Is deleting history is unhelpful?
12,313 Views |
166 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by Beer Baron
That doesn't necessarily mean anything though. The point made in your original post wasn't that no thread should ever be deleted for any reason but that old threads shouldn't be deleted. Or is your stance that moderation and censorship of any kind for any reason is wrong?
No one clicking on that link has any clue what the thread was about, when it was from, or why it was deleted.
No one clicking on that link has any clue what the thread was about, when it was from, or why it was deleted.
Quote:
Friedman won a Nobel prize for observing that inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon. Price increases are only viable because the money was injected into the system. It's no different than I wrote above - when you add stimulus, the recipients and the early receivers of that money benefit the most. Apparently fast food restaurants are early in the chain. The person who gets the money last benefits least.
That was one plank of Friedman's award, the role of money supply in business cycles and long run inflation patterns. His citation was "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.
He was also cited for his study of data and response lags in the impact of central bank adjustments. He discovered and popularized the notion of long and variable lags in the results of Fed policy and how that results in consistent Fed policy mistakes.
Finally, he was cited for his research into "Adaptive Expectations" which implied Federal Reserve Policy can only be effective if it surprises and therefore changes the inflation expectations of household and workers. This ushered into use the concept of the Fed framing absolute determination . . . . .Ben Bernanke announcing he would do whatever it takes to stave off the credit crisis . . . . . .Janet Yellen announcing lower for longer to avoid deflation . . . . .Powell ratcheting up short term rates to crush inflation quickly. Central Bankers do not do gradual anymore based on this research.
Probably an poster angry that Zane brought up Schlossnagle to Texas in the press conference.Quote:
That doesn't necessarily mean anything though. The point made in your original post wasn't that no thread should ever be deleted for any reason but that old threads shouldn't be deleted. Or is your stance that moderation and censorship of any kind for any reason is wrong?
No one clicking on that link has any clue what the thread was about, when it was from, or why it was deleted.
And I would posit a visit from the Feds regarding over the top political rhetoric on one of the forums here is a great reason to memory hole a lot of old paranoic ramblings, for the good of the site and the good of certain posters who are not as anonymous as they would like to think.
I guess you are citing MV = PQQuote:
So money flows in, demand is increased, output remains the same, and prices must increase.
Money Supply x Velocity of Money = Price of Goods x Supply of Goods for those who wisely skipped undergrad macro.
One of the reasons we got to today was that The Fed was massively expanding M in the wake of the credit crisis with little to no impact on P or Q. What was happening? V was declining, or money was not changing hands. People were just stashing stuff in the bank or paying down debt. V finally uncorked due to COVID stimulus while Q dropped due to ports being shut down and manufacturing being locked down. So M is up, V is Up, Q is down . . . .P naturally has to jump per Friedman's model of the monetary world.
Now we are seeing the opposite. M peaked in 2022 and has since declined a couple trillion. Q is slowing. V is flatlining . . . .all this implies Prices have stalled or will reverse.
BusterAg said:See, but that is just the thing.Sapper Redux said:
I think the current bull**** moral panic of which this post is a great example is due to conservatives losing the culture war over acceptance of homosexuality.
The argument about the acceptance of homosexuality was never the objection. It was the second tier affects that people were worried about.
"We just want to get married" is not the same as:
1) We will teach your kids that gender is not binary
2) We will teach your kids that they can choose to be any gender you want.
3) We will start treating kids with irreversible gender changing treatments when they are still way younger than the age of consent for any sexual activity or entering into any legal contract
4) We will expose kids to drag shows
5) We will force you to call us by the pronouns we choose
The whole point of the argument is that state sponsored acceptance of homosexual marriage was going to lead to a lot of second-level affects that were not being argued for at the time. I don't think you can say with a straight face that this hasn't been the case.
And, any amount of acceptance of pedophilia whatsoever is unacceptable.
I'll just leave this one right here, too.
SB1414 is a proposal to make it a felony to purchase chiIdren for s*x in California.
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 8, 2024
Woke activist groups OPPOSE this bill by complaining that it will harm the LGBTQ community and people or color.
Dems already watered down the bill. pic.twitter.com/RqAsaHAInW
Oh man, I'm sure someone with a Twitter account called "End Wokeness" is a fair and accurate reporter of what the bill does and doesn't do.
Are you being judgmental?
