Because you want people to pay for something they don't see any benefit for. It's like trying to get a company to invest in better security, except harder because there is little in the way of the climate change equivalent of security breaches.
Yes, what about that. The only way the FBI is justified is if we ignore that. And if we are choosing to ignore it to justify the FBI's actions then why not do it here for the greater good? Personally I'm with you that we shouldn't ignore it in either case.
I read a post where someone actually set up a honey pot without actually hosting CP. There was an application system where the pedos thought they were going to get cp via an application process or were a big enough part of the "community." I feel like the FBI could have implemented something similar without actually hosting the images. I feel like there is no excuse for distributing cp, even if it is to catch pedos. You shouldn't become a pedo to catch pedos.
Yeah, such a better system. Even set up a bit coin address where they have to pay about $25 to get in to prove intent (along with visiting the site and then logging in).
I don't buy it for a second. Instead, I think that those who use but don't physically touch an actual child are so unlikely to get caught, the numbers are horribly biased.
To give some example numbers, say that 5% of those who view the material ever directly harm a child. And say that 100% of those who harm a child view the material. Now, say that 50% of those who harm a child get busted, but only 1% of those who don't get busted for viewing the material. The end result would be that of those caught about 5 of every 7 who viewed material harmed a child directly.
Now, the numbers are made up, but there are many values that lead to a false conclusion if people only look at those caught.
Yes but how do those convictions happen? If it comes from an interweb honeytrap, then it will give somewhat unbiased data. But I suspect a lot of people caught for possession are people at the fringes of a abuse case where the cops couldn't prove this individual actually abused someone, but could get them on the lesser crime.
And how many charged with child molestation will have the police raid their homes and check their computers? How many will end up only being charged with child porn to spare the actual child the trauma of going through a case and how many times is there not enough evidence to convict for child molestation but there is plenty to convict for child porn?
Admittedly, I don't have the study on me, so I can't confirm this. But I imagine the study would screen out anyone like that, that seems like a pretty obvious thing to do.
I have to disagree with the list. How we discriminate can't be put in a list because it is different for different issues. For one example, consider that the legal system discriminate far more on gender than race. In some areas your list is close to accurate (I would definitely put mental health much higher), but in general a list is a poor data structure to represent how discrimination occurs. It also ignores interactions between groups.
That's a fair point, and your remark about mental health is true (it might even be number one on this oversimplified list). I wasn't trying to be authoritative on the subject or list, but to present a general idea about who, practically-speaking, feels disenfranchised. Thiel, even if he was a fat, ugly, uneducated, transgendered black person, would still be one of the most advantaged people in the world.
They may also get better at hiding their bias. May not even be conscious but as a side effect of blatant bias being called out while hidden bias is not. It would also be harder to study because our bias detection algorithms largely focus on blatant bias.
Even 'just the facts' Is broken because one cannot tell if all facts were given or if only certain facts were given designed to create some view. For example, given two studies that find opposing results, I can then list all the criticisms of the study I don't like while listing only the least significant criticisms of the study I do like. As long as I don't claim to have listed all criticisms, I have given 'just the facts' and yet made an quite biased article.
Uh... you can make your own roads without guard rails. But if I grow the wrong plants on my private property the government will do some really evil things to me. But they won't touch you for not adding guard rails to your private roads.
My god, can you at least pretend you're trying to reach a helpful common solution with those who are trying to engage in useful conversation with you..?
Clinton has advocated for helping women who are in prison because
1. US Women are 5% of the world's population of women. Yet US Women are 30% of the world's prison population.
2. Women going to prison are 5x as likely to have to put a child into foster care than men.
3. Women are not given respect when going through pregnancy or menstrual cycles.
She has not said she was only helping women but that women need more attention in this process.
1. Men are more likely to end up in prison in the US. By a really large amount. That seems to be a very misleading way of reporting statistics that is sexist.
2. One sexist system being used to justify another.
3. Prisoners aren't given respect. Nothing special about either of those conditions that make it stand out any more than all the recent cases of prisoners with medical needs dying because of disrespect.
Saying women need more help is not just sexist, it is so incredibly and blatantly sexist that any educated person that agrees can have significant judgments made about their views in regards to sexism.
Here, let me give an example.
1. Whites in the US are X percent of the total white population but white US prisoners are >X percent of the total white prisoners.
2. Whites going to prison are more likely to be an active patent to a child, meaning the child will be instead raised in a single parent family or go to foster care.
3. Whites in prison aren't respected.
Thus, whites in prison need more special treatment to help them more than minorities.
Anyone seriously giving the above argument, who was also educated in the racial disparity in prison, would clearly be acting racist.
