I think that him having none on his computer when they seized it, certainly none that he could access, should be a big fucking clue "Hey this guy's probably telling the truth".
Seriously go look up cases of the really bad pedophiles, actual honest to goodness child molestors. When they raid their houses they find all kinds of shit, thousands of images and videos, etc, etc.
A dude with images long deleted on his PC probably is innocent (defendants are supposed to always be innocent until proven guilty, but, you know)
The reason for the "deleted images count" is because if they do have to come back with a warrant, chances are the first thing you're going to do when you close the door is run upstairs and delete everything.
That said, a single image/instance from a year ago does not scream "I jack off to images of kids" in any way. If it was a lot of various images/videos? Fine, he was collecting and deleting, prosecute away. If it's a very small amount of stuff deleted a while back? I can't see motive here, it just looks like someone downloaded something by mistake and got rid of it.
Now the sex offender registry is something entirely different, and screams permanent punishment for crimes. If you think someone's dangerous enough to put them on a publicly accessible database and ban from going near certain areas for the rest of their natural lives, then you think they're too dangerous to ever let go and should have given a life sentence to. If you don't think they're that dangerous, then putting them on a fucking public list is an atrocious thing to do, and pretty much removes the idea of rehabilitation from the justice system.
But hey, it'll never go away because any politician who stands up and says "this is a travesty of justice" will never hold political office again from the sheer weight of "think of the children!" ads and "this man wants your child to be raped!" bullshit talking points. Because child predator laws have nothing to do with protecting children, they're just free PR points before elections when you crank up the penalties.
kildy on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
The article about the guy being convicted for accidently d/ling child porn seems kind of fishy.
I highly doubt the FBI have the time and money to search and hunt down everybody who may potentially d/l child porn. If that was the case, then we would be hearing a lot more cases that is similar to this.
The article about the guy being convicted for accidently d/ling child porn seems kind of fishy.
I highly doubt the FBI have the time and money to search and hunt down everybody who may potentially d/l child porn. If that was the case, then we would be hearing a lot more cases that is familiar to this.
The article about the guy being convicted for accidently d/ling child porn seems kind of fishy.
I highly doubt the FBI have the time and money to search and hunt down everybody who may potentially d/l child porn. If that was the case, then we would be hearing a lot more cases that is similar to this.
It's more likely they busted the source and then went on an IP tracing fun party time adventure.
The sex offender registry needs to not exist and crimes need to not be so bad. Three years for a single image? The full amount would have been 10 years? I've heard of actual child molestors that don't end up in prison that long.
I mean okay, lets just go ahead and assume the prosecution is correct for a second:
- This guy is a pedo
- He has child porn on his computer
- He's never actually harmed a child
Now the one we're getting him in is the second point, the reasoning is that there's no legal way child porn can be created (because it always involves exploitation of children), so it's a crime. That's totally great.
The problem is the sentencing, if you've got no evidence that this guy is actually a child molestor why the fuck should he be on a sex offender registry or go to prison? He hasn't actually hurt anyone.
Shouldn't he just lose computer privileges for some predetermined amount of time and then have his online activities monitored? Basically I'm trying to take a pragmatic standpoint as to how it helps society any to throw the book at him or someone like him even if he was guilty. Making him a sex offender completely craters his effective output to society as a hole and ruins his life, when he hasn't actually (and probably never will) hurt anybody.
I'm just saying our laws in this matter need a good once over by a Vulcan.
The article about the guy being convicted for accidently d/ling child porn seems kind of fishy.
I highly doubt the FBI have the time and money to search and hunt down everybody who may potentially d/l child porn. If that was the case, then we would be hearing a lot more cases that is similar to this.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what they are doing.
Yes, it's different in that actual children were more directly involved but I see no reason to assume they aren't tracking child porn downloads and just arresting whoever downloads it. Like where I live:
These people all had download a shit ton of illegal child porn, but I could see some over zealous police arresting someone who only downloaded a file or two. Police are not infallible.
