So. If I have a THOUSAND pictures of this girl on my laptop, I'm legal?

Keep in mind that I don't consider the possession of a photograph of any kind a crime, for the simple fact that the arts have advanced to the point that any situation may be imaged without showing a real person; it is still relevant that the picture may DEPICT a crime, which can be prosecuted, the point of this effort.

"Your body is your body. Owned by you. Whether you are 6, 16, 60."

Time for Patrick to talk about rights, is it not? Does the wish of that six-year-old trump the efforts of guardians to prevent exploitation, noted right here on this blog as the entire purpose of the distribution of images of the "underage*"?

*now in quotes because it will apparently be defined AGAIN

S.K. shared the video, in which she performs consensual oral sex on an unidentified male, with two close friends and fellow students, who later reported her to the school resource officer.

It's pretty much an universal thing that if you bring something naughty in high school, there's always a tattletale willing to run to the teachers.

What about the "unidentified male" in that video? Did he give permission for his nude image (albeit faceless) to be distributed throughout the school? Is his body not his own? Because you know his identity is known in that school, or soon will be.

This girl may not need to be arrested and branded a sex criminal for life, but she does need counseling. What compelled her to make and distribute the video?

All it takes is one person to put it online and another to tag it with her name and it will follow her for life. Is 16 really an age at which she can make the decision to live with that?

Can we really condone a 16 year old's venture into amateur porn with "her body her choice" platitudes? Do we want our own daughters making that choice at that age?

It helps to realize how insane American society is about kids, not just sex. You CANNOT be a "parent" except to take blame for not doing it "right".

Although the problem is overblown, the public face of parenting is that of the terrified soccer mom convinced her precious will be sodomized in seconds if she faces the other way, her vacant and vague smile intensifying when she turns her child over to the professionals at school, to be medicated, then instructed how to apply a condom.

I saw a kid on a skateboard in my home town, not 20 minutes ago. I'm shocked he isn't arrested for being alone.

All the local school property is fenced off and locked. Play? Only by schedule, and supervised so that nothing ever happens.

The Special Court of Appeals upheld S.K.'s conviction, ruling that the consensual nature of the sex act in question was irrelevant, as was the fact that it was not illegal for S.K. to perform the act. Taking a video of the act and sending it to other people constituted distribution of child pornography, according to the court's decision.

"...constituted distribution of child pornography...."

This is where the law goes a little sideways. It's legal for a 16-year-old to have sex with anyone (of any age) she chooses, but not legal for a sexual act involving her to be depicted in film or pictures, even privately held ones. Sixteen is the cut-off for choosing to have sex, but eighteen is the cut-off for depicting it?

All the local school property is fenced off and locked. Play? Only by schedule, and supervised so that nothing ever happens. ~ Radwaste at June 1, 2019 7:40 AM

Drove by my old elementary school a few weeks ago. It's in a nearby small town. The playground has been changed to a padded one.

When I was in school there, we had a climbing tower with a chain ladder. It was about 6 feet tall and where the older kids met since the younger ones were unable or afraid to climb it. There was no grab bar at the top so you had to hoist yourself aboard by reaching for the guard rail around the platform, a 2-3 foot reach at the top of a wobbly chain ladder. Some height was de rigueur for climbing onto the platform.

Getting to the top of the tower meant you were no longer a "little kid." That tower is gone. I wonder how, or if, little kids test themselves today.

To consider a 16 year-old a "child" is perverted. Only a sicko would believe this lie.

No, a 16 year-old is not an adult, but neither are they a child. Pretending they are one isn't healthy for the teen or for the minds of anyone who buys into the lie.

So, it may be something unsavory (although that's not for the state to decide), but it's NOT "child pornography" by any rational measure.

It's time to stop sitting silently and letting this lie be spread without pushback. Even though you will be called names by the perverts who are invested in the lie.

The law is often incoherent Conan. You can kill people for your nation at 18. You are obviously trusted with deadly force. But you cannot buy a beer until 21? The courts in this case appear to have ruled correctly. They followed the law. It is the law that should be changed. The intent and the effect are not in line.

As for the playground equipment, all of that stuff happened when I was in school. We had nice stuff. But one complaint is all it took to get something removed. So the playground equipment was replaced every 2-3 years at my elementary. Eventually they gave up and all you have is an empty field.

