The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5214
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:17 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:If you're only freshening up (perhaps minimally shuffling) the drywall, then that is indeed different, but the reported costs (millions) and results (more accommodation) suggest something more to me. (Like I said, not looked hard at this, just acting as armchair architect.)


They really didn't do that much to the guts of the building:
The £10m project included extensive remodelling of the bottom four floors creating nine additional new homes, improved communal facilities for the residents, and improved spaces for two local businesses. Externally, rain screen cladding, replacement windows and curtain wall façades have been fitted giving the building a fresher, modern look. All of the remodelling & refurbishment works were completed with residents still in occupation on the upper twenty floors.


Adding a stairwell definitely wasn't even on the radar and likely wouldn't have mattered much anyways. People were told to stay in their apartments and they died in there doing that.

User avatar
svenman
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:09 pm UTC
Location: 680 km NNE of the Château d'If

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby svenman » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:23 pm UTC

Jumble wrote:Distressingly my wife says that yesterday her hospital handled breathing difficulties from smoke inhalation and trauma from falling from windows, but she didn't see any burn victims. Her assumption is anyone who came into contact with the fire did not escape.

I don't find that surprising. House fires of any scale and size usually kill through smoke poisoning rather than direct contact with flames. Except in very rare circumstances, any casualties whose bodies come into direct contact with flames indoors have by then already succumbed to smoke poisoning.
Mostly active on the One True Thread.
If you need help understanding what's going on there, the xkcd Time Wiki may help.

Addams didn't die! But will Addams have a place to live? You can help!

Randallspeed to all blitzers on the One True Thread!

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:25 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Yes they definitely need better standards of safety, but how are you going to get them to do that; with what money? Raising taxes on the poor would cause more deaths than it would prevent, and raising taxes on the rich is politically impossible, especially if it's for something that they aren't directly benefiting from.
Then don't build high rises and put people in them. They are complex machines. Complex machines are expensive to maintain.
Soupspoon wrote:If you're only freshening up (perhaps minimally shuffling) the drywall, then that is indeed different, but the reported costs (millions) and results (more accommodation) suggest something more to me. (Like I said, not looked hard at this, just acting as armchair architect.)
In the building I worked in they had to saw cut expansion joints in the brick facade at one point. One million dollars in 1980 dollars. Everything is more expensive, especially when you have to hang scaffolds 20 stories high to work.

elasto
Posts: 3077
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:34 pm UTC

The Guardian wrote:Material used in the cladding that covered the Grenfell Tower was the cheaper, more flammable version of the two available options, an investigation of the supply chain has confirmed.

Omnis Exteriors manufactured the aluminium composite material (ACM) used in the cladding, a company director, John Cowley, confirmed to the Guardian.

He also said Omnis had been asked to supply Reynobond PE cladding, which is £2 cheaper per square metre than the alternative Reynobond FR, which stands for “fire resistant” to the companies that worked on refurbishing Grenfell Tower.


-----------------------

CorruptUser wrote:Yes they definitely need better standards of safety, but how are you going to get them to do that; with what money? Raising taxes on the poor would cause more deaths than it would prevent, and raising taxes on the rich is politically impossible, especially if it's for something that they aren't directly benefiting from.


Other countries seem to manage it just fine:

The Guardian wrote:German construction companies have been banned from using plastic-filled cladding, such as Reynobond PE, on towers more than 22 metres high since the 1980s when regulations were brought in to improve fire safety at residential blocks.

Concerns that the panels could exacerbate the spread of fires led authorities to allow them only on buildings that can be reached by the fire brigade using fully-extended ladders from the ground. Taller buildings require panels with a more fire-resistant core and separate staircases for people to use if evacuation becomes necessary.

Frankfurt’s fire chief, Reinhard Ries, said he was appalled at the fire at Grenfell Tower and said tighter fire-safety rules for tower blocks in Germany meant that a similar incident could not happen there. US building codes also restrict the use of metal-composite panels without flame-retardant cores on buildings above 15 metres.


-----------------------

Another cultural problem in the UK is an obsession with 'cutting red tape':

The Guardian wrote:But both Conservative and New Labour governments have been highly reluctant to introduce new public protections, even when the need is pressing. They have been highly amenable to tearing down existing protections at the behest of trade associations and corporate lobbyists. Deregulation of this kind is a central theme of the neoliberal ideology to which both the Conservatives and Labour under Tony Blair succumbed.

