I dunno, I gave the first two volumes of Morrison's "Doom Patrol" a try, and it just seemed like an edition of Mad Libs: So Quirky!

It left me cold. And I've loved other throw-stuff-at-the-wall comic book series, like Bob Burden's "Flaming Carrot" and Michael Kupperman's "Tales Designed to Thrizzle."

Bitcoins have appreciated nearly 100% over the past four days.

The ECB raised the amount they need Cyprus to contribute by €900 million. The ECB is worried about additional capital flight and suspect more money will be needed to recapitalize the banks.

The current proposed plan is to wind Laiki bank down by putting the insured deposits (€100,000) into a 'good' bank and the rest into a 'bad' bank. The deposits in the bad bank would be partially made whole by the sale of assets held by the 'bad' bank. Ultimately this likely means deposits in Laiki over €100,000 will likely lose 30-40% of their value.

In addition, all bank deposits over €100,000 will be hit with something on the order of a 15% bank levy.

This means the uninsured portions of deposits in Laiki would be hit twice.

The current proposed plan is to wind Laiki bank down by putting the insured deposits (€100,000) into a 'good' bank and the rest into a 'bad' bank. The deposits in the bad bank would be partially made whole by the sale of assets held by the 'bad' bank. Ultimately this likely means deposits in Laiki over €100,000 will likely lose 30-40% of their value.

That's what they should do. Why would the government cover the uninsured deposits?

What exactly stops a troll from creating 'fake' bitcoins and flooding the market?

I dunno, I gave the first two volumes of Morrison's "Doom Patrol" a try, and it just seemed like an edition of Mad Libs: So Quirky!

I'm not that high on Doom Patrol. I think Morrison's best superhero work is probably his Animal Man run, which starts fairly conventional but becomes a unique and personal story. Issue 5 is one of the great single issues of any series.

As a dog owner, I think "We3" is his best work overall.

I'm not that high on Doom Patrol. I think Morrison's best superhero work is probably his Animal Man run

I'm not saying anything original here, but Doom Patrol isn't a superhero book. It's a prelude to the Invisibles, which is unquestionably the best of Morrison's stuff. I think Marvel Boy and his FF miniseries are a bit overlooked. I feel like the Filth is probably awesome, but I did not totally comprehend it when I read it.
---

Bitcoins have appreciated nearly 100% over the past four days.

And yet my Lindens haven't budged a penny...

What exactly stops a troll from creating 'fake' bitcoins and flooding the market?

The short answer is that everyone on the bitcoin system has a history of every bitcoin transaction that has ever taken place, and through the additional use of public and private keys new transactions can be verified. Essentially, if you wait for enough different people to verify the legitimacy of the transaction, it becomes very hard to fake a transaction.

New bitcoins enter the system as a reward for hashing a group of past transactions called a block in order to compress it. Essentially, everyone on the system races to be the one to find the correct hash (which is computationally difficult/expensive to find, but very easy to verify) and the winner gets X bitcoins, a number which decreases as the total number of blocks that have already been successfully hashed increases.

Edit: The total number of bitcoins that can exist is limited to 21 million, a number which is approached asymptotically by halving the total number of bitcoins awarded each time an additional 210,000 blocks are hashed.

Oh, I thought you meant the game involved hoarding and selling at inflated prices. That would be a game that I would want to play.

I have at least twenty games in my closet that you would probably love.

I own 150+ games, so odds are I have, or have played, some of them.

Yep. I don't think I've seen any of the Batman flicks.

You should. They're good. The middle one in particular is an excellent piece of work.

@1759:

The issue with harping about the victim's responsibility is that it is entirely counter-productive, if what you are actually trying to do is reduce the occurrence of rape.

This is so wrongheaded, so utterly backwards, that it's easy to correct.

Telling young women that getting drunk at parties will significantly increase the chances they will be raped seems to be a remarkably effective tool wrt the main chance: helping women not get raped.

How can this not be clear to you?

