popular vote, and the Senate is effectively immune to any shenanigans, but the House and many state legislatures are effectively oligarchies where citizens have the right to cast a vote - and to have it ignored!

Germany has a similar fund, but they bit the bullet when it became obvious the fund was on course to run out. The fund cut the rates of benefit payments to retirees to maintain its viability. I don't know if their fund has the freedom to invest contributions it received as they see fit. I presume they do.

Germany doesn't have a similar fund, didn't have one at least since WWII.
Our "Rentensystem" and our "gesetzliche Krankenkassen" are organized for sharing the costs. The working people have to pay a percentage of their income and this money is immediately used to pay the retirees and medical bills respectively.
They have a small fund to cover the expenses for some months, in case of the retirement funds for less than one year.

The whole system was created after WWII, because the funds had lost nearly all their assets: Treasury bonds had no value, real estate was lost or destroyed, same for debenture bonds, either the real estate was lost/destroyed or the issuing bank didn't exist any longer because it's seat was in eastern Germany or in those parts of the 'Reich' given to Poland or Russia.

Rumor is, the first Chancellor of Western Germany – Adenauer – when confronted with the liabilities of the system has said: "People will always have children."
But then nobody imagined birth control pills.

HM.

Germany doesn't have a similar fund ... working people have to pay a percentage of their income and this money is immediately used to pay the retirees and medical bills respectively.

Thanks. So, they have a similar system of compulsory contributions, right?
The difference, which I noted, is that in Germany the contributions actually determine the level of benefits paid out.
I would say you have a fund that is real, and designed to keep its balance as near as possible to zero.
In contrast, in America all contributions received end up going straight in the government's coffers, and are then used to fund current spending. The "fund" consists of nothing more than promises that at some time in the future the government will transfer funds from its left hand to its right hand!?

In contrast, in America all contributions received end up going straight in the government's coffers, and are then used to fund current spending.

Actually no. US Social Security benefits are paid primarily from current Social Security taxes from Current workers. The trust fund was not originally ever intended to hold a large balance, and by law benefits are limited to Current payroll tax receipts + the trust fund balance.

The problem is that back in the 1980s Congress realized that the coming retirement of the Baby Boomers was going to crash the Social Security system. They jacked up the SS Payroll tax rates to a level much higher then needed for paying current benefits to build up the trust fund before the baby boomers retired.

However, by law every dollar in the trust fund has to be invested in a security instrument as least as safe as US treasury bonds (which of course means only treasury bonds qualify), so all the actual money went to the general fund.

The Trust Fund has become nothing more than a legal smoke screen allowing higher benefits than the law allows by funding the benefits with current debt. Because the only way for the US Treasury to redeem the SS Trust Fund bonds is to issue new debt against the general fund.

I think we are saying the same thing.
The fund only exists in the minds of politicians and the public. The law states payments can only come from the fund, but there is nothing with any real value in the fund. Nothing would happen if it was simply legislated out of existence, except some Treasury bonds the government only ever sold to itself would disappear.

Nothing would happen if it was simply legislated out of existence, except some Treasury bonds the government only ever sold to itself would disappear.

Not quite true, without other corresponding changes, SS benefits would immediately be cut by about 1/3rd.

Not quite true, without other corresponding changes, SS benefits would immediately be cut by about 1/3rd.

WHAT "changes"? Obviously I meant legislating so payments would remain at existing levels. No actual money would then end up anywhere different.

WHAT "changes"?

By law from back when SS was first created in the 1930s, total benefits payed out can not exceed current SS tax receipts + trust fund.

Simply eliminating the trust fund leaves benefits restricted to current payroll tax revenue.

Obviously I meant legislating so payments would remain at existing levels. No actual money would then end up anywhere different.

Then obviously you should have said that, rather than:

if it was simply legislated out of existence

It being the Trust Fund.

By law from back when SS was first created in the 1930s, total benefits payed out can not exceed current SS tax receipts + trust fund.

If that restriction, "cannot exceed", was removed at the same time as the fund was legislated out of existence, the system could continue functioning as if nothing had changed.
I can't be bothered continuing this exchange. There is nothing tangible in the fund and there never has been.

was removed at the same time as the fund was legislated out of existence, the system could continue functioning as if nothing had changed.

True, but it's in a different section of the Social Security act than the section that created the trust fund in the first place, so simply repealing the section that created the trust fund to eliminate the trust fund wouldn't by itself be enough.

There is nothing tangible in the fund and there never has been.

And there never will be and that is as designed from the original Social Security Act passed during the FDR administration.

There is nothing tangible in the fund and there never has been.
And there never will be

Good night. :-)

The difference, which I noted, is that in Germany the contributions actually determine the level of benefits paid out.

It's the other way round. The level of benefits is determined by law and the contribution gets adjusted to raise enough money.

HM.

Dominion's Son:
This is not accurate. Once violent deaths (murder, suicide, auto accidents) which impact overall live expectancy, but have no relationship to the quality of our health care system, then US life expectancy jumps to the top of the list.

