In USA everything can be rape, even consensual sex between two 17 y/o teenagers. So please don't talk like this was or had to be universal or something. Nobody is a child until 18, and then magically become an adult when law makers say so. I'm proud to say that 15-17 years old girls can be hot, and I can feel attracted to them.
Makes me wonder whether HN could use a function to auto hell ban certain usernames (could be tough to find out which, but 'throwaway*' seems like a good start - I have yet to see one contribute value to a discussion).
At first read of your comment, I thought you were referring to analog as the user to hellban, not throwawayG9 (who, by the way, is a 60 day old account).
In my opinion, throwawayG9 did contribute something very valuable to this discussion, which is pointing out the irrationality of how we view sex in the first place. The ad hominon attackk against this position that refuses to acknoledge the possibility that we might view sex irrationally, and says that anyone who thinks so must be a bad member of society seems far less productive to a conversation.
Yes, I particularly find that part interesting where he/she goes on to say that we become adults right when the mid-night clock ticks after 17 years, 364 days and 23:59 hours[^] of our lives.
"I'm proud to say that 15-17 years old girls can be hot, and I can feel attracted to them."
throwawayG9 is stating that they are proud to be a paedophile. Personally I'd feel a little wrong about dating an 18 year old girl, but a 15 year old girl is most definitely a child.
Wow, how convenient that your sexual insticts matche the law of the very country you happen to live in. That way you won't feel a slave of the system, that commands you what to do, what to think, and how to feel.
Though I wonder if you would be able to tell whether you like a girl before knowing her age. That would be an interesting experiment, and you would probably learn something about yourself.
Okay, please don't crucify me for this, but when I was in college (3rd year ~22 yrs old) I'd met a girl at a mall and I was attracted towards her. She was a friend's sister's(a bit younger than us) friend who used to hang around with us and she looked nothing less than 19(or well, 20 I'd have said). We went coffee twice(first) and and a film in the next week.
Then one day we were walking along a park(like the one in societies - the tiny ones with few trees/plants and little fountain - not as in "park" park) and she tried to hug me and tried reach a bit higher - at 5'11" I was a bit higher for her and as it was a bit too fast I just pecked her on cheek and we sat down.
There was sth amiss abut her, she didn't seem what she was. Looked she was hiding sth. As at times she would be like so mature and at times she would be excited at things only an early teen would be but I took the sign as "full of life". We said good bye that day.
The other day I met that friend's sister so I asked her "hey that friend of yours..from your college(she has just joined college - 1st yr)".. she replied.."no, she isn't..we know each other 'cause we play volleyball at our local team together"... and then I said(a little blushing) "ok..well... because we know we are sort of dating..not dating but sort of".. there was another friend sitting there.. and then came the bomb.. She laughed and punched me playfully and said.."hey..weirdoo.. she a fg kid.. she is class 11...she is bloody 15-16..stay away from her..you paedo.....:-)".. And I was like - wtf!! Of course a bit ashamed and scared too!
Anyway, that ended there. She never called me and I never did either. Maybe friend's sister talked to her. But where was my fault? I mean I genuinely felt attracted to her and trust me there was no way I could have known! And no, after knowing it never came to my mind that I should pursue it further but I never actually felt that I wronged* her. Because I didn't!
That "me" was a friend of mine and that another friend was actually me. We still tease that friend and call him "paedo". I guess he avoids looking at (relatively) younger females when we are around :-)
..
>>throwawayG9 is stating that they are proud to be a paedophile.
He is not a paedophile just for this! It' a very normal reaction and the line paedophilia comes where to stop or where's that line! I mean I've talked to many people and they feel it too! But we don't approach them and don't look at then sleazily. I've come across instance where those, I dare say quite attractive school kids usually from rich families have approached me/us at bars and pubs (for a dance/chat/whatever) and many times at liquor shops to help them buy it(they often want whiskey and vodka..damn).. we usually tease them a little..like "how old are you".. how much you get score in maths/any-sub..blah..."are you a good student".. and then usually tell them to get the fk out of there or offer them let the nearby copper know whether she could buy a bottle herself!
>>Personally I'd feel a little wrong about dating an 18 year old girl, but a 15 year old girl is most definitely a child.
That is where the drawing a line comes into picture. BTW, how old are you? I would not mind dating a 18 yr old girl when when I am even 22-23. But I would sure not do it with a 15 yr old even when I am 19-20, even though the age differences are same!
Just to clarify - I wasn't addressing you with the hellban call (I know you know, but, you know, other people).
And to further agree - I think "well, what can I do, they're hot!" (or its buddy "hey, what do you know - they might like it!") or any sort of that nonsense is the absolute maximum height of the shittiest relativistic thinking that humans are capable of.
