SkyDekker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    20,980

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    Canada

Posts posted by SkyDekker

  2. 9 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

    My personal opinion is the older the better for both sex and marriage.   

    Fair enough. I thought you had alluded to statutory rape laws preventing young marriage. Personally I think criminalizing sex for young people is not good policy. I am comfortable with "close in age exemptions" allowing consent for 14 year olds. But, I see no reason for anybody under 18 to get married. I specially don't agree with allowing parents to consent to that. Not all parents have the best interest of their children at heart.

    • Like 1

  3. 26 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

    "If you are 15 years old, a judge may give consent and issue the marriage license if the marriage is in your best interests. Otherwise, a license will not be issued to anyone under age 16."

    https://www.kscourts.org/Public/Apply-for-Marriage-License/Marriage-License-Application-FAQs#:~:text=You must be 18 years,not have a legal guardian.

    Yes...so at 15 you can get married, but sex would be considered statutory rape.

    Wisconsin is another state where your argument doesn't hold true. 16 year olds can get married (with parental consent) but sex cannot be consented to until 18. But at least when you have sex with your underage bride you are only committing a misdemeanor in Wisconsin.

  5. 3 minutes ago, jakee said:

    Why so defensive that you need to deploy such a transparent dodge? 

    You set the goalposts of 'true corruption' as what is actually illegal, even though you also claim people who the justice system has decided are not engaged in corrupt behaviour are in fact guilty of corruption.

    Those are your goalposts, and you're still gonna have to explain how they're both on the same field despite your attempt at ad hom distraction.

    This will be my last post on this.

    Corruption is as defined in relevant statutes. Much of what is being ascribed to politicians being corrupt isn't actually against any statute.

    Separate, but related, what doesn't help this perception of corrupt politicians is that SCOTUS has made it harder for politicians who do actually break corruption laws, to be successfully prosecuted.

    Now people, somewhat like you are doing, can have the following argument:

    Person A: look at all those politicians getting filthy rich, they are all corrupt.

    Person B: Yes. Just yesterday I read about politician A who took a bribe, but he didn't get convicted because the evidentiary standard is so damn high.

    Person A&B: fucking politicians are all corrupt.

    Person C: MAGA!! Trump is going to drain the swamp.

    Person A,B & C: Politicians are all the same, fucking corrupt bastards. Trump might be corrupt, but at least he is going to change it all. Why else would the Deep State be fighting so hard to keep him off the ballot.

     

    So Jakee, thank you for contributing to the popularity of Trump.

     

  6. 46 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

    You're getting kinda silly. The Statutory Rape law for each state has a range. None of them include, 6,7,10 year olds. If it were up to me, no one would marry until they were 25, finished college or vocational school, had a $10,000 nest egg and taken five classes on parenting. 

    But, nobody called me for my opinion.   ;)

    Yet in Kansas one could get married at 15, but sex at that age is statutory rape in Kansas.

  7. 35 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

    You're getting kinda silly. The Statutory Rape law for each state has a range. None of them include, 6,7,10 year olds. If it were up to me, no one would marry until they were 25, finished college or vocational school, had a $10,000 nest egg and taken five classes on parenting. 

    But, nobody called me for my opinion.   ;)

    So your idea is that when you are legally allowed to have sex you should be legally allowed to get married?

  8. Ahhh I forgot it was you Jakee.....keep moving the goal posts to get the last word in my friend. I know you'll have a hard time sleeping otherwise and I would not want to be responsible for a deterioration of your mental health.

    • Like 3

  9. 2 minutes ago, jakee said:

    Then why did you call them guilty if your point is that they are not guilty? 

    "When you can no longer prosecute the guilty, everyone gets painted by the same brush."

     

     

    Wonder why you didn't provide the entire quote?

    "I think there is a giant overstatement of how many politicians are truly corrupt.

    But is is disconcerting when the US Supreme Court has made it pretty much impossible to convict a politician of taking a bribe."

    ahhh, because that would show it is two different issues.

  10. 3 minutes ago, jakee said:

    When the foxes vote to allow themselves to kill chickens, the chickens still end up just as dead.

    True and you would be wrong calling it murder. Which has been my point.

  11. 1 hour ago, jakee said:

    Coincidentally, Jon Stewart just did a decent bit about the amount of rampant profiteering that occurs throughout Congress which Congress themselves have ensured, through legislation and internal rules, is legally not corruption. Even though it sure as hell sounds like it.

     

    Not corruption if it is legally allowed. Which was pretty much my point.

  12. 1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

    In my view absolutely not and it will be quite interesting to see how it gets parsed here. Just to get ahead of the parsing a bit I'm not thinking about wearing lipstick or lace undies (while they're still legal here) or any other self identifying other sex clothing etc. I'm thinking about medical procedures.

    Personally I think a 16 year old should be able to get breast reduction surgery if it is causing serious back pain. Sorry to see you would object.

  13. 1 hour ago, BartsDaddy said:

    But if they want to transition to different gender , we should deviate from that?