In 2014, the then housing minister (who is now the immigration minister), Brandon Lewis, rejected calls to force construction companies to fit sprinklers in the homes they built on the following grounds:

“In our commitment to be the first Government to reduce regulation, we have introduced the one in, two out rule for regulation … Under that rule, when the Government introduce a regulation, we will identify two existing ones to be removed. The Department for Communities and Local Government has gone further and removed an even higher proportion of regulations. In that context, Members will understand why we want to exhaust all non-regulatory options before we introduce any new regulations.”

In other words, though he accepted that sprinklers “are an effective way of controlling fires and of protecting lives and property”, to oblige builders to introduce them would conflict with the government’s deregulatory agenda. Instead, it would be left to the owners of buildings to decide how best to address the fire risk: “Those with responsibility for ensuring fire safety in their businesses, in their homes or as landlords, should and must make informed decisions on how best to manage the risks in their own properties,” Lewis said.


link
link

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby SDK » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:07 pm UTC

elasto wrote:“Those with responsibility for ensuring fire safety in their businesses, in their homes or as landlords, should and must make informed decisions on how best to manage the risks in their own properties,” Lewis said.

I definitely disagree with that logic in principle. People make mistakes. Individuals doing their own research make far more. Minimum building standards barely even qualify as "red tape". It's not like you need to fill out a form to register your fire retardant materials or something, you just need to use it. Simple.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Quercus » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:30 pm UTC

Red tape has become a code-word for " things that stop the wealthy making as much money". Under that definition building standards definitely count as red tape

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8648
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:33 pm UTC

More I read the more I find this whole thing to be just a fuckup all around. While yes I'm usually the devil's advocate for cost benefit analysis of human life, the amount of cost needed was like Ford Pinto "all we needed was an $11 plate" cheap. Someone should go to prison, or at least lose their job over this.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4761
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby HES » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:43 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Someone should lose their job over this.

At this rate, it'll be the Prime Minister.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1157
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Jumble » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:47 am UTC

She does seem to be bringing the warmth, humility and public engagement skills that she displayed during her election campaign to this tragedy. Making the ex-housing minister her new chief of staff may also be a decision she comes to regret.
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

User avatar
AngrySquirrel
Hellish Sex Goddess
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:26 am UTC
Location: The Northpole

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby AngrySquirrel » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:08 pm UTC

Putting the fist into pacifist.

they/them/theirs

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8648
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:28 pm UTC

AngrySquirrel wrote:This is just fucked up beyond words.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/two-women-feared-dead-grenfell-10640944


Want to make it extra fucked up? In a lot of parts of the web, people are saying that the fire was accidentally started by trr'st bomb makers, and in the darker parts they will probably claim it was these two.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:32 am UTC

The darker parts being the comments sections of the Daily Mail site and YouTube? There are some scary people in those comments sections.

. . . . .

Finsbury Park attack: Man dies as van hits worshippers

A man has died and 10 people have been injured after a man drove a van into worshippers near a north London mosque.

The Met Police said eight were taken to hospital and several were seriously injured in the "terrorist attack".

The van hit people just after midnight BST who were attending to a man who had collapsed in the street. He later died, but his cause of death is unclear.

Police said all the victims were Muslim and that a 48-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

Eyewitness Abdul Rahman said the driver said he wanted to "kill all Muslims".


Finsbury Park attack live: Sadiq Khan hits out at ‘assault on our shared values’ after man killed in van crash at mosque

The van driver, described by eyewitnesses as a large white man, was detained by members of the public after the attack in Seven Sisters Road at 12.20am on Monday.

Another said the attacker shouted about killing Muslims as he was held by local people.

The mosque's chairman, Mohammed Kozbar, described the incident as "a cowardly attack which is no different than the attacks in Manchester and London".

Here's a statement from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick.
“There is now an ongoing investigation by our Counter Terrorism Command to establish why this attack was carried out.

“London is a city of many faiths and many nationalities. An attack on one community is an attack on all of us.

“Terrorists will not succeed in their attempts to divide us and make us live in fear.”