Ross at Play:
That seems highly plausible. I'll look into it. :-)

Hmm, if you exclude those deaths, you have to exclude those numbers for all countries.
I doubt it's correct to exclude suicides, they're part of the – mental – health of the population.

HM.

I doubt it's correct to exclude suicides, they're part of the – mental – health of the population.

I agree and would include accidental drug overdoses as mental health problem too. Those have soared in the US recently to alarming levels.

We all know the real reason - but confirm your suspicions by looking at this graph showing why American suicide rates are so high.

We all know the real reason - but confirm your suspicions by looking at this graph showing why American suicide rates are so high.

Most suicidal persons want a quick and certain death. This goal is easier attainable with a gun. Try to get a poison with high letality that works quick and painless. Jump from a bridge or a house, can you be certain it's a quick death? Can you even get in position to jump?
How many traffic accidents are in fact suicide attempts?

As a suicide candidate why should I write a farewell letter? Because it's ecpected? Why should I care about expectations?

I bet many suicides are not recognized as suicides, the exception are suicides by gun. It's either suicide or homicide arranged to look like suicide.

HM.

Most suicidal persons want a quick and certain death. This goal is easier attainable with a gun.

If access to guns is such a big factor in suicide, please explain how the suicide rate in Japan where civilian gun ownership is practically non-existent is significantly higher than the US suicide rate.

If access to guns is such a big factor in suicide, please explain how the suicide rate in Japan where civilian gun ownership is practically non-existent is significantly higher than the US suicide rate.

Japan is an extreme "outlier" with its suicide rates due to cultural differences.
There are other ways of committing suicide. In the US the suicide rates in states with the highest gun ownership rates (over 50%) are about double those of states with the lowest gun ownership rates (less than 10%).

In the US the suicide rates in states with the highest gun ownership rates (over 50%) are about double those of states with the lowest gun ownership rates (less than 10%).

To me those suicide rates are suspect. As I already wrote, suicides committed by other ways may not be recognized as suicides or a suicide may be possible cause but not conclusively proven. Those cases don't show in the statistic as suicides. OTOH, homicides may show up as gun suicides.

I admit easy availability of guns will increase suicide rates, just because it's a nearly foolproof way for sucessfully committing suicide.

HM.

To me those suicide rates are suspect.

Yes, it's impossible to know whether some deaths were suicides or not, but wouldn't the level of errors due to those uncertainties tend to be similar across various states?
If God gave you real figures, the graph would probably look very similar, but the numbers on the scale may be different.

Yes, it's impossible to know whether some deaths were suicides or not, but wouldn't the level of errors due to those uncertainties tend to be similar across various states?

No.

In states where guns are easy to get, a far higher percentage of the suicide candidates will use guns for their suicide.

With many other methods of suicide especially traffic accidents it's often problematic to determine if it was really an accident or suicide. The errors cause lower figures.

Suicides by gun shots however usually can't decared as accidents. OTOH, homicides may probably be counted as suicides, causing higher figures.

I bet the percentage of suicides by gun shots (of all suicides) is significant higher in states with easy access to guns. So the level of errors is lower in those states.

HM.

BTW, easy access to guns increase the cases of successful suicides and – because it makes it easier to commit suicide – increase the total number of suicides.

BTW, easy access to guns increase the cases of successful suicides and – because it makes it easier to commit suicide – increase the total number of suicides.

I'm inclined to think that is the overwhelming reason for the trend apparent in that graph I identified, probably by enough to make other influences you mentioned on the accuracy of the data pretty much insignificant. Does it matter whether the ratio from top to bottom is 2:1 or 1.5:1? I think not: the impossible dream that the US would introduce strict limits on gun ownership is the obvious choice the society would make if the majority of its citizens gave a damn about reducing the rate of violent deaths and injuries.

Violent deaths are a problem for any society, however I beg to differ.

Has the society the righ to hinder suicides? It's my life and no other should interfere if I want to end it.

How is the ratio of death by traffic accidents to those caused by guns?

Here in Germany not only guns are restricted, the blade length of knives is restricted too. Knuckledusters and some other weapons are illegal, even slingshots.
Back when I was a youngster, teenagers could by slingshots, I had one then.

But those weapons are still bought in Czechia and other countries or the darknet and then used in Germany.

Weapon control laws won't stop the bad guys but make the good ones helpless. For the police it's impossible to protect people at all times.

Want to injure or kill people? No weapon needed:
Throw heavy stones or logs from bridges on the cars below.
In railway or subway stations wait until a train comes and then push one of the waiting on the rails.

HM.

Weapon control laws won't stop the bad guys but make the good ones helpless.

Because you don't need a weapon to attack, whereas you need one to defend yourself? That hardly makes much sense.

Because you don't need a weapon to attack, whereas you need one to defend yourself? That hardly makes much sense.

If I just want to randomly injure or kill people, I need no weapon.
It's another cattle of fish if I want to kill someone particular or a particular group of people, then I need a weapon – not necessarily a gun, a machete will do as proved some month ago in Baden-Württemberg. If some of the attacked or bystanders carry, they can stop me.

