This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
jack_spain wrote:Sorry I haven't had the time to read all posts, so someone might have mentioned this.
Last week it was reported that in Tassie a woman was given a three-month's suspended sentence for having full sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She wasn't even listed as a sexual offender.
Now the point I raise is this: What if the roles were reversed?
What if a man had sex with a 14 year old girl?
Not only is it a monty he'd have gone to prison and been listed on the sex offenders' register, but people in society might actually have referred to him as a pedophile.
Why the double standards?
Does Tasmania even have a sexual offenders register? I'm not sure every state does have. I don't see the point of your argument apart that it points towards the strong possibility that your an insecure misogynist who gets his knickers in a knot about every so-called injustice towards men involving women. Then again we don't know the circumstances of the case nor the judge's thinking behind his judgment. Perhaps you should attempt to ascertain this before any argument proceeds further.
Oh aren't you a happy little camper today.
My point is very clear. The same offence committed by a man would lead to an immediate jail term. The woman got off scot free. Why?
As far as I'm aware the sex offenders register is a national one, so naturally it would cover Tasmania.
Its actually not national at all. The laws creating the register and that lead someone to be placed on one as a sentencing provision are state laws, and it is the state police forces who are responsible for enforcing its provisions. Sex offender registers, unlike the notorious Yellow Book are not public documents. Offenders have a responsibility to abide by the conditions they are subject too and police can charge them if they do not. However they are not public documents and only those with access to police IBR's can ascertain who is on it (those present for the sentencing know of course).
The prosecutor makes application for someone to be placed on the register, it is not mandatory and is discretionary on the judge to grant it or not. I believe they are also contestable.
In that Tasmanian case you'd need to know whether it was applied for and if not, why not? Was it contested? Or was this a discretionary act by the judge? You would need to know the answers to these questions and the facts of the case before any conclusions about the case could be drawn. I doubt the reason not placing her on an offenders registers has little to do with "gender inequality" as you propose however.
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad".
jack_spain wrote:Sorry I haven't had the time to read all posts, so someone might have mentioned this.
Last week it was reported that in Tassie a woman was given a three-month's suspended sentence for having full sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She wasn't even listed as a sexual offender.
Now the point I raise is this: What if the roles were reversed?
What if a man had sex with a 14 year old girl?
Not only is it a monty he'd have gone to prison and been listed on the sex offenders' register, but people in society might actually have referred to him as a pedophile.
Why the double standards?
Does Tasmania even have a sexual offenders register? I'm not sure every state does have. I don't see the point of your argument apart that it points towards the strong possibility that your an insecure misogynist who gets his knickers in a knot about every so-called injustice towards men involving women. Then again we don't know the circumstances of the case nor the judge's thinking behind his judgment. Perhaps you should attempt to ascertain this before any argument proceeds further.
Oh aren't you a happy little camper today.
My point is very clear. The same offence committed by a man would lead to an immediate jail term. The woman got off scot free. Why?
As far as I'm aware the sex offenders register is a national one, so naturally it would cover Tasmania.
Its actually not national at all. The laws creating the register and that lead someone to be placed on one as a sentencing provision are state laws, and it is the state police forces who are responsible for enforcing its provisions. Sex offender registers, unlike the notorious Yellow Book are not public documents. Offenders have a responsibility to abide by the conditions they are subject too and police can charge them if they do not. However they are not public documents and only those with access to police IBR's can ascertain who is on it (those present for the sentencing know of course).
The prosecutor makes application for someone to be placed on the register, it is not mandatory and is discretionary on the judge to grant it or not. I believe they are also contestable.
In that Tasmanian case you'd need to know whether it was applied for and if not, why not? Was it contested? Or was this a discretionary act by the judge? You would need to know the answers to these questions and the facts of the case before any conclusions about the case could be drawn. I doubt the reason not placing her on an offenders registers has little to do with "gender inequality" as you propose however.
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid!
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!).
^Funny thing is, reading through the thread I'm now turning into Pied Piper by cautioning you against taking these things on LOL. What a difference a couple of years makes!
I just want you to succeed without taking on the burden of the world and then getting kicked in the nuts for your efforts. Resist the lure of the dangerous for a bit and focus on something you enjoy that you can also build a good life around.
[Puts mirror away LOL].
Anyhow, I reckon there's progress afoot from those days all round
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid!
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!).
This is where my lack of formal education shows out, I have no idea what that bolded bit means.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid!
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!).
This is where my lack of formal education shows out, I have no idea what that bolded bit means.
Im also pretty sure Amy G Dallas was a porn star...
pietillidie wrote:^Funny thing is, reading through the thread I'm now turning into Pied Piper by cautioning you against taking these things on LOL. What a difference a couple of years makes!
I just want you to succeed without taking on the burden of the world and then getting kicked in the nuts for your efforts. Resist the lure of the dangerous for a bit and focus on something you enjoy that you can also build a good life around.
[Puts mirror away LOL].
Anyhow, I reckon there's progress afoot from those days all round
I'm still a little disappointed by PP's responses in this thread, I think. Of course he was totally entitled to his views and was wise to some extent to suggest a more cautious approach, but I think I missed the critical engagement that he so often offered on other challenging topics.
But yes, I think I've also learned a few hard lessons about sensitivity, which never goes astray!
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid!
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!).
This is where my lack of formal education shows out, I have no idea what that bolded bit means.
It's ok, I've been to university. It means that his personality automatically likes Alan Didak.
I've noticed David has been unfairly vilified on Nick's by the usual pre-scientific authoritarians on a number of topics lately. Personally, as David knows, I advise him to establish himself technically and financially before taking on these sorts of things, but it's like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid!
It's very hard to discuss anything unsavoury yet important in the midst of people whose amygdalas too readily overcome them - even assuming a strictly medico-scientific framework.
And you wonder why I worry about a lack of formal education (You're a freak - your balanced worldly upbringing and auto-didactic personality does not generalise!).
This is where my lack of formal education shows out, I have no idea what that bolded bit means.
It's ok, I've been to university. It means that his personality automatically likes Alan Didak.
Haha then it's a good thing!
Your right David a dash of sensitivity will make your posts a lot less squirmy to read ! Cheers
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Autodidacticism (also autodidactism) is self-directed learning that is related to but different from informal learning. In a sense, autodidacticism is "learning on your own" or "by yourself", and an autodidact is a self-teacher. Autodidacticism is a contemplative, absorptive procession. Some autodidacts spend a great deal of time reviewing the resources of libraries and educational websites. One may become an autodidact at nearly any point in one's life. While some may have been informed in a conventional manner in a particular field, they may choose to inform themselves in other, often unrelated areas. Many notable contributions have been made by autodidacts......
But I prefer NTPM's definition:
"It means that his personality automatically likes Alan Didak".
Also from Wiki
Amygdala:
The term amygdala may refer to:
in anatomy, the amygdala , any organ consisting of a grid of epithelial tissue and lymph nodes containing follicles
to Amygdala , a DC Comics character
the amygdala , core set of neurons
the amygdala , another name that is known to spinal cerebellar lobe
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Very interesting article. Asks a lot of disconcerting questions. One bit I did pick on is the bit bolded below
Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light Jon Henley
Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. .
Lets remember that at the same time, children as young as 5 were sent down the coal mines to work, women were chattel and only land owners were allowed to vote. Social perceptions have certainly changed, largely for the better IMHO.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