That's going to spawn some "interesting" canteen conversations. I'd bet money there'll be a few cheering for it. Can't report them to the HR department, as we don't have one. Not sure Nazism is against company rules anyway.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Mutex
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mutex » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:32 am UTC

And so it begins.

At least the police and MPs didn't hesitate to call this terrorism. I mean, it's unbelievably clearly terrorism, but still.

And at least nothing else incredibly worrying has happened yet tod... US shoots down Syrian jet.

The Pentagon said that pro-government militiamen had attacked SDF units, driving them from the town of Ja'Din.

The pro-government forces are not fighting the battle for Raqqa, but they have been making ground against IS in the surrounding area, south-west of the city.

The US-led coalition conducted what the Pentagon said was a "show of force" - a reported buzzing of the pro-government troops by jets - to stop the attack and then called the Syrian government's ally, Russia, to try to "de-escalate the situation and stop the firing".

However, the SU-22 dropped bombs on SDF positions a few hours later, the Pentagon said, and "in accordance with rules of engagement and in collective self-defence of Coalition-partnered forces [the plane] was immediately shot down".

Attempts to warn the plane away using an emergency radio frequency failed, the US Central Command said.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2360
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:22 am UTC

'Incidentally' current reports are that the only death (so far, amongst serious injuries) in the Finsbury Park attack was an elderly man who was already being given first-aid prior to the incident, after a fall or maybe collapsing. (The driver involved can't even be arrested for suspected murder, just attempted murder, which inevitably sparks some interesting dark humour.) The facts and the consequences are yet to be resolved, though. Much too early to tell.

Much less ambiguous, though still subject to full and proper investigation, a hate-attack upon an Islamic girl in the US...

Chen
Posts: 5214
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:40 am UTC

AngrySquirrel wrote:This is just fucked up beyond words.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/two-women-feared-dead-grenfell-10640944


There's pretty clear evidence that the management company didn't hold fire safety in any real regard. That said, it's unfortunate that even had they listened to these complaints I very much doubt any of them had to do with the exterior cladding. Hell I bet the tenants weren't made aware that a cheaper, less fire resistant cladding was used.

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1157
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Jumble » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:59 pm UTC

Police name Finsbury Park terrorist.

And his name is "arsehole". Just like his fellow wanker "arsehole" who drove a car over Westminster bridge to kill innocent tourists, children and stabbed a policeman.

And his three brothers-in-shit who attacked innocent passers-by in Borough Market. Oh, and his arsehole brother who drove a truck down the Promenade des Anglais in Nice on Bastille Day, and his pathetic arsehole chum in Sweden who now thinks his prison is too tough, and, and...

And everyone who thinks their shit little cause gives them the opportunity to show how big they think they are by killing innocent civilians. I don't give a fuck what their name was. To me, they are called "arsehole".
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:30 am UTC

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opin ... oblem.html
Apparently child marriage laws have loopholes that allow, among other things, parents to marry off their children to their rapists. It's mostly used to ward off rape charges or to prevent a girl from whoring around town by forcing her into marriage. You know, typical conservative semi-religiouis stuff.
Spoiler:
The survey found child marriage or forced marriage, or both, in families of many faiths, including Muslim, Christian (particularly Catholic), Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh. I have seen child and forced marriage in the Orthodox Jewish community, and I know survivors from Mormon and Unification Church backgrounds.

Parents give many reasons for forcing their children into marriage, including controlling the children’s sexuality and behavior and protecting “family honor.” Often families use forced marriage to enhance their status or gain economic security.
The New Jersey data show that 90 percent of the children married were girls, which is consistent with global trends. Across the world, child marriage and forced marriage disproportionately affect girls and women.
Unchained at Last also requested health department data on the ages of people recently married in New York State, where 16- and 17-year-olds may wed with “parental consent” and 14- and 15-year-olds may wed with judicial approval. The data show that 3,853 children were married between 2000 and 2010.

Chen
Posts: 5214
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:48 am UTC

sardia wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/americas-child-marriage-problem.html
Apparently child marriage laws have loopholes that allow, among other things, parents to marry off their children to their rapists. It's mostly used to ward off rape charges or to prevent a girl from whoring around town by forcing her into marriage. You know, typical conservative semi-religiouis stuff.
Spoiler:
The survey found child marriage or forced marriage, or both, in families of many faiths, including Muslim, Christian (particularly Catholic), Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh. I have seen child and forced marriage in the Orthodox Jewish community, and I know survivors from Mormon and Unification Church backgrounds.