HM.

It's another cattle of fish ...

FYI, you got the context just right, but the expression is "kettle of fish". A kettle is a container used for boiling water. :-)
The same word is used in 'the pot calling the kettle black' meaning 'that is hypocritical'.

If some of the attacked or bystanders carry, they can stop me.

Sure, and with some bad luck, one of the helpful and armed bystanders will shoot the victim, some other onlookers, and maybe even the attacker.

Sure, and with some bad luck, one of the helpful and armed bystanders will shoot the victim, some other onlookers, and maybe even the attacker.

I'm no gun fanatic, but I believe we shouldn't ban guns.

I can live with a licence system like a driver's licence.

Some hours of gun safety and shooting training required, followed by a theoretical and practical test, then you get your carry permit. Like a driver's licence it can be revoked.

For purchasing a gun you have to show your carry permit and the serial number is added to your file in the new federal gun owner database.

When your carry permit is revoked, you lose your right to own guns.

OK, I recognize that there will be people who will have guns without carry permit, but that's exactly the same problem as people driving cars without driver licence. And don't tell me a gun is deadlier than a car, it isn't.

HM.

As long as no one can prove that guns in the hand of private citizens significantly lower the number of crimes, I'm more worried by the increase in the number of guns. Brave vigilantes and freedom-fighters, sitting in their basements and polishing their beloved weapons, dreaming of the day they finally can shoot someone in self-defense, is no happy image for me, either.

Such long and detailed post and in the final sentence you come to a conclusion not supported by anything you wrote before.

No, I don't need to re-read. In the end, it boils down to different belief systems. You believe the world would be a better place if everyone had a gun in his pocket, and I don't.

I don't believe everyone should have a gun, and I never said that.

Since your choice evidently would be to carry a gun, and it's of course the right choice, it's simply logical that everyone should make this choice.

Obviously.

Yeah, I get it. Not walking around but a gun at home to defend against the socialist revolution .. and all the critters, of course. I understand. In Germany we also live in constant fear of a socialist revoluition. I'm mostly worried they might conspire with the Martians.

have a word with the people who supported Tzar Nicholas, and the Emporer of China

I'll talk to the spirits of the late supporters of Tzar Nicholas and the Emperor of China right after I finished my discussion with the Martians.

I'll talk to the spirits of the late supporters of Tzar Nicholas and the Emperor of China right after I finished my discussion with the Martians.

I feel todessehnsüchtig too.

You got me, I totally overlooked those facts.

For an armed citizen to assist in dealing with an armed criminal you need certain factors to be present:

Exactly this happened with the recent church shooting in Texas. The shooter was shot by an armed neighbor of the church as he took off in his car.

Brave vigilantes and freedom-fighters, sitting in their basements and polishing their beloved weapons

For that lot, the person they should be most worried about is themselves!

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The rate per 100,000 of "Unintentional" deaths in the US by firearms in the US is 0.18.
Rates of "Unintentional" plus "Homicides" include Australia 0.18, Germany 0.08, and United Kingdom 0.06.
A lot of them must be trying to shoot themselves in the foot but accidentally blowing their brains out instead.

As long as no one can prove that guns in the hand of private citizens significantly lower the number of crimes, I'm more worried by the increase in the number of guns.

There's not exactly solid evidence that they increase crimes all that much, particularly long guns.

Long guns are involved in only a fraction of a percent of all gun related crimes in the US. The number of murders committed with long guns is so low as to be statistically insignificant.

About 0.5% of all the guns that exist in private hands in the US will end up being used to commit a crime.

There's not exactly solid evidence that they increase crimes all that much, particularly long guns.

I read this article about gun laws in relation to gun crimes: 'Gun Laws, Deaths and Crimes'
I regard it as a quite unbiased survey.

The author concludes a direct correlation between the laws and the crimes isn't discernible.

It varies between the states, and they look only at if it has a cutting edge. If it has a cutting edge it's illegal. The crazy thing is if you have to buy a new knife in a shop, you have to leave it in the packaging until you get home, or they can arrest you,.

Here the police seem to have plenty if discretion but it seems that if the cutting edge is under 3" long and you are an adult you will be OK. Box knives (I am guessing at what you mean) here have retractable blades which can have the end broken off and my blades are three inches long when fitted. Longer than that you need a very good reason to have them outside the house. My younger teenage sons worked weekends in a greengrocer's and had to use their own knives which, because of the nature of the work had longer blades; we were always slightly concerned about them being stopped going to work but OTOH they are white, in an area without much knife crime and few police patrols.

There is an outright ban on all flick knives (which can be opened by the press of a button or similar). The family I was brought up with had a few genuine Gurka kukris and eastern stilettos, the former being used occasionally in the garden - I'm sure those are now illegal

The whole question here is open to ridicule - I had legal felling and splitting axes and hatchets for undergrowth which 1) had longer cutting edges and 2) were potentially far more fatal if misused. What about bow saws - 80 centimetres of serrated cutting edge kept sharp?