The schools are even more incoherent than the law. They demand parental control exceeding that of the actual parents. But they also don't want any responsibility. Measuring educational outcomes is highly opposed at most schools. Life doesn't really let you separate responsibility and control. If you want one you have to take the other or things go wrong very fast.

You should look up gun violence statistics Kent. There are 30 year old 'children' when some talk about child gun deaths.

As for the playground equipment, all of that stuff happened when I was in school. We had nice stuff. But one complaint is all it took to get something removed. So the playground equipment was replaced every 2-3 years at my elementary. Eventually they gave up and all you have is an empty field. ~ Ben at June 1, 2019 8:59 AM

In reality, Ben, I was not expecting that tower to still be there. But there is nothing on the current playground that requires any effort whatsoever: some swings, a merry-go-round, and a slide. That tower was a rite of passage at that school. I'm not lamenting the tower as much as I am the rite of passage it represented.

When I told my parents I climbed the tower for the first time, they did not demand the school remove such a dangerous piece of equipment (and it was dangerous for little kids). They said "great" and went about whatever they were doing at the time. It was no big deal to them, but a big deal to me then, as a little kid.

What challenges and rites of passage do our children have today?

The law is often incoherent Conan. You can kill people for your nation at 18. You are obviously trusted with deadly force. But you cannot buy a beer until 21?
__________________________________________________

What I posted in 2012:

Just because the DRIVING age is usually 16 doesn't mean it should be so low - these days. The reason? Even well under than a century ago, neither roads or cars allowed for high speeds. If they had, you can almost bet the writers of the driving laws wouldn't have allowed 16-year-olds to drive. Given the traffic fatalities for teens, maybe it's time to change the laws?

In the same vein, if we're serious about lowering the divorce rate, how about making it much harder for people under 21 to get married, since few such marriages last anyway?

Also, in 1984, Ellen Goodman said, in a column on underage drinking, that back when young men started arguing "if we're old enough to fight, we're old enough to vote," we should have raised the draft age to 21 instead of lowering the voting age. At the end, she said: "What then of the voter who says that anyone old enough to die for his country is old enough to drink in it? Tell him 18 is much, much too young to die for his country."

You can read the column here:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19840217&id=v8daAAAAIBAJ&sjid=p20DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4837,4088469

I must say it's interesting to imagine how the debate would have gone HAD we tried to raise the draft age.

I also wonder, why is it that, before the 20th century, when adolescence didn't officially exist and young men were expected to do men's work starting in their early teens, they STILL couldn't vote until 21? Or did that have to do with the fact that so many back then didn't finish high school anyway because doing so wasn't as important back then?

While I certainly had my share of hummers by the age of 16 (and, as a teenage ball of hormones) was grateful for all of them), it never would have occurred to me or the young lady in question to keep photographic evidence of the fact, much less show it to others. In fact, even at that tender age I think we realized that doing so would be the mark of a complete idiot.

I understand Conan. I was just commiserating and telling my much sadder tale. My elementary didn't even have the swings anymore. Kids would jump off of them. One kid got hurt. So no more swings for anyone. All that was left was an empty field. No school provided balls either. Someone tripped on a soccer ball so they had to go too.

When all it takes is one complaint you can't have anything.

My mother used to tell me that she was responsible for my actions until I'm eighteen years old.

If that were true, it would be her parents being charged, not her.

Perhaps there's some merit to that to that idea. Unless this child has severe cognitive impairment then the parents were remiss in explaining to their child that once something is out on the internet, it will never go away. The people who she sent this video to are her friends...at least for now. What happens if she has a falling out with some of them, and they decide to share the video to get even?

Can she be absolutely assured that none of her friends will show the video to some of their friends, and that their friends won't have an opportunity to download it from their phones?

It's hard to believe that you can't impress that upon a sixteen-year-old. Surely, S.K. has actually seen videos of her own classmates (not necessarily of a sexual nature) that the subject or owner of that video never intended her to see.

Either her parents were remiss in their duties in impressing this upon her, or she's an idiot.

But in any case, at least her story will serve as an object lesson useful to parents explaining to their underage children what can happen if they make potentially embarrassing or even incriminating videos and trust them to close friends.