And it's so fucking easy to say. Here: "Young lady, if you don't get drunk at the party tonight, you will significantly decrease the chance that you will be raped this evening. However, if you are raped, I will comfort you afterwards without hinting in any way that you have anything to feel guilty of."

You've somehow just told us that telling (especially young, inexperienced) women which behaviors make rape more likely is "entirely counterproductive". I can't think of anything, frankly, more dangerous. It's like not telling your child going to the big city alone for the first time which neighborhoods are dangerous. Why would anyone fail to warn them of the dangers?

@1760:

The point of Devil's comment is that any attempt to direct attention to the victim diverts it away from the perpetrators...

What weak, sorry, dangerous bullshit. Most of us are able to actually hold two ideas in our heads contemporaneously, without diluting either. Here:

1. Rape is always completely wrong.
2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance you will be raped...

Most of us are able to actually hold two ideas in our heads contemporaneously, without diluting either. Here:

1. Rape is always completely wrong.
2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance you will be raped...

Oh, what the hell....

1. Racism is always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will go all Arpaio on you.

The preceding message was brought to you by Sincere Friends of Minorities.

Pardon the sarcasm, Jack, but think about it for half a second.

If an Hispanic parent took aside his or her child and gave him a list like that, there wouldn't be any confusion about the intent. Black children were, and in many cases still are, given variants of that "conversation." And of course parents give the female version of it to their daughters every day, even though they know that in an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary. And it's not as if the advice you're thinking about is all that bad.

But the point is simply that to be blunt, you're not the one to be giving that "list" to anyone but your own daughter(s). Yes, I know, "free speech", "PC", and all that, but as someone who's usually a lot more sensible than the people who reflexively fall back on those catchphrases, you're a lot brighter than that, and you know it.

Think about what your reaction would be if you were black (and perhaps you are, I don't know one way or the other), and some well intentioned white person started telling you not to "talk black", not to dress too outrageously, and generally just to act as "white" as you could, because otherwise some not so well intentioned white person might start stereotyping you and causing you harm in the form of employment denial.

I'd think that if you were human, and especially if you didn't know that person, you'd wonder why he wasn't concentrating his or her energies on changing the minds of those not so well intentioned white people, rather than giving out unsolicited advice to you.

But to get back to your two part comment: We address the first part by law and public education, plus by parent (or surrogate parent) to son conversations. We address the second part by speaking to our own children, or at the very least, as woman to woman. If your bottom line is changing minds and actions rather than just making a speech, surely those are the best channels of pursuing those valuable messages. IOW it's not the message here that poses the practical problem of reaching your intended recipient, it's the messenger.**

**And by that, I don't mean you personally, but any male who's addressing your second point to anyone he's not directly responsible for.

Oh, what the hell....

1. Racism is always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will go all Arpaio on you.

The preceding message was brought to you by Sincere Friends of Minorities.

Pardon the sarcasm, Jack, but think about it for half a second.

Andy, that's ########.

1. Car theft is always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will steal your car.


1. Muggings are always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will mug you.

Rape is a hell of a lot closer to the two above examples (which I assume you have no problem with) than racial profiling/modern day lynchings are.

God is this thread awful. First, a creepy discussion of the definition of rape and how to prevent it, then an marshmallow fluff discussion of comic books.

Baseball for the thinking fan? Really?

Morty, SBB, and Jack I can look past, because this sort of crap is par for course for them. But you're not getting off that easy.

Scumbag--try rereading your vile #2005 sometime after you've sobered up, and perhaps you'll regain the wit to realize that every arrogance you've accused Sam of you've amply demonstrated therein.

I'm happy to let you roll around in your own excrement, as it's what you so dearly love to do, but I'll note here that your perverse inability to talk honestly adds to the rape toll. Stop abetting rapists with your pathetic inability to distinguish between intelligent cautions, and "blaming the victim".