The sex offender registry needs to not exist and crimes need to not be so bad. Three years for a single image? The full amount would have been 10 years? I've heard of actual child molestors that don't end up in prison that long.
I mean okay, lets just go ahead and assume the prosecution is correct for a second:
- This guy is a pedo
- He has child porn on his computer
- He's never actually harmed a child
Now the one we're getting him in is the second point, the reasoning is that there's no legal way child porn can be created (because it always involves exploitation of children), so it's a crime. That's totally great.
The problem is the sentencing, if you've got no evidence that this guy is actually a child molestor why the fuck should he be on a sex offender registry or go to prison? He hasn't actually hurt anyone.
Shouldn't he just lose computer privileges for some predetermined amount of time and then have his online activities monitored?
I think the majority of the US would favor their castration and execution. People are rabid... I remember having similar conversations with friends in college. There is no sympathy here.
The article about the guy being convicted for accidently d/ling child porn seems kind of fishy.
I highly doubt the FBI have the time and money to search and hunt down everybody who may potentially d/l child porn. If that was the case, then we would be hearing a lot more cases that is similar to this.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what they are doing.
Yes, it's different in that actual children were more directly involved but I see no reason to assume they aren't tracking child porn downloads and just arresting whoever downloads it. Like where I live:
These people all had download a shit ton of illegal child porn, but I could see some over zealous police arresting someone who only downloaded a file or two. Police are not infallible.
But those are two different things.
I'm talking about thousands Joe Schmoe who, one day, clicked on a linked that turned out to be a shock website featuring child pornography.
Is the FBI really going to track down all those thousands of Joe Schmoe and prosecute them all? I find it highly doubtful that there is enough time and resources to do that.
If the FBI was smart, and I hope they're smart, is that they go after the big distributors. Once they got the big distributors, they can go down the I.P. list and go after the repeat offenders.
That's the problem, they're based on emotion and not any kind of reality, and when that happens innocent people always end up the real victims.
Fuck we got child protection laws being used to railroad children. What reality exists in which there is a galaxy that that makes sense in
I suspect that the only way this problem is ever going to be fixed is if some enterprising soul manages to get child porn on the systems of a lot of people with political clout and they are, by some miracle, prosecuted.
That's the problem, they're based on emotion and not any kind of reality, and when that happens innocent people always end up the real victims.
Fuck we got child protection laws being used to railroad children. What reality exists in which there is a galaxy that that makes sense in
I suspect that the only way this problem is ever going to be fixed is if some enterprising soul manages to get child porn on the systems of a lot of people with political clout and they are, by some miracle, prosecuted.
No. That person will be prosecuted for maliciously spreading that content and for every computer it is distributed to will count as a single count of child porn distribution. That would not end well at all.
That's the problem, they're based on emotion and not any kind of reality, and when that happens innocent people always end up the real victims.
Fuck we got child protection laws being used to railroad children. What reality exists in which there is a galaxy that that makes sense in
I suspect that the only way this problem is ever going to be fixed is if some enterprising soul manages to get child porn on the systems of a lot of people with political clout and they are, by some miracle, prosecuted.
No. That person will be prosecuted for maliciously spreading that content and for every computer it is distributed to will count as a single count of child porn distribution. That would not end well at all.
Most likely, yeah, that's why it'd be a miracle if they ended up prosecuting the people in possession of it.
This got me thinking, if the person in the story had told the police to come back when they had a warrant, then gone and DBAN'ed his hard-drive, that sounds like it would generate its own charges, like destruction of evidence or some such. Am I just a pessimist, or is that a real possibility?
Dictator on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
This got me thinking, if the person in the story had told the police to come back when they had a warrant, then gone and DBAN'ed his hard-drive, that sounds like it would generate its own charges, like destruction of evidence or some such. Am I just a pessimist, or is that a real possibility?
I'd imagine it would make the grounds for a warrant for something would drastically increase given the timing of when it happened.