Radwaste, your comment is almost unworthy of response. Your obvious problem is that you engage in "all-or-nothing" thinking. Basically, you've got the mindset that if one law restricts a child's rights in any way -- in this case, her supposed right to send indecent videos of herself -- then that conclusively proves that no child in the United States has a single right, not one and it will stay that way from now until the end of time! Forever! Children are doomed, doomed, doomed, doomed to never, ever, ever have a single right, not even the smallest.

The Supreme Court, in Tinker v. Des Moines ruled that children have a right to free speech, and implicit in their hearing the case, since the litigants were children, is a right to sue. They have the first, last, and every word in between on the subject of rights. You're just an obstinate dumbass who's too embarrassed to admit you're wrong.

Not much of right, Isab once said. It's more of a right than blacks had, as ruled by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott.

Maybe someday, Rad, you'll grow up enough to ditch the all-or-nothing thinking, and admit, even to yourself, that your statement that "children have no rights as enumerated by the Constitution" was an attempt to sound informed that ended up making you look like a fool.

Another incoherence in schools is that they want to (and do) distribute condoms, advise about birth control, and make fun of abstinence to kids too young to be legal. There are officially "gay" high schools, but how could someone know for sure they are gay unless they have had sex? Having a special school also will tend to cement sexual identity in kids who may just be play-acting or unsure.

"Your obvious problem is that you engage in "all-or-nothing" thinking."

On the contrary: it is you who insists that an undefined litany of things is a child's right.

Please note that you haven't actually answered the above: does the obvious child's desire to express herself on video trump efforts by guardians to suppress it?

Apparently not, and so a right you may insist exists is shown to be absent.

Make a note of it.

You're welcome. Take a chill pill just in case you wanna blow a blood vessel over this.

cc:

I would hope that only those kids who BEG to go to an all-gay high school would be admitted. Why would you want to get labeled as gay if you were unsure - and what parents would want to take that risk with their teen? Not to mention that when the hormones hit and all you can think about is the opposite sex, you don't have to have intercourse - or even kiss someone - to know you're heterosexual. So what's the difference?

Also, I don't know of any school officials who make fun of "waiting for marriage." (Or who try to avoid talking about statutory rape laws.) What IS ludicrous is the abstinence-only implication that one should have to wait until marriage or death, whichever comes first. Or that God will reward you for abstaining, with a dream spouse, when you turn 25 at the latest. (Why not say the same about the rewards of flossing or losing weight?) Or that condoms should not be made easily available when incurable STIs are very much a problem. Wanting to abstain until adulthood is a separate matter.

As old-fashioned liberal Wendy Kaminer wrote in the early 1990s:

"'What are the benefits of abstinence?' I asked a group of five women friends who came of age in the 1960s. They were momentarily stumped. Everyone readily recited the evils that abstinence avoided — disease, unwanted pregnancies, and considerable heartache — but we had trouble identifying the goods that it offered, even to young women in their late teens. Self-discipline was rejected; celibacy seemed more like self-denial. Finally someone pointed out that chastity might help some young women achieve autonomy. It allows them to focus on satisfying themselves instead of pleasing their boyfriends. It puts school before sex. But chastity is a path to autonomy only when it is divorced from romance.

"The sexual revolution didn't eliminate romance but did temper it a little, with experience, and the opportunity for autonomy without abstinence. At least, that's how it looks in retrospect..."

And, from 2009:

http://meloukhia.net/2009/09/whats_so_funny_about_abstinence_and_virginity/

(it touches on the shows "Glee" and "Greek")

Excerpts:

"...Virginity is viewed as a tragic problem which must be rectified as soon as possible. In fact, entire films have revolved around a plot of taking someone’s virginity. American Pie and The 40 Year Old Virgin come to mind, but there are many others. All of which seem to involve a nerdy character who isn’t conventionally attractive (because nerds aren’t attractive and ugly people never get laid), and this character is sometimes quasi-forced into losing his virginity (oddly enough, none of these stories seem to center around a female character on a quest for her first sexual experience).

"What’s so funny about abstinence and virginity? I went to high school with a few people who were committed to saving themselves for marriage, and I respected that, even if it wasn’t a choice