Parents give many reasons for forcing their children into marriage, including controlling the children’s sexuality and behavior and protecting “family honor.” Often families use forced marriage to enhance their status or gain economic security.
The New Jersey data show that 90 percent of the children married were girls, which is consistent with global trends. Across the world, child marriage and forced marriage disproportionately affect girls and women.
Unchained at Last also requested health department data on the ages of people recently married in New York State, where 16- and 17-year-olds may wed with “parental consent” and 14- and 15-year-olds may wed with judicial approval. The data show that 3,853 children were married between 2000 and 2010.


I would have liked to see some discussion as to why the judges allowed some of those marriages. At least what reasoning was used.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:43 pm UTC

The deliberations would be sealed in family court. Which is shrouded in privacy laws. So it's hard to have that conversation. Sardia has preloaded the conversation by referencing rapists. Which may be true in some cases, while almost certainly not in all.

Random thought.
Spoiler:
However it occurred to me that we speak out of either sides of our mouths on culture. On one hand holding cultural identification in high regard while, while denigrating some parts of a culture, like arranged marriage. So it's okay to be a tribal Pakistani, to have that identity. But we just want the facade, not what lies beneath.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2641
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby orthogon » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:58 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:However it occurred to me that we speak out of either sides of our mouths on culture. On one hand holding cultural identification in high regard while, while denigrating some parts of a culture, like arranged marriage. So it's okay to be a tribal Pakistani, to have that identity. But we just want the facade, not what lies beneath.

That's the whole debate about moral relativism vs moral absolutism. Anyway, there's considerable polysemy in the word culture. Art, music and literature from all cultures should be celebrated, whereas social traditions should, in my view at least, be judged on their individual merits within a universal moral framework, like that of Human Rights. I don't thinks that's talking out of two sides of one's mouth; rather it's using one word in two different senses.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:41 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The deliberations would be sealed in family court. Which is shrouded in privacy laws. So it's hard to have that conversation. Sardia has preloaded the conversation by referencing rapists. Which may be true in some cases, while almost certainly not in all.

Random thought.
Spoiler:
However it occurred to me that we speak out of either sides of our mouths on culture. On one hand holding cultural identification in high regard while, while denigrating some parts of a culture, like arranged marriage. So it's okay to be a tribal Pakistani, to have that identity. But we just want the facade, not what lies beneath.

The judges act as if their only place is to fill out paperwork. If the parents sign off, they will not exercise any opposition even if the girl is in obvious distress. Maybe the judges hands are tied due to how the statue is written? And yes, the rape marriages are the worst case scenarios. However, records indicate that it is much more common to marry a young girl off to a much older man, and that such marriages are often abusive. And that it's rarer for two children to be married. It's all around a bad idea and very sketchy of the parents.
Most of the defenses of child marriage use religious reasons. Not that any of the defenses are true, but that's why politicians won't change anything. They're afraid of and are a product of religious conservative constituents.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:30 pm UTC

Please show me a universal moral framework?

sardia wrote:And yes, the rape marriages are the worst case scenarios.
Using the word rape confuses the argument, however true it might be of some cases. But the tragedy is that there is no easy way to find out given the law. And the secrecy of the process runs across the whole justice mechanism as it relates to families and juveniles. It is a classic Star Chamber.
sardia wrote:Most of the defenses of child marriage use religious reasons. Not that any of the defenses are true, but that's why politicians won't change anything. They're afraid of and are a product of religious conservative constituents.
I know a few conservative Christians who would find a thing like that an antithesis of their stated, and lived, values. Mostly I suppose this sort of thing happens on the fringes.

speising
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:31 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Random thought.
Spoiler:
However it occurred to me that we speak out of either sides of our mouths on culture. On one hand holding cultural identification in high regard while, while denigrating some parts of a culture, like arranged marriage. So it's okay to be a tribal Pakistani, to have that identity. But we just want the facade, not what lies beneath.