This got me thinking, if the person in the story had told the police to come back when they had a warrant, then gone and DBAN'ed his hard-drive, that sounds like it would generate its own charges, like destruction of evidence or some such. Am I just a pessimist, or is that a real possibility?
I'd imagine it would make the grounds for a warrant for something would drastically increase given the timing of when it happened.
Couldn't you also reasonably argue that the person was just erring on the safe side? What if his porn contained ladies with braces?
There's too much emphasis on the difference of age, 17 years and 364 days is pedophilia whereas 18 years and 0 days is legal yet creepy if you're old enough.
The reality is if a person tells law enforcement to piss off and come back with a warrant
and then they come back and there's no hard-drive to be found
there's no actual crime being committed there
they don't get to say "YOU DESTROYED EVIDENCE!" if they can't prove there was evidence to begin with
which is why it's important not to let people like that know you want to search the premises and only show up when you actually have a warrant
unless you have reason to believe you can browbeat or con your way into a voluntary search, which is superior to a warrant in terms of what police are allowed to look for and how they are allowed to look
the way the system operates it basically encourages law enforcement to play a dangerous game of avoiding getting warrants if possible
This got me thinking, if the person in the story had told the police to come back when they had a warrant, then gone and DBAN'ed his hard-drive, that sounds like it would generate its own charges, like destruction of evidence or some such. Am I just a pessimist, or is that a real possibility?
I'd imagine it would make the grounds for a warrant for something would drastically increase given the timing of when it happened.
Couldn't you also reasonably argue that the person was just erring on the safe side? What if his porn contained ladies with braces?
There's too much emphasis on the difference of age, 17 years and 364 days is pedophilia whereas 18 years and 0 days is legal yet creepy if you're old enough.
Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children.
This got me thinking, if the person in the story had told the police to come back when they had a warrant, then gone and DBAN'ed his hard-drive, that sounds like it would generate its own charges, like destruction of evidence or some such. Am I just a pessimist, or is that a real possibility?
I'd imagine it would make the grounds for a warrant for something would drastically increase given the timing of when it happened.
Couldn't you also reasonably argue that the person was just erring on the safe side? What if his porn contained ladies with braces?
There's too much emphasis on the difference of age, 17 years and 364 days is pedophilia whereas 18 years and 0 days is legal yet creepy if you're old enough.
Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children.
Pedantic is being overly concerned with formal definitions and academically correct usage of terms.
Pornography of someone who is <18 years old is considered child pornography in the US, Canada, and much of the rest of the world.
So, don't be a dink. The law doesn't make a distinction between pedophiles and ephebophiles. It's all child porn if it's under 18, and you know that's what he meant.
It still makes me sad that, in florida at least, a 16 and 17 year old can have legal sex, but taking pictures of each other and send them to each other makes them both guilty of production, distribution and possession of child porn
That's the problem, they're based on emotion and not any kind of reality, and when that happens innocent people always end up the real victims.
Fuck we got child protection laws being used to railroad children. What reality exists in which there is a galaxy that that makes sense in
I suspect that the only way this problem is ever going to be fixed is if some enterprising soul manages to get child porn on the systems of a lot of people with political clout and they are, by some miracle, prosecuted.
No. That person will be prosecuted for maliciously spreading that content and for every computer it is distributed to will count as a single count of child porn distribution. That would not end well at all.
Most likely, yeah, that's why it'd be a miracle if they ended up prosecuting the people in possession of it.
Hahahaha. Powerful people don't go through the same legal system. They also get 10x the protection from the law if they happen to work in law enforcement or have power over law enforcement.
That's the problem, they're based on emotion and not any kind of reality, and when that happens innocent people always end up the real victims.
Fuck we got child protection laws being used to railroad children. What reality exists in which there is a galaxy that that makes sense in
I suspect that the only way this problem is ever going to be fixed is if some enterprising soul manages to get child porn on the systems of a lot of people with political clout and they are, by some miracle, prosecuted.