    If there are medical decisions, a doctor should be involved. Wanting to get married may require a shrink, but it isn't a medical decision.

    Personally I do think that irreversible procedures not driven by an underlying medical condition should not be done on those under 18.

  14. 1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

    In some places some people believe there is a good reason.....

    In Judaism, Christianity, and some other Abrahamic religions, the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" (referred to as the "creation mandate" in some denominations of Christianity) is the divine injunction which forms part of Genesis 1:28, in which God, after having created the world and all in it, ascribes to humankind the tasks of filling, subduing, and ruling over the earth.[1][2] The cultural mandate includes the sentence "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth."

    Right and it is exactly the rule of government to protect society against the negative impact of weird cults.

    • Like 1

  15. 16 hours ago, nigel99 said:

    Truly corrupt I wouldn’t know, although there is a remarkably high number over the years who have been caught.

    Is there? There are about 520,000 politicians in the US

  16. 17 hours ago, BIGUN said:

    That was exactly his point. 

    What if a 6 and 7 year old want to get married and the parents are fine with it? The fact is that we have generally recognized that children are not capable of fully understanding the gravity of their decisions and need to be protected from themselves. We have generally set the age of 18 at which they can do so. There is no reason for marriage to deviate from that.

  17. 21 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

    But, what he's saying is - if a 16 and a 17 year old want to get married AND the parents are ok with it, then why should the government get involved. 

    If a 14 and a 13 year old want to get married and the parents are ok with it, then why should the government get involved?

  19. 17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

    The age of consent is 16 all across Canada. What is it where you are?

    Not entirely true. There is a "close in age" exemption for 14 and 15 year old to consent to sex with somebody less than 5 year older who isn't in a position of power or authority.

  20. · Edited by SkyDekker

    On 5/11/2024 at 7:44 PM, nigel99 said:

    I didn’t say that the average voter wasn’t dumb! Trump calls out the system, the fact that he would tear it down to replace himself as King and cares nothing for Joe Average is a blatant expression of what many politicians appear to aspire to - they just aren’t quite as transparent.

    I’m not sure if irony is the right word for it, but seeing support for Trump based on distrust of corrupt politicians is certainly confronting. 

    I think there is a giant overstatement of how many politicians are truly corrupt.

    But is is disconcerting when the US Supreme Court has made it pretty much impossible to convict a politician of taking a bribe.

    https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/04/26/u-s-supreme-court-justices-take-lavish-gifts-then-raise-the-bar-for-bribery-prosecutions/

    When you can no longer prosecute the guilty, everyone gets painted by the same brush.

  21. 6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

     Thompson Rehder's bill prohibits marriage licenses from being granted in Missouri to anyone under the age of 18. Currently 16 and 17 year-olds can get marriage licenses with parental consent, and marriages are currently banned between minors and anyone aged 21 and up.

    “Why is the government getting involved in people’s lives like this?” VanSchoiak said. “What purpose do we have in deciding that a couple who are 16 or 17 years old, their parents say, you know, ‘you guys love each other, go ahead and get married, you have my permission.’ Why would we stop that?”

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/why-would-we-stop-that-missouri-republicans-oppose-bill-to-end-child-marriage/ar-BB1m7L8J

    Because if we are deeming people not old enough to have a drink or old enough to buy a cigarette, or old enough to elect who represents them, we shouldn't deem them old enough to decide who they want to spend the rest of their life with.

    • Like 1

  22. 4 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

    Curious. Did you have a bad experience with Tesla?

    Nope. Just read enough articles about build quality concerns. tesla has a long history of blaming them on the drivers. Turns out they knew all along their parts were defective. Where I live I can't throw a rock without hitting a tesla, they are absolutely everywhere. Lots of people are happy with them it seems. But whenever I take a close look at them, I am not impressed with the quality of the actual product.

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/

    Tesla is in second last place in the JD Edward's reported problems per 100 vehicle category. With only Polestar performing worse. (and that is without the data from states where approval is required to approach buyers with the questionnaire, since Tesla refuses to provide such approval).

     

    • Like 1

  23. 17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

    That would be a new accomplishment, not a new technology.

    I slotted it under the new principle. Nobody had used that technology to put a lunar lander together.

    And however hard we want to fanboy Tesla, they aren't quite on that level. They execute somethings pretty well, like the technology and software part. They do some other things very, very poorly, like building an actual car that doesn't fall apart.

  24. 59 minutes ago, SethInMI said:

    Tesla was rolling out OTA software updates to its entire fleet multiple times a year from 2012 and still does it today for millions of cars.  Other car companies are finally getting on board 12 years later. 

    Yup, great software/technology company.

    Vehicle quality has been a longstanding problem for Tesla.

  25. 1 hour ago, billvon said:

    What the comparison referred to is that there was no new technology in Apollo, if your definition of "new technology" is a never before seen device or principle. 

    Well, other then putting men on the moon, which was never done before.