I tried to have that discussion with a charity peddler at my door recently. He wanted to get monet from me to fight the caste system in india, pointing to the many injustices it entails. I argued about the problems of cultural imperialism.
I did not convince him...

Chen
Posts: 5214
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:46 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The judges act as if their only place is to fill out paperwork. If the parents sign off, they will not exercise any opposition even if the girl is in obvious distress. Maybe the judges hands are tied due to how the statue is written?


I didn't catch that in the article. It mentioned clerks seemed to just file paperwork without noticing a distressed girl. I assume if it had to go to a judge, there'd actually be some sort of hearing or the like and SOME reasoning would need to be provided by one side or another.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:22 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Please show me a universal moral framework?
Take your pick. "Universal" means it applies universally, not that it's accepted universally.

sardia wrote:And yes, the rape marriages are the worst case scenarios.
Using the word rape confuses the argument, however true it might be of some cases. But the tragedy is that there is no easy way to find out given the law. And the secrecy of the process runs across the whole justice mechanism as it relates to families and juveniles. It is a classic Star Chamber.
How does the word 'rape' confuse the argument?

sardia wrote:Most of the defenses of child marriage use religious reasons. Not that any of the defenses are true, but that's why politicians won't change anything. They're afraid of and are a product of religious conservative constituents.
I know a few conservative Christians who would find a thing like that an antithesis of their stated, and lived, values. Mostly I suppose this sort of thing happens on the fringes.
The fringes are no less religious though. That some people have different religious values doesn't have any bearing on the fact that most of the defenses of child marriage use religious reasons.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:48 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
sardia wrote:The judges act as if their only place is to fill out paperwork. If the parents sign off, they will not exercise any opposition even if the girl is in obvious distress. Maybe the judges hands are tied due to how the statue is written?


I didn't catch that in the article. It mentioned clerks seemed to just file paperwork without noticing a distressed girl. I assume if it had to go to a judge, there'd actually be some sort of hearing or the like and SOME reasoning would need to be provided by one side or another.

I'm at work so I might have misread. I'll double-check this awful subject later to see if A. Judge or clerk, B. If either one has any discretion or authority over it.

morriswalters
Posts: 6885
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Take your pick. "Universal" means it applies universally, not that it's accepted universally.
Well that's convenient. Thus spoke the Church and the traders as they plundered the New World. Poor misguided savages.
gmalivuk wrote:How does the word 'rape' confuse the argument?
Connect the dots for me. What rape case was mentioned in the Op Ed piece, that was related to a specific court case. In point of fact it says in the article,
Unfortunately, the available records do not include any identifying details about marriages beyond the ages of the participants. Nevertheless, the data show that 3,481 children were married in New Jersey between 1995 and 2012. Most were age 16 or 17 and married with parental consent, but 163 were between ages 13 and 15, meaning a judge approved their marriages.
gmalivuk wrote:The fringes are no less religious though. That some people have different religious values doesn't have any bearing on the fact that most of the defenses of child marriage use religious reasons.
I want to make sure I'm not misreading your statement. I take it to mean people defending the practice, rather than people in court claiming some type of religious reason for forcing a marriage?

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4761
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby HES » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:00 pm UTC

Colorado to arm teachers in classrooms

Okay, how long before a child dies because one of these guns is snatched, or goes off accidentally, or a teacher overreacts?
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Quercus » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:46 pm UTC

HES wrote:Colorado to arm teachers in classrooms

Okay, how long before a child dies because one of these guns is snatched, or goes off accidentally, or a teacher overreacts?


This seems like a terrible idea in general, but apart from anything else it's a fucking 3 day course, for both firearms and medical training. That seems woefully insufficient even for just the firearms bit, especially as there doesn't seem to be any requirement for continued training and certification.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7451
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:59 pm UTC

Yeah this is kind of horrifying.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Mutex
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mutex » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:04 pm UTC

Won't the gunman just shoot the teacher first? They kinda have surprise on their side. Then they have a classroom of defenceless kids trapped.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:37 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Take your pick. "Universal" means it applies universally, not that it's accepted universally.
Well that's convenient. Thus spoke the Church and the traders as they plundered the New World. Poor misguided savages.
Rejecting complete cultural relativism doesn't mean adopting any one particular universal morality. And the fact that you can find atrocities committed in the name of one system doesn't mean all such systems are equally atrocious.