As usual less than five seconds on google is all it would have taken.
https://reason.com/2024/07/08/california-democrats-water-down-sex-trafficking-bill-good/
The original bill was actually filed by two democrats and a republican. The amendments just require an actual intent to commit a crime (i.e., the offender knew or should have known the person they're soliciting is a minor) and account for offenders who are also minors themselves. Pretty standard stuff.
https://reason.com/2024/07/08/california-democrats-water-down-sex-trafficking-bill-good/
The original bill was actually filed by two democrats and a republican. The amendments just require an actual intent to commit a crime (i.e., the offender knew or should have known the person they're soliciting is a minor) and account for offenders who are also minors themselves. Pretty standard stuff.
Beer Baron said:
As usual less than five seconds on google is all it would have taken.
https://reason.com/2024/07/08/california-democrats-water-down-sex-trafficking-bill-good/
The original bill was actually filed by two democrats and a republican. The amendments just require an actual intent to commit a crime (i.e., the offender knew or should have known the person they're soliciting is a minor) and account for offenders who are also minors themselves. Pretty standard stuff.
Oh is that all?
Quote:
In the California Senate Public Safety Committee, the Democratic majority added a series of amendments to SB 1414 against Grove's objections. These amendments made buying sex from 16- and 17-year-olds only punishable as a misdemeanor, and from 15 years and younger a "wobbler" with two days of jail and/or a fine as punishment for a misdemeanor, and jail time but no prison time as a felony. The amendments also give judges the option to eliminate the minimum mandatory two days of jail, remove punishment for those who did not know and could not reasonably have known the solicited child was a minor, makes the felony charge only punishable with jail, not prison time, and no longer require first-time offenders to register as sex offenders.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3017744/california-democrats-cut-proposed-penalties-for-child-prostitution-buyers/
"five seconds on google" is all it would have taken to get the state approved propaganda.
As an example:
Back when COVID was new and most countries were following the WHO recommendations, I wanted to follow how Sweden was doing since they had ignored WHO and kept their schools and businesses open without requiring masks. Every time that I used Google to check on the situation the top eight matches were always about how poorly Sweden was doing. It wasn't until two years after COVID started that WHO came out with stats that showed Sweden had ended up that first year as 63rd worst country in the world for COVID.
As an example:
Back when COVID was new and most countries were following the WHO recommendations, I wanted to follow how Sweden was doing since they had ignored WHO and kept their schools and businesses open without requiring masks. Every time that I used Google to check on the situation the top eight matches were always about how poorly Sweden was doing. It wasn't until two years after COVID started that WHO came out with stats that showed Sweden had ended up that first year as 63rd worst country in the world for COVID.
Yes, that well-known government mouthpiece, the libertarian website reason.com.
That said, I'm on vacation and would like to read the different versions of the actual bill as it went through the process when I get home, without it being filtered through any biased source. I don't know how their legislative session works but will note the reason article was from yesterday and the examiner one was from may
I'd like to see current law vs the various changes to see whether they lowered the penalties in actual law or just passed something lower than what was initially proposed.
That said, I'm on vacation and would like to read the different versions of the actual bill as it went through the process when I get home, without it being filtered through any biased source. I don't know how their legislative session works but will note the reason article was from yesterday and the examiner one was from may
I'd like to see current law vs the various changes to see whether they lowered the penalties in actual law or just passed something lower than what was initially proposed.
I checked out Reason.com and might like them. Thanks for the tip.
Now that you know what was actually changed in the statute so you still feel your news source was trustworthy?
Beer Baron said:
Yes, that well-known government mouthpiece, the libertarian website reason.com.
That said, I'm on vacation and would like to read the different versions of the actual bill as it went through the process when I get home, without it being filtered through any biased source. I don't know how their legislative session works but will note the reason article was from yesterday and the examiner one was from may
I'd like to see current law vs the various changes to see whether they lowered the penalties in actual law or just passed something lower than what was initially proposed.
Attacking the source of information without addressing the information is lazy.
Do you personally think that soliciting sex from a 15 year old should be a felony?
Aggrad08 said:
Now that you know what was actually changed in the statute so you still feel your news source was trustworthy?
Do you dispute that the bill was changed so that soliciting sex from a 15 year old is no longer a felony? Because I think that soliciting sex from a 15 year old should be a felony, if a DA, judge and jury agree that the person who did si should be convicted of a felony.
Because pedophilia is very wrong, and nibbling on the edges to make it less criminal is a slippery slope, and, apparently, lgtbq+ people are more likely to accidently solicit a 15 year old for sex.
It's lazy to say I'd like to read the bill directly when I'm able so I can form an informed opinion on it, rather than taking the word of three sentences from a twitter account called "wokeness bad" or whatever?