Grow up and learn to reason. As for referring to the KKK, you useless sack of shit, and for implying that several of us are of that ilk, stop being a gutless pc coward, and stop abetting the rape of women. It's important that those of us on the other side of the issue stop pretending that you and yours don't do wholesale damage.

2005:

That's a loathsome post.

Yes it is.

Take a breather. You've earned it.

You've now had three semi-frequent posters to the site (Vlad, MCoA, and tshipman) say that the gender stuff is actively making them want to avoid coming here. And Morty, as much as you might not like hearing it, you're one of the prime offenders. Sometimes the best thing to do is to stop typing and actually read what people are posting, rather than using every objection to your posts as fuel for your weird and quixotic persecution complex.

What was Raylan's line a few weeks back? “You run into an a$$hole in the morning, you ran into an a$$hole. You run into a$$holes all day, you’re the a$$hole.”

Pretty sure you've just described Vlad, MCOA, and tship as assholes.

You're actually proposing that because three of our most simpering sorts--of the kind that are all too happy to smear other posters, and each of whom has done so in a particular vile, general way without troubling to actually quote specific objections--can't handle the variety of thought here, that that's a good reason to change the nature of the discussion?? Holy ####.

I often disagree with Morty, but his views on gender, especially on a site predominantly lefty, and snotty towards any deviation, are invaluable. I haven't missed a second of MCOA's nasty, contemptible, holier than thou, utterly conventional crap, but I'd sincerely miss Morty's interesting thinking on sex, gender, the past and the future.

And, because despite the whining, it can't be said enough, regardless of context:

When you get drunk at a party, you put yourself at the mercy of the worst person in the room.

What weak, sorry, dangerous ########. Most of us are able to actually hold two ideas in our heads contemporaneously, without diluting either.

Unsurprising that the site's most vocal misogynist is back to defend victim-blaming, and misses the point in doing so.

Since it needs to be explained simply: A women is never at fault for the rapist's actions-- not for "putting herself in that situation" or for "making a bad decision" or for her rapist "mistaking vomiting for consent." And, the comment that started this whole discussion steered the conversation away from the rapists, making it about the victim's actions. That you seem unconcerned with the effects of this sort of rhetorical strategy is, again, unsurprising, given your track record when discussing gender on this site. #1 is the start of a conversation, not the end of it-- if you want to discuss the topic further, discuss consent and its various mechanisms, discuss all the ways that men go about victimizing women.

Grow up and learn to reason. As for referring to the KKK, you useless sack of ####, and for implying that several of us are of that ilk, stop being a gutless pc coward, and stop abetting the rape of women. It's important that those of us on the other side of the issue stop pretending that you and yours don't do wholesale damage.

Predictable, Jack. You're an ugly little misogynist-- you couldn't conceal it with your last identity, and you can't resist indulging it with this one. Everything you post drips with it. Enough people have noticed it and pointed it out to you that you might want to think on it, rather than lashing out at your accusers (which has pretty much been your MO under every identity you've had here, or pretty much every subject you post about).

The woman's actions are not part of the conversation. Making them part of the conversation in a public forum excuses the act of the rapist, by implying that the women took an action that caused the rape. She did not. The man's action is the sole cause. There's nothing a woman does that in any way invites the action, and suggesting otherwise excuses the actions of the rapist. Especially when that suggestion comes from a blatant and proud misogynist talking to a room filled exclusively with men.

I'm sure you'll continue with your unhinged ranting about being "PC"-- this isn't about that. It's about the fact that you're saying the same #### about rape that men have always said, and then acting like it's some bold and courageous statement. You've had 4 people in this thread identify the gender discussions on BTF as particularly ugly (not just this one, but the others that happen here frequently), and you're the worst and most serial offender. So keep it going, but you're hanging only yourself with that rope, Jack (or OmarsBlack, or whatever you're going by these days).

Rape is a hell of a lot closer to the two above examples (which I assume you have no problem with) than racial profiling/modern day lynchings are.

Did you sleep through:
1) The Treyvon Martin shooting and its aftermath
2) The part where Devil explained the problems with comparing rape to property crimes.
??