gmalivuk wrote:How does the word 'rape' confuse the argument?
Connect the dots for me. What rape case was mentioned in the Op Ed piece, that was related to a specific court case. In point of fact it says in the article,
Unfortunately, the available records do not include any identifying details about marriages beyond the ages of the participants. Nevertheless, the data show that 3,481 children were married in New Jersey between 1995 and 2012. Most were age 16 or 17 and married with parental consent, but 163 were between ages 13 and 15, meaning a judge approved their marriages.
Anyone having sex with one of those 13-15-year-olds before they were married was committing statutory rape if nothing else. And it's not a stretch to suppose most or all marriages between a 13-year-old and someone two or three times her age is at least somewhat coercive.

If anything confuses the argument, it's pretending rape isn't a major issue in these marriages.

gmalivuk wrote:The fringes are no less religious though. That some people have different religious values doesn't have any bearing on the fact that most of the defenses of child marriage use religious reasons.
I want to make sure I'm not misreading your statement. I take it to mean people defending the practice, rather than people in court claiming some type of religious reason for forcing a marriage?
What difference does it make? People defending child marriage in practice and in courts often do so for religious reasons.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

speising
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:51 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Anyone having sex with one of those 13-15-year-olds before they were married was committing statutory rape if nothing else. And it's not a stretch to suppose most or all marriages between a 13-year-old and someone two or three times her age is at least somewhat coercive.


That's a supposition by you now, though. I could imagine that a lot of those are shotgun weddings with a boy they where caught making out (maybe with consequences) with.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:55 pm UTC

speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Anyone having sex with one of those 13-15-year-olds before they were married was committing statutory rape if nothing else. And it's not a stretch to suppose most or all marriages between a 13-year-old and someone two or three times her age is at least somewhat coercive.

That's a supposition by you now, though. I could imagine that a lot of those are shotgun weddings with a boy they where caught making out (maybe with consequences) with.

Yeah, because 26-40-year-old men are just "boys" who often innocently make out with 13-year-old girls. Nothing creepy or coercive about that!
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

speising
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:27 pm UTC

but where did you see the "most or all marriages between a 13-year-old and someone two or three times her age"? The article mentions exactly four egregious cases.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:41 pm UTC

Are you reading that correctly?

I'm not claiming most child marriages are between 13-year-olds and 30-year-olds, I'm just commenting on the ones that are.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8648
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Anyone having sex with one of those 13-15-year-olds before they were married was committing statutory rape if nothing else.


Unless the boy was also 13-15, which admittedly, is unlikely in the case of forced marriage, especially as the article clearly states that 90% of the children are girls.

Gmal, you could end this stupid argument right now by just admitting you made a mistake with your blanket statement, and remember to never say never and always avoid always.

Personally, I don't think marriage should provide any more protection from AoC laws than marriage should provide protection from marital rape charges.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:05 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Anyone having sex with one of those 13-15-year-olds before they were married was committing statutory rape if nothing else.


Unless the boy was also 13-15, which admittedly, is unlikely in the case of forced marriage, but never say never, always avoid always...

Marriage data shows the male is almost always much older than the girl. The best you find is a 19 year old avoiding statutory rape charges by marrying the girl, often at the family's somehow consent to avoid dishonoring the family. It's reminiscent of honor killings, but whiter, so it's more accepted.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8648
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:09 pm UTC

Well yeah, it's almost always the case. The stupid argument between Gmal and Spies is that esoteric case of two 14 year olds marrying. It's rare but it happens, so Gmal's argument is technically wrong even if mostly true.

sardia wrote:It's reminiscent of honor killings, but whiter, so it's more accepted.


Going to have to come down hard on you this. There's a fuckton of difference between a forced marriage and murder, differences that don't depend on racism.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:28 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Gmal, you could end this stupid argument right now by just admitting you made a mistake with your blanket statement, and remember to never say never and always avoid always.
I may have overstated the first part of my statement (about statutory rape), because NJ has a close-in-age exemption where it's not statutory rape if you're within four years of your partner's age.

But I'm not sure that correcting that part of the statement would end the argument, since speising appears to be taking issue with the second part, which has nothing to do with age of consent laws.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests