That is a pretty extreme view, considering that I’ve never heard The Hustle. Why do you believe in the supernatural? 
But I believe if you did, you would like it.
((hug)) It’s okay, you’re among friends here.
Now you’re just showing off!
My “most extreme” view is about a way to get rid of the ‘worst’ criminals and simultaneously getting rid of prison overcrowding/the need to build more prisons:
The sentencing for convicted criminals comes down to coming up with a number of days to be served, based on a set number of days for each type of crime, adjusted up or down based on things like gratuitous violence/cruelty
or extenuating circumstances/first offense/whatever.
Basically, this is not much different from what we do now, except rather than ‘serve 10 years’ you would be told ‘serve 3650 days.’
The prisoner’s number basically decreases by 1 for each day he spends as a well-behaved prisoner. There could be things he can do to reduce his number faster: earning a high school/college degree could chop off large amounts, providing some service to the community (helping in nursing homes? cleaning highways? whatever) could earn given reductions.
Of course, his numbers go up for bad behaviors such as fighting or drug usage/smuggling, whatever.
Again, this isn’t different in kind for how it works now.
The BIG difference is what happens when your prison is full and a new criminal is sent there: you go down to the cell of the prisoner with the current highest number and shoot him through the bars. No appeals, no extra hearings, nothing. The guy with the highest number gets killed without ceremony. Then the newbie gets that cell along with the job of cleaning up the mess to help him realize that consequences of being other than a model prisoner.
See? No more overcrowding, the prison population gets encouraged to behave themselves, and the prisoners killed are the ‘worst’ ones in your system.
I mean that both her age and her gender are mitigating factors. In the sense that I believe the victim is less likely to suffer as much psychologically as a result. I specifically mentioned teenage child, because I believe if the child is very young it would be just as traumatizing regardless of ages/genders involved.
The fact that I have to dodge dozens of these people every single time I feel like taking a walk outside makes me see it as nothing short of harassment. There is one on every corner and I have to constantly divert my course and tell each one separately to leave me the fuck alone. I like to take walks to get lost in my thoughts and concentrate on stuff. They make it literally impossible. I struggle to see the parallel with the first amendment.
I am forced to admit that, although I am an opponent of capital punishment, I find this proposal has a certain attractive simplicity to it.
But what if there’s a tie?
So am I correct in inferring that you think that a teenage girl is likely to be traumatized by having sex with a hot 20 year old guy? That’s adorable.
Their right to speak exceeds your right to never be inconvenienced for a split second. Try pretending that you’re as emotionally invulnerable as a teenage boy (as opposed to those oh-so-fragile teenage girls) and just deal. Failing that, headphones. You don’t have to turn them on, just wear them and you won’t even have to acknowledge anyone, just look straight ahead and walk.
Kill them both.
I have to say, I dislike the capital punishment system, but I like this too. As long as sufficient rewards are built into it that one can genuinely reduce one’s day count with concerted effort, the ones that can’t/won’t comply can be wasted as far as I’m concerned.
How about a nice compromise? Set this prison in a proven to work Swedish model so that there are the maximum number of people having the potential to reform, and little risk of recidivism (the Danish and Swedish prison systems are famous for both despite being very lenient) but with the “full - prisoner 869 you’re up” end point to prevent prisons getting any bigger. Nice.
I said middle-aged man. I chose two specific, extreme opposite statutory rape scenarios because between them I see the biggest difference.
(young woman - young boy | older man - young girl)
Once you start changing the variables around (age/gender/victim), the difference decreases.
Or, to answer your question, I don’t know whether an underage teen girl would be traumatized by having sex with a 20-something guy, but I believe it’s less likely to be traumatizing than if it were a middle-aged man.
Yeah, obviously I deal with it because it’s legal on their part. I think it shouldn’t be and that’s what I came in this thread to say. Street fundraising is the same as email spam to me, neither of which I consider forms of free speech. If you insist it’s “free speech”, then I just say I think there should be limitations on this “free speech” you speak of. I’m cool with however you define it.
I do see a small flaw in your plan. People in prison are not very nice. Some of them are rapists. Suppose you steal bread for your starving family and go to prison for it. You are not violent, but you are good looking. You got … purty lips! And a lot of someones there decides they’d like to have sex with you. So you wind up getting in a lot of fights, strictly because you are against the homosexual rape of you, not because you like fighting.
As I understand it, in prisons fighting for any reasons gets you in trouble, so you are gonna have a pretty high number. Perhaps the highest. Might get you killed, and that seems wrong to me. I mean, there’s really nothing wrong with defending yourself from rape … is there?
Another automotive one…
I believe that there should be another class of driver’s licence, over and above the existing full licence. Let’s call it the “Expert” licence.
This licence would allow the driver to ignore all speed limits. The flipside is that the Expert-class driver takes total responsibility for anything that goes wrong connected with his or her driving. Little old lady pulls out in front, thinking you’re doing 85 km/h, when you’re actually doing 225? The collision is deemed to be your fault, no matter what happened. You are assumed to be capable of stopping or avoiding her.
To get an Expert licence, you take the normal driving school and tests, and then go to a high-performance driving school. In addition to today’s high-performance and racing driving, the curriculum would deal specifically with high-speed driving in an environment of much slower drivers.
Of course, insurance for Expert-class drivers would be expensive. I am still trying to decide whether cars driven over the limit by Expert-class drivers would have to be specially inspected and held to a higher standard of fitness. And maybe the Expert-class driver would have to show flashing lights when driving over the limit?.
I notice you specified “hot”. Does sex with an ugly older woman seem more likely to be traumatic to you?
What if it wasn’t a woman, what if it was a man?
I thought of another one today - drastically limiting school and playground traffic zones. I think an hour in the morning and an hour when kids leave school should be sufficient, instead of the endless zones that we have here now (7:30 AM to 5 PM M-F for school zones, 8:30 AM to 1 hour after sundown every day for playground zones). Kids too young to be left to walk on their own should be walked or driven; kids old enough to understand how to walk around traffic need to be taught by their parents, and the responsibility for their safety put back on the parents and the kids instead of everyone else in the city.
No traffic zones for playground zones at all - only kids old enough to understand traffic are ever in playgrounds by themselves. The rest of the kids always have a parent with them.
The notion is amusing, but makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever other than being a plot device for Death Race 2000. It’s effectively giving some people carte blanche to endanger other peoples lives at will without even the utility of saving lives etc. that emergency service workers like EMTs, policemen and firemen etc.
What would be the rationale behind granting this license?
That Sunspace wants one, I expect.
I think moral views never correspond to reality. This means that the Holocaust wasn’t wrong in anything but a personal sense. Of course, it wasn’t right in anything but a personal sense either. I just don’t think moral facts exist.
Of course not. Morals and ethics are subjective by definition. That’s why we have laws.
Well, I guess, but people’s personal sensibilities, if you like, don’t vary that much.
We may as well say migraines are only bad in a personal sense; conceivably someone might like having migraines.