The woman's actions are not part of the conversation. Making them part of the conversation in a public forum excuses the act of the rapist, by implying that the women took an action that caused the rape.

One can note that nothing good is likely to come from drinking yourself to unconciousness without condoning those that harm an unconcious person.

Oh, I thought you meant the game involved hoarding and selling at inflated prices. That would be a game that I would want to play.

Slivers, if you're interested and know somebody who owns a Nintendo Wii (or own one yourself) check out Fortune Street. It's a party game that plays like Monopoly, but has added difficulty in that you can buy shares in stretches of property that will yield dividends when players land on those spaces. You can buy stock in other people's territories to cash in on their successes, then sell off all your shares to tank the market price and devalue their stock. It's pretty complex and will lead to no small amount of hatred amongst your peers.

Andy, that's ########.

1. Car theft is always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will steal your car.

1. Muggings are always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will mug you.

Rape is a hell of a lot closer to the two above examples (which I assume you have no problem with) than racial profiling/modern day lynchings are.

Several points in response.

1. Muggings and car theft aren't targeted at one gender. Prison rape aside, which is in a completely different category, virtually no men get raped, and to the extent that they are, nobody's giving them unsolicited advice on how to avoid it.

2. There's very little shame that's ever been associated with being a mugging or car theft victim. Those victims seldom get accused of "asking for it".

3. My reference to the modern day "conversation" that minority parents often have with their children wasn't about lynching, though it would have been several generations ago. It most certainly is about racial profiling by law enforcement officials, which is alive and well from Arizona to New York City. But more prosaically, it's more likely to be about avoiding the less visible form of racial profiling, engaged in by potential employers who are looking for an excuse not to hire you.

And the point isn't the lack of possible value of the advice that Jack was giving, it's that the person to be giving that advice---either about how to avoid racial profiling or how to avoid being raped---should be a parent, both parents, or someone who's close enough to them that the advice won't just go in one ear and out the other. I'm NOT saying that Jack or anyone else is "blaming the victim", or that they're "defending rape". But I am saying that for him or any of us (other than the handful of women who post here) to be giving advice to women on how to avoid rape amounts to just talking to ourselves, and I can't see the point of it.

Prison rape aside, which is in a completely different category, virtually no men get raped, and to the extent that they are, nobody's giving them unsolicited advice on how to avoid it.

What category is prison rape in, exactly? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious what distinction you're trying to make here by putting prison rape 'in a completely different category.' What is prison rape in a completely different category from and what's the basis for putting it in a different category?

What category is prison rape in, exactly? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious what distinction you're trying to make here by putting prison rape 'in a completely different category.' What is prison rape in a completely different category from and what's the basis for putting it in a different category?

Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. It's not the act itself that's different in terms of the horror and the degradation. It's that the sort of advice we see given to women on how to avoid it wouldn't have any application inside prison walls.

What sort of "advice" could anyone give to a prisoner to avoid rape, anyway? Don't wind up in prison to begin with? Be twice as strong as the next strongest person in your cell? Be known to have powerful connections with people who could make things very unpleasant for any potential assailant? None of that would be of much use to a random woman walking down a random street or going into a random bar where she doesn't know anyone.

What sort of "advice" could anyone give to a prisoner to avoid rape, anyway? Don't wind up in prison to begin with?

Implicitly, this is the advice being given, isn't it? Prison rapes aren't usually prosecuted. My suspicion is it's because on some level we view prisoners as not worthy of the protection because they failed to follow our advice.

It's analogous to a degree with the issue of 'advice.' A potential problem with the 'advice' in the Steubenville example is it leads to people standing around doing nothing, rationalizing what they are witnessing with a 'well, she shouldn't have gotten pass out drunk in the first place.'

Oh, what the hell....

1. Racism is always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will go all Arpaio on you.

Wow. This discussion. Can't even.

There is so much WTF here. Again: can't even.