No. That person will be prosecuted for maliciously spreading that content and for every computer it is distributed to will count as a single count of child porn distribution. That would not end well at all.
Most likely, yeah, that's why it'd be a miracle if they ended up prosecuting the people in possession of it.
Hahahaha. Powerful people don't go through the same legal system. They also get 10x the protection from the law if they happen to work in law enforcement or have power over law enforcement.
Which is why anyone who has actually read anything reputable about evolution knows that no one should take moral cues from nature.
That sad fact is just the natural extension of self-preservation and short-sightedness. If it were up to me, the people responsible for drafting and upholding the law would be subject to Double Jeopardy, where they are objectively sentenced to twice the sentence on the books.
The answer is clear - to avoid all this confusion, the internet needs to be regulated China-style and all pornography is scrubbed away in favor of more wholesome entertainment.
If the law operated according to any semblance of reason, 16 would be the drinking age and anyone who pisses in public would be fined $40 and not be put on the same list as child molesters.
If the law operated according to any semblance of reason, 16 would be the drinking age and anyone who pisses in public would be fined $40 and not be put on the same list as child molesters.
No, restricting sealed alcohol containers to older people is a great idea. Have a tiered system: first you get booze with food, then you can just buy booze at the bar, then finally you can take it home. Introduce people to drinking in a social setting where they can see people only having 1-3 drinks, not chugging a bottle of rum and puking to be "hardcore".
If the law operated according to any semblance of reason, 16 would be the drinking age and anyone who pisses in public would be fined $40 and not be put on the same list as child molesters.
No, restricting sealed alcohol containers to older people is a great idea. Have a tiered system: first you get booze with food, then you can just buy booze at the bar, then finally you can take it home. Introduce people to drinking in a social setting where they can see people only having 1-3 drinks, not chugging a bottle of rum and puking to be "hardcore".
yeah generally i am against "Tiered Rights" but alcohol is such a potent thing that i actually think this is a good idea
In some US States it is actually legal for minors to consume alcohol in their place of residence under supervision by their parents or legal guardians. If these laws were better-known, the whole teenage/college binge drinking thing wouldn't be as big of an issue, because it wouldn't be such a social taboo thrill and people would learn their limits early on (because if your mother sees you doing something embarrassing while you are shit-faced she will never let you live it down).
like when i was 13 having a beer with my father while watching hockey or a glass of wine with dinner was a normal thing
i think that was helpful, personally.
That's normal. In europe kids get used to having a glass of wine with dinner, and never really do the whole have a kegger and get blackout drunk everynight when they hit the legal drinking age.
That's normal. In europe kids get used to having a glass of wine with dinner, and never really do the whole have a kegger and get blackout drunk everynight when they hit the legal drinking age.
Not to seem to be nitpicking, but I'm fairly sure a large amount of that kind of abuse comes well before legal drinking age. At least mine did. Or so I've been told.
This is even more kneejerk than defending the FBI reflectively. We only have this guy's unsubstantiated claim that the accidentally downloaded child porn and that the FBI mysteriously showed up at his home for no reason. Meanwhile, he's pleading guilty and accepting a three year sentence. Its not trust that drives the skepticism its Occaam's Razor.
He probably plead guilty because his lawyer ran the numbers and told him that the odds are extremely stacked against him if he goes to trial (which, if he loses, risks a sentence quantifiably worse by orders of fucking magnitude). A guilty plea, as has been shown in the YouTube videos previously posted, isn't necessarily proof of guilt.
yeah generally i am against "Tiered Rights" but alcohol is such a potent thing that i actually think this is a good idea
In some US States it is actually legal for minors to consume alcohol in their place of residence under supervision by their parents or legal guardians. If these laws were better-known, the whole teenage/college binge drinking thing wouldn't be as big of an issue, because it wouldn't be such a social taboo thrill and people would learn their limits early on (because if your mother sees you doing something embarrassing while you are shit-faced she will never let you live it down).