Also, this is a big problem with the public discourse currently. The source does matter. If the crazy homeless man on the street tells me the squirrel carcas he's eating is fine Italian chocolate and I should have some, it's not lazy for me to say "maybe this isn't the best source of info for my next dessert."
And yes, I think it makes sense to be a felony, but I also think there should be intent or reasonable knowledge behind the act, and there should be different standards if the person doing the soliciting is a minor.
At least one source I've found (they're all poorly written) seems to say this bill actually increases the penalties from what was in place before. It just doesn't do it by as much as an earlier version of the bill would have. That's why I'd like to actually (gasp) read the thing we're arguing about to see what it does. You're free to do that too, at any time by the way.
Also, this is a big problem with the public discourse currently. The source does matter. If the crazy homeless man on the street tells me the squirrel carcas he's eating is fine Italian chocolate and I should have some, it's not lazy for me to say "maybe this isn't the best source of info for my next dessert."
And yes, I think it makes sense to be a felony, but I also think there should be intent or reasonable knowledge behind the act, and there should be different standards if the person doing the soliciting is a minor.
At least one source I've found (they're all poorly written) seems to say this bill actually increases the penalties from what was in place before. It just doesn't do it by as much as an earlier version of the bill would have. That's why I'd like to actually (gasp) read the thing we're arguing about to see what it does. You're free to do that too, at any time by the way.
BusterAg said:Beer Baron said:
Yes, that well-known government mouthpiece, the libertarian website reason.com.
That said, I'm on vacation and would like to read the different versions of the actual bill as it went through the process when I get home, without it being filtered through any biased source. I don't know how their legislative session works but will note the reason article was from yesterday and the examiner one was from may
I'd like to see current law vs the various changes to see whether they lowered the penalties in actual law or just passed something lower than what was initially proposed.
Attacking the source of information without addressing the information is lazy.
Do you personally think that soliciting sex from a 15 year old should be a felony?
It's not when the source itself is untrustworthy. Demanding that a source be accepted uncritically is rich coming from a conservative. I look forward to you defending every article in the New York Times.
Rongagin71 said:
I checked out Reason.com and might like them. Thanks for the tip.
You're welcome! What is your take on their take on the bill?
I'm not a lawyer and not too interested in spending time researching this but will say that it should be that adults who prey on children should be punished but a first time offender under the age of 18, even 21, should get some mercy.
Agreed. Part of "preying on children" is an intent to solicit a child though, right?
If I was on the jury, it very likely would...
But if the law is written to say that intent to solicit a minor doesn't matter, the jury doesn't get that discretion. They're only asked to decide "did they solicit this person for sex or not." So if the offender was online and thought they were talking to a 30 year old, but they were actually talking to a teen, the jury answers yes and they're labeled a child sex offender forever. That person isn't a pedophile and it doesn't help anyone to treat them as one.
Beer Baron said:
And yes, I think it makes sense to be a felony, but I also think there should be intent or reasonable knowledge behind the act, and there should be different standards if the person doing the soliciting is a minor.
So, let's be clear. Soliciting is the agreement to receive sex from someone in exchange for giving that person something of value. It's not asking to hook up. It's buying sex.
Soliciting sex in California is illegal, regardless of how old the person is.
The original bill made soliciting sex from a minor a felony.
I completely disagree that there needs to be intent in order to be punished as a felony. If you are going to be illegally buying sex willy nilly over the internet, at least make sure that who you are buying sex from isn't younger than 16 years of age. Ignorance is no excuse for spreading child sex trafficking.
And, why would this bill have an inordinate impact on lgbtq+ ? WTF?
Finally, it's the solicitation that is the crime here, not the sex. Statutory rape is covered elsewhere.
Wasn't this bill intentionally written to make tough REQUIREMENTS because too many California DA's were of the Soros variety?
So I know it's lazy to go actually read the source material directly, but you can do that here if you're so inclined.
California statutes are trickier to read than what I'm used to here, but they have a good feature that allows you to compare different versions of the bill, as well as a summary of what the bill does. For that feature, it looks like they also highlight the parts of the summary that change as the bill changes, which is cool.
For current law (before SB 1414), from what I can tell, if you solicit an adult, you're guilty of "disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor."
For current law (before SB 1414), it appears the penalty is more than that for soliciting a minor, and already included the "knew/should have known" qualifier common to most criminal statutes - from the legislative summary at the top:
The introduced version of the bill would have removed the "knew/should've known" part and raised the penalty to imprisonment of 2-4 years.