See, Ray, Devil wrote multiple paragraphs following, in multiple posts, explaining in detail what she meant.

It wasn't immediately, of course, so I can wait for your thoughtful explanations regarding why you think racism isn't always completely wrong.

Unless you're just writing shit posts to be a dickish troll. But really, what are the chances of THAT?

So a stop and frisk or asking someone for their papers is the same thing as rape. Sure thing, Andy.

So a stop and frisk or asking someone for their papers is the same thing as rape. Sure thing, Andy.

No, and it's not the same thing as getting lynched, it's not the same thing as the Ukranian famine, it's not the same thing as the Holocaust, and it's not the same thing as the end of the world. Congratulations for not having claimed I was equating it with those last four. Your rhetorical restraint is admirable.

But here's a hot tip: I wasn't equating stop and frisk (or employment discrimination) to rape, either. But I am making the point that "advising" the victims of any of those experiences to change their ways is advice that is much more appropriately given by parents, or by others who are more likely to be listened to by the objects of such advice than a bunch of men posting on a baseball forum.

Or to put it in personal terms: If you have daughters, then by all means tell them whatever you feel you have to in order to keep them from exposing themselves to (possibly) avoidable danger. Failing that, what standing do you have to give advice to any girl or woman? I'd direct the same point to myself, since although our goddaughter thinks I'm kind of a neat old man, I doubt if my non-experience when it comes to matters like this would ever speak much to her as she enters her adolescent years.

Andy, that's ########.

1. Car theft is always completely wrong.

...

1. Muggings are always completely wrong.

What if I really want your car, but you won't give it to me peacefully? Then me mugging you for your car is clearly justified.

Stealing *my* car is always completely wrong, of course.

God is this thread awful.

You may return to your room for quiet time, DeLarge. The guards will come and get you when it's time for your next round of mandatory viewing.

Since we're still somewhat on the subject of crimes committed by minors, I wonder how harshly Snapper's going to want to punish these guys. Is shooting a toddler in the head, while he's in a stroller, because his mom doesn't have any money to give you better or worse than Steubenville?

That's kind of an odd question. May I ask why you are asking?

That's kind of an odd question. May I ask why you are asking?

While the rest of you recover from heart palpitations at the woman-hating audacity of the previous pages, I want to know how harshly Snapper would judge these two, given his stated desire to throw the Steubenville duo in prison for 10 years or so. I am asking because I want to know. That is all.

Everyone involved in bringing back this awful conversation deserves to be raped.

Is shooting a toddler in the head, while he's in a stroller, because his mom doesn't have any money to give you better or worse than Steubenville?

Worse to take a life than ruin one. They should be imprisoned until they can be rehabilitated.

I don't understand your gotcha.

While the rest of you recover from heart palpitations at the woman-hating audacity of the previous pages, I want to know how harshly Snapper would judge these two, given his stated desire to throw the Steubenville duo in prison for 10 years or so. I am asking because I want to know. That is all.

Ignoring your little bit of scenery-chewing at the start, I can't quite figure why you'd ask if murder is worse than rape as part of your question to the Court of Snapper vs. any other court. It seems to infer some kind of point that I admit I still can't decipher.

See, Ray, Devil wrote multiple paragraphs following, in multiple posts, explaining in detail what she meant.

It wasn't immediately, of course, so I can wait for your thoughtful explanations regarding why you think racism isn't always completely wrong.

Huh? Why are you changing the subject? Andy's "contribution" to the thread was that stop & frisk = rape.

I don't understand your gotcha.

The only "gotcha" involved here is the one you're making up in your head. I asked a simple question of a specific contributor.

Huh? Why are you changing the subject? Andy's "contribution" to the thread was that stop & frisk = rape.

This is a simple reading that Andy has by now answered.

If you directly quote one specific poster for the purpose of mockery of a specific topic, asking you too follow up in the same manner on that topic as the poster you quoted is not changing the subject.

Well, Andy is vindicated. Here is an example where stop and frisk really was rape.