Hang on - some? I'd sort of assumed that this was universal (within certain constraints in terms of country, etc., of course)
A brief search reveals that that is far from the case. It seems something of an obvious system, perhaps with some restrictions, though.
like when i was 13 having a beer with my father while watching hockey or a glass of wine with dinner was a normal thing
i think that was helpful, personally.
There was a situation in America one time, when some father who wasn't aware of the alcoholic nature of Mike's Hard Lemonade was at a baseball game with his kid and unwittingly ordered his boy a somewhat-more-than-lemonade.
I don't have kids, but I would probably be scared shitless that word might get out that I was feeding my kid something that could get him taken away from me.
I don't have kids, but I would probably be scared shitless that word might get out that I was feeding my kid something that could get him taken away from me.
Now wait - how is giving your 7 year old some alcohol different from those that dad and uncle who videotaped themselves teaching their kids to smoke weed and then post it on youtube? The intentions were opposite but all the kids still consumed mind-altering substances at the end of the day.
like when i was 13 having a beer with my father while watching hockey or a glass of wine with dinner was a normal thing
i think that was helpful, personally.
There was a situation in America one time, when some father who wasn't aware of the alcoholic nature of Mike's Hard Lemonade was at a baseball game with his kid and unwittingly ordered his boy a somewhat-more-than-lemonade.
I don't have kids, but I would probably be scared shitless that word might get out that I was feeding my kid something that could get him taken away from me.
If this guy is actually that mind-bendingly dumb, you have to wonder—if he hadn't been reported and if child protective services hadn't stepped in, how many "lemonades" would it take before he realized his 7-year-old was hammered?
I don't envy anyone who works for CPD. Overwhelmingly, most of the cases are like this and they're labelled as overreacting bureaucrats who are more concerned with following regulation than common sense. But then, if they give parent's the benefit of the doubt, eventually there's a case where someone's storing their dead kids in the freezer after they were reported for something and investigated by CPD and all of a sudden everyone jerks to the complete opposite end of the spectrum.
like when i was 13 having a beer with my father while watching hockey or a glass of wine with dinner was a normal thing
i think that was helpful, personally.
There was a situation in America one time, when some father who wasn't aware of the alcoholic nature of Mike's Hard Lemonade was at a baseball game with his kid and unwittingly ordered his boy a somewhat-more-than-lemonade.
I don't have kids, but I would probably be scared shitless that word might get out that I was feeding my kid something that could get him taken away from me.
If this guy is actually that mind-bendingly dumb, you have to wonder—if he hadn't been reported and if child protective services hadn't stepped in, how many "lemonades" would it take before he realized his 7-year-old was hammered?
I don't envy anyone who works for CPD. Overwhelmingly, most of the cases are like this and they're labelled as overreacting bureaucrats who are more concerned with following regulation than common sense. But then, if they give parent's the benefit of the doubt, eventually there's a case where someone's storing their dead kids in the freezer after they were reported for something and investigated by CPD and all of a sudden everyone jerks to the complete opposite end of the spectrum.
Jesus fucking christ though this is retarded. Almost everyone has a story of a drunk child via a relative or friend. There's a guy at my uni who's own story is of how he got into the wine cabinet when he was young. Would the kid getting accidentally hammered once have been a problem? No. This is just stupid.
"Hey you realize that's alcoholic?" is the correct response to the problem.
Was this guy black? Coz that's the impression this story gives me.
EDIT: Apparently not. I suppose it's a small miracle.
Posts
The reason for the "deleted images count" is because if they do have to come back with a warrant, chances are the first thing you're going to do when you close the door is run upstairs and delete everything.
That said, a single image/instance from a year ago does not scream "I jack off to images of kids" in any way. If it was a lot of various images/videos? Fine, he was collecting and deleting, prosecute away. If it's a very small amount of stuff deleted a while back? I can't see motive here, it just looks like someone downloaded something by mistake and got rid of it.