The bill that was passed restored the "known/should've known" part, as well as current penalties (2 days to one year, $10k fine or both), but also gives the judge the option of "imprisonment pursuant to Subdivision (h) of Section 1170." That provision seems like it allows for larger penalties and has some pretty complex "if this then that" type guidelines, including some for second and subsequent offenses. Basically, it potentially has penalties almost as high as those contemplated by the original version (up to 3 years instead of up to 4), they're just not mandatory. In addition to the judge having discretion, there has to be some kind of intent to solicit a minor and there are provisions for offenders who themselves are also minors.
We can argue about what the penalties should be, and I agree that the current law seems too lax, but it's inaccurate to say that this made this made it moreso. I'd argue the punishment in the introduced version is too low too. Potentially, the penalties are higher now higher than they were before this bill, it just isn't a one-size-fits all statute. Instead, it seems to give judges discretion to tailor sentences to facts.
To me, that falls within the "pick your poison" problems our legal system struggles with all over the place. One size fits all can produce outcomes that penalize smaller acts just as harshly as egregious ones. Judicial discretion can do that too though, depending on the judge.
California statutes are trickier to read than what I'm used to here, but they have a good feature that allows you to compare different versions of the bill, as well as a summary of what the bill does. For that feature, it looks like they also highlight the parts of the summary that change as the bill changes, which is cool.
For current law (before SB 1414), from what I can tell, if you solicit an adult, you're guilty of "disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor."
For current law (before SB 1414), it appears the penalty is more than that for soliciting a minor, and already included the "knew/should have known" qualifier common to most criminal statutes - from the legislative summary at the top:
Quote:
Under existing law, if the person solicited was a minor, and the person who solicited the minor knew or reasonably should have known that the person solicited was a minor, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a mandatory minimum of 2 days and not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $10,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The introduced version of the bill would have removed the "knew/should've known" part and raised the penalty to imprisonment of 2-4 years.
The bill that was passed restored the "known/should've known" part, as well as current penalties (2 days to one year, $10k fine or both), but also gives the judge the option of "imprisonment pursuant to Subdivision (h) of Section 1170." That provision seems like it allows for larger penalties and has some pretty complex "if this then that" type guidelines, including some for second and subsequent offenses. Basically, it potentially has penalties almost as high as those contemplated by the original version (up to 3 years instead of up to 4), they're just not mandatory. In addition to the judge having discretion, there has to be some kind of intent to solicit a minor and there are provisions for offenders who themselves are also minors.
We can argue about what the penalties should be, and I agree that the current law seems too lax, but it's inaccurate to say that this made this made it moreso. I'd argue the punishment in the introduced version is too low too. Potentially, the penalties are higher now higher than they were before this bill, it just isn't a one-size-fits all statute. Instead, it seems to give judges discretion to tailor sentences to facts.
To me, that falls within the "pick your poison" problems our legal system struggles with all over the place. One size fits all can produce outcomes that penalize smaller acts just as harshly as egregious ones. Judicial discretion can do that too though, depending on the judge.
I disagree here, mostly because it has the effect of actually lessening the severity of the punishment for people who intentionally seek out and solicit children, if we treat them exactly the same as someone who wasn't pursuing a child.Quote:
I completely disagree that there needs to be intent in order to be punished as a felony. If you are going to be illegally buying sex willy nilly over the internet, at least make sure that who you are buying sex from isn't younger than 16 years of age. Ignorance is no excuse for spreading child sex trafficking.
I don't think it's a very good argument, but I'm assuming they're saying that minority groups can find themselves being prosecuted or sentenced more harshly than others. I tend to look at uneven prosecution and punishment as a separate issue from "what should the punishment be for X," but I'm guessing that's their point - a man soliciting a boy could be prosecuted and punished more harshly than if he'd solicited a girl. Again, I don't find that very persuasive in a debate over what the punishment should be.Quote:
And, why would this bill have an inordinate impact on lgbtq+ ? WTF?
I think the arguments about intent and age of the offender are more valid ones, which were addressed here, and there's a discussion to be had on what the penalty should be. I think Texas's punishments are more appropriate - 2-10 years and a $10k fine for a first offense. I believe there still has to be an element of intent here, though I did find a troubling defense as long as the person doing the solicitation is married to the minor, so not all statutes are perfect.
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
3h ago
3.8k
12:07
2h ago
3.7k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
17h ago
967
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger
Colonel Ingus
"We are not a team built to play from behind" - Elko
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29