Two Texas state troopers indicted for roles in roadside body cavity search of two women

Failing that, what standing do you have to give advice to any girl or woman?

So truthful public service ads can't be aimed at girls and women?

I have no idea where you come up with the idea that certain people lack "standing" to provide helpful advice to other people. (Not literally "no idea" -- you came up with it as a fallback position when you realized that what Ray first suggested indeed was truthful and useful advice. Being unable to argue against that, "standing" became the final redoubt of nonsense.)

The idea that "pulling an Arpaio" is in any way akin to rape is also insulting and nonsensical. "Racism" is of course entirely different conceptually from rape -- it being a state of mind as opposed to an affirmatively heinous act. Racially motivated bad acts can certainly be worthy of serious censure, though that's entirely different from "racism" itself. And as they get worse and worse, the racial component embedded within bad acts gets entirely dwarfed by the character of the act itself.

Since we're still somewhat on the subject of crimes committed by minors, I wonder how harshly Snapper's going to want to punish these guys. Is shooting a toddler in the head, while he's in a stroller, because his mom doesn't have any money to give you better or worse than Steubenville?

Since you ask.

Life.

Life.

Even the 14 year old? Is redemption closed to these two entirely?

Even the 14 year old? Is redemption closed to these two entirely?

If he's not the shooter, and he turns state's evidence against the shooter, he should be eligible for parole after 20 years. The shooter should have no possibility of parole.

I believe redemption is possible for anyone. But why must they be free to have redemption? Why can't they redeem themselves in prison?

And Wayne Lapierre becomes even more ludicrous:

NRA head LaPierre says Bloomberg trying to ‘buy America’

LaPierre said Bloomberg is making irresponsible claims about gun owners and the NRA.

“It’s insane the stuff he says,” LaPierre said.

When I see people like this, who make such obviously hypocritical statements like this, I often wonder- do they do it out of a delusion-ally degree of non-self awareness or do they just know what they want and will say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to get it. In a way, I'm kind of jealous. I could never say the things LaPierre says with a straight face, even if I was every bit the gun nut he is. I'd probably be a lot richer if I could do that.

I believe redemption is possible for anyone. But why must they be free to have redemption? Why can't they redeem themselves in prison?

What benefit to society would be gained by taking a 14 year old boy - assuming he was not the shooter just to make it simpler - locking him in prison for 20 years, and then releasing him? What skills will that 34 year old man have when he's released? How does living six more years in prison than he's lived in society help him rehabilitate or help society in general?

If he's redeemable, then you don't want to lock him up with career criminals for 20 years.

What benefit to society would be gained by taking a 14 year old boy - assuming he was not the shooter just to make it simpler - locking him in prison for 20 years, and then releasing him? What skills will that 34 year old man have when he's released? How does living six more years in prison than he's lived in society help him rehabilitate or help society in general?

It achieves justice. That child ain't coming back when he hits 21.

He can get an education in prison. He can work. If you give him a slap on the wrist, why would he reform himself?

Failing that, what standing do you have to give advice to any girl or woman?

So truthful public service ads can't be aimed at girls and women?

Public service ads, whether or not you agree with the particular message, come from more than one person, and don't consist of one particular gender giving advice to the other.

I have no idea where you come up with the idea that certain people lack "standing" to provide helpful advice to other people. (Not literally "no idea" -- you came up with it as a fallback position when you realized that what Ray first suggested indeed was truthful and useful advice. Being unable to argue against that, "standing" became the final redoubt of nonsense.)

Tell you what: Go out to the first 10 women you see whose dress you might find too provocative in certain situations, and start telling them that for their own good, they should dress more modestly. See how far you get. See what they think about your standing to lecture them. You seem to have this curious idea that the message can always be separated from the messenger, but in the real world that's often not how it works.

Of course on BTF you're not doing anything quite that stupid. Here you're just preaching to pigeons, since women aren't listening, other than the one woman who's spoken out and pretty much called you out for what you are. Your only reaction to that is to change the subject and start questioning the motives of those who agreed with her. The idea of incorporating her perspective into your thoughts is apparently beyond the pale.