Now the sex offender registry is something entirely different, and screams permanent punishment for crimes. If you think someone's dangerous enough to put them on a publicly accessible database and ban from going near certain areas for the rest of their natural lives, then you think they're too dangerous to ever let go and should have given a life sentence to. If you don't think they're that dangerous, then putting them on a fucking public list is an atrocious thing to do, and pretty much removes the idea of rehabilitation from the justice system.
But hey, it'll never go away because any politician who stands up and says "this is a travesty of justice" will never hold political office again from the sheer weight of "think of the children!" ads and "this man wants your child to be raped!" bullshit talking points. Because child predator laws have nothing to do with protecting children, they're just free PR points before elections when you crank up the penalties.
I highly doubt the FBI have the time and money to search and hunt down everybody who may potentially d/l child porn. If that was the case, then we would be hearing a lot more cases that is similar to this.
We need another source with more info.
It's more likely they busted the source and then went on an IP tracing fun party time adventure.
No actual facts or other information we didn't know.
I mean okay, lets just go ahead and assume the prosecution is correct for a second:
- This guy is a pedo
- He has child porn on his computer
- He's never actually harmed a child
Now the one we're getting him in is the second point, the reasoning is that there's no legal way child porn can be created (because it always involves exploitation of children), so it's a crime. That's totally great.
The problem is the sentencing, if you've got no evidence that this guy is actually a child molestor why the fuck should he be on a sex offender registry or go to prison? He hasn't actually hurt anyone.
Shouldn't he just lose computer privileges for some predetermined amount of time and then have his online activities monitored? Basically I'm trying to take a pragmatic standpoint as to how it helps society any to throw the book at him or someone like him even if he was guilty. Making him a sex offender completely craters his effective output to society as a hole and ruins his life, when he hasn't actually (and probably never will) hurt anybody.
I'm just saying our laws in this matter need a good once over by a Vulcan.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what they are doing.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/12/10/world/international-us-europol-raids.html
Yes, it's different in that actual children were more directly involved but I see no reason to assume they aren't tracking child porn downloads and just arresting whoever downloads it. Like where I live:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/12/04/sk-internet-child-porn.html
These people all had download a shit ton of illegal child porn, but I could see some over zealous police arresting someone who only downloaded a file or two. Police are not infallible.
I think the majority of the US would favor their castration and execution. People are rabid... I remember having similar conversations with friends in college. There is no sympathy here.
Fuck we got child protection laws being used to railroad children. What reality exists in which there is a galaxy that that makes sense in
Red states?
But those are two different things.
I'm talking about thousands Joe Schmoe who, one day, clicked on a linked that turned out to be a shock website featuring child pornography.
Is the FBI really going to track down all those thousands of Joe Schmoe and prosecute them all? I find it highly doubtful that there is enough time and resources to do that.
If the FBI was smart, and I hope they're smart, is that they go after the big distributors. Once they got the big distributors, they can go down the I.P. list and go after the repeat offenders.
I suspect that the only way this problem is ever going to be fixed is if some enterprising soul manages to get child porn on the systems of a lot of people with political clout and they are, by some miracle, prosecuted.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
No. That person will be prosecuted for maliciously spreading that content and for every computer it is distributed to will count as a single count of child porn distribution. That would not end well at all.
Most likely, yeah, that's why it'd be a miracle if they ended up prosecuting the people in possession of it.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I'd imagine it would make the grounds for a warrant for something would drastically increase given the timing of when it happened.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Couldn't you also reasonably argue that the person was just erring on the safe side? What if his porn contained ladies with braces?
There's too much emphasis on the difference of age, 17 years and 364 days is pedophilia whereas 18 years and 0 days is legal yet creepy if you're old enough.
and then they come back and there's no hard-drive to be found
there's no actual crime being committed there
they don't get to say "YOU DESTROYED EVIDENCE!" if they can't prove there was evidence to begin with
which is why it's important not to let people like that know you want to search the premises and only show up when you actually have a warrant
unless you have reason to believe you can browbeat or con your way into a voluntary search, which is superior to a warrant in terms of what police are allowed to look for and how they are allowed to look
the way the system operates it basically encourages law enforcement to play a dangerous game of avoiding getting warrants if possible
Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children.