Yes, laws can be complicated and yes any particular cutoff age is inherently bullshit. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Know why? Because it saves a whole lot of human beings from having their life ruined beyond repair, forever, by a guy who can't keep his dick in his pants. It's worth the bullshit. If you don't see that, you're simply an inconsiderate asshole.
And if you hide behind a throwaway (others pointed out it's 60 days old, so what, its probably your bogstandard reddit user branching over to HN, liking his new platform to spew idiocy), this site should hell ban the shit out of you.
Sorry about the rant. Relativistic bullshit pisses me off to no end. Especially if it's by frigging neckbeards who apparently think anything in the world should revolve around their ability to fuck whatever they think is "hot". Get a life.
I stopped using all of their products about a year and a half, thank you very much. And I never looked back, I feel safer than ever, I'm not being tracked all the time, I own my data, and I will never have to fear again being banned for no reason or having a service shut down overnight and losing all of my data. I can do whatever I want.
The web wasn't born with Google, and is not going to end if it goes away. I use the web everyday, I can't live without it. I learned half of everything I know thanks to it, and with that knowledge I'm now working from home, earning more than any of my friends. I recommend you to try to replace the services you use one by one, until there is only one big step left to make, and that's it. You can be free again after that (or for the first time, if you are very young and have always used google products).
Thank you sillysaurus, I was about to go buy BTC at 270 to a local guy (I don't have any other way for buying bitcoin here). I forgot to check the price again, but I didn't forget to check HN ;)
Bitcoin needs more security than credit cards because transactions are irreversible. Say his mother has a significant part of her savings in BTC, and they get stolen. What's she gonna do then?
Cash needs more security than credit cards because transactions are irreversible. Say his mother has a significant part of her savings in cash, and they get stolen. What's she gonna do then?
Answer: let a bank deal with it. Banks can be insured.
For physical cash, banks don't give a hoot, and their insurance doesn't either, because the sums stolen are so small.
Even the dollars a bank has uninvested, they are stored electronically, and it's very easy to undo electronic transactions. Plus, the limiting factor on stealing electronic money from banks is finding a stool pigeon who will do it with cash.[1]
With a system where transactions cannot be undone, you need life-or-death-level security on the entire holdings. No insurance company is going to underwrite a policy of "there is a completely unknown chance of 100% loss."
[1] A PDF of this was on HN recently but apparently I did not bookmark it. Help a brother out?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but BTC banks can be attacked just like normal banks by the very central authorities we are trying to be safe from. Eg: "Oh noes, our economy is doing terrible, so much public debt. Let's just steal from the people.". Sure, they can't use inflation, but that's not the only way.
Credit card transactions only appear to be reversible to the end user. If someone nicks your credit card and buys some gas, it may appear to you that the money just came back but someone in the chain (usually the gas station) is eating that cost.
So the only functional difference between bitcoin and a credit card in this respect is that there's someone big (the bank) sitting in between you and the transaction that has enough clout to force the loss off you and onto someone else. If a bank decided to build a bitcoin payment system, and signed merchants to a contract similar to the one they do on credit cards, there would be no functional difference from the consumer's standpoint.
The money lost to someone buying some gas is minimal.
Transactions are completely reversible until someone involves physical goods, including cash. The system can deal with tiny levels of fraud. With Bitcoin, someone can do a complete transfer of my life savings in an instant, and then what?
If a hacker manages to get into your online bank account and transfer everything out, you're still out of luck unless the bank decides to cover it for you. As far as I know, unless the bank catches it before a transfer is made (which they very well might with fraud detection), they don't necessarily have any means to reverse the transaction after it hits the hackers account. I don't really have any deep experience with that side of banking so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but in my limited experience I've seen that once money leaves your account it's only reversible in the sense that the bank may decide to cover the loss for you. There might be some tiny window to reverse things, but I don't think it's a terribly large one.
For personal banking in America, there are almost assuredly laws that say it's the bank's responsibility. (Note that the rules are different for businesses.)
I'm still trying to find the reference I mentioned yesterday, the gist of which was that personal banking theft is limited by the number of cash mules who can be recruited. Krebs[1] has many articles about money mules that I hope will lead me to it.
EDIT I found it! [2] "Federal Reserve Regulation E guarantees that US consumers are made whole when their bank passwords are stolen."
That's a valid point. People are missing the fact that Bitcoin is just the underlaying currency. Exactly like cash. Cash can be stolen if stored in your house. That's why banks exist. In Bitcoin-land banks will not look and behave like banks do in the current world.
I'm not the copyright holder, no. On the other hand, the fact that all our software is Free influenced a great deal in my decision to join the company. Take it as you wish.
I've also released some code of which I'm the copyright holder as Free Software, mainly plugins for other applications. I've licensed it as such because I thought others could benefit from it.