The idea that "pulling an Arpaio" is in any way akin to rape is also insulting and nonsensical. "Racism" is of course entirely different conceptually from rape -- it being a state of mind as opposed to an affirmatively heinous act. Racially motivated bad acts can certainly be worthy of serious censure, though that's entirely different from "racism" itself. And as they get worse and worse, the racial component embedded within bad acts gets entirely dwarfed by the character of the act itself.

Once again you completely distort what I was saying, which had nothing to do with comparing the violence of rape to the non-violent invasion of a stop-and-frisk**, but with comparing the advice to be given to those who might want to avoid either (1) rape or (2) unprovoked confrontations with racially profiling policemen. The violations aren't the same, but the conversations that daughters and minorities have with parents who want their children to avoid misfortune often have much in common.

**Knowing you and Ray, I'm sure that you'll repeat this canard at least one more time before you finally just get tired of it and drop it.

It achieves justice. That child ain't coming back when he hits 21.

You confuse justice with vengeance. The kid ain't coming back at all. There's no benefit in exacerbating the terrible situation for the sake of your moral outrage. The toddler's dead. If a 14 year old is not mentally capable of making the decision to buy a pack of cigarettes then he's certainly not liable to be tried and convicted for a 20 year prison term.

He can get an education in prison. He can work.

This is simply wishcasting. Have you looked at the American prison industrial complex recently? They're not in the business of educating 14 year olds, unless you're looking to educate him in how to become a career criminal.

You confuse justice with vengeance. The kid ain't coming back at all. There's no benefit in exacerbating the terrible situation for the sake of your moral outrage. The toddler's dead. If a 14 year old is not mentally capable of making the decision to buy a pack of cigarettes then he's certainly not liable to be tried and convicted for a 20 year prison term.

No, you don't understand justice b/c you're stuck in a materialist, utilitarian mindset. Just has nothing to do with fixing the material harm caused, it's about balancing the metaphysical harm.

Executing Goering, and Eichmann and co. wasn't bringing any Holocaust victims back, and they were no threat going forward, but it needed to be done for the sale of justice.

I completely reject your view on the mental capacity of 14 y.o.'s. They know robbing people and killing babies is wrong.

I have no problem allowing 14 y.o.'s to buy cigarettes, or alcohol for that matter.

Tell you what: Go out to the first 10 women you see whose dress you might find too provocative in certain situations, and start telling them that for their own good, they should dress more modestly.

That wasn't really what we were talking about -- we were talking about getting so shitfaced that you lose control of yourself and your ability to function. Suggesting that people, including girls/women, don't do that is a good idea and pretty much anyone has "standing" to do so.

What you're really saying is that all advice about conduct and the like must be proffered by modern liberals or in keeping with the modern liberal script -- in which race and gender are paramount. If the message can't be separated from the messenger -- of course, it can be, but I'll play along -- there's a "white" message, a "black" message, a "female" message, etc., and that conception of an ineluctable tie between thoughts and race/gender is modern liberalism at its essence.

No such thing is true, which is why black people and women are entirely free to give me advice and "lecture" me.

Your only reaction to that is to change the subject and start questioning the motives of those who agreed with her.

That wasn't my reaction at all. I certainly didn't change the subject.

Once again you completely distort what I was saying, which had nothing to do with comparing the violence of rape to the non-violent invasion of a stop-and-frisk**, but with comparing the advice to be given to those who might want to avoid either (1) rape or (2) unprovoked confrontations with racially profiling policemen. The violations aren't the same, but the conversations that daughters and minorities have with parents who want their children to avoid misfortune often have much in common.

If the violations aren't the same -- and they aren't even close -- then the imperatives in preventing them aren't the same either. Preventing rape is far more important -- and thus advice far more appropriate -- than preventing "racially profiling policemen," whatever that means.