Pedantic is being overly concerned with formal definitions and academically correct usage of terms.
Pornography of someone who is <18 years old is considered child pornography in the US, Canada, and much of the rest of the world.
So, don't be a dink. The law doesn't make a distinction between pedophiles and ephebophiles. It's all child porn if it's under 18, and you know that's what he meant.
You're practically trolling this thread.
i mean, seriously, what the hell
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
Hahahaha. Powerful people don't go through the same legal system. They also get 10x the protection from the law if they happen to work in law enforcement or have power over law enforcement.
Which is why anyone who has actually read anything reputable about evolution knows that no one should take moral cues from nature.
That sad fact is just the natural extension of self-preservation and short-sightedness. If it were up to me, the people responsible for drafting and upholding the law would be subject to Double Jeopardy, where they are objectively sentenced to twice the sentence on the books.
No, restricting sealed alcohol containers to older people is a great idea. Have a tiered system: first you get booze with food, then you can just buy booze at the bar, then finally you can take it home. Introduce people to drinking in a social setting where they can see people only having 1-3 drinks, not chugging a bottle of rum and puking to be "hardcore".
This would actually be a really good idea.
In some US States it is actually legal for minors to consume alcohol in their place of residence under supervision by their parents or legal guardians. If these laws were better-known, the whole teenage/college binge drinking thing wouldn't be as big of an issue, because it wouldn't be such a social taboo thrill and people would learn their limits early on (because if your mother sees you doing something embarrassing while you are shit-faced she will never let you live it down).
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
not like
pounding back jello shooters or something
like when i was 13 having a beer with my father while watching hockey or a glass of wine with dinner was a normal thing
i think that was helpful, personally.
Eliminate the social taboos and the abuse of excess becomes less alluring!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's normal. In europe kids get used to having a glass of wine with dinner, and never really do the whole have a kegger and get blackout drunk everynight when they hit the legal drinking age.
Not to seem to be nitpicking, but I'm fairly sure a large amount of that kind of abuse comes well before legal drinking age. At least mine did. Or so I've been told.
Hang on - some? I'd sort of assumed that this was universal (within certain constraints in terms of country, etc., of course)
A brief search reveals that that is far from the case. It seems something of an obvious system, perhaps with some restrictions, though.
There was a situation in America one time, when some father who wasn't aware of the alcoholic nature of Mike's Hard Lemonade was at a baseball game with his kid and unwittingly ordered his boy a somewhat-more-than-lemonade.
Naturally he had his kid taken away.
I don't have kids, but I would probably be scared shitless that word might get out that I was feeding my kid something that could get him taken away from me.
Now wait - how is giving your 7 year old some alcohol different from those that dad and uncle who videotaped themselves teaching their kids to smoke weed and then post it on youtube? The intentions were opposite but all the kids still consumed mind-altering substances at the end of the day.
If this guy is actually that mind-bendingly dumb, you have to wonder—if he hadn't been reported and if child protective services hadn't stepped in, how many "lemonades" would it take before he realized his 7-year-old was hammered?
I don't envy anyone who works for CPD. Overwhelmingly, most of the cases are like this and they're labelled as overreacting bureaucrats who are more concerned with following regulation than common sense. But then, if they give parent's the benefit of the doubt, eventually there's a case where someone's storing their dead kids in the freezer after they were reported for something and investigated by CPD and all of a sudden everyone jerks to the complete opposite end of the spectrum.
Jesus fucking christ though this is retarded. Almost everyone has a story of a drunk child via a relative or friend. There's a guy at my uni who's own story is of how he got into the wine cabinet when he was young. Would the kid getting accidentally hammered once have been a problem? No. This is just stupid.
"Hey you realize that's alcoholic?" is the correct response to the problem.
Was this guy black? Coz that's the impression this story gives me.
EDIT: Apparently not. I suppose it's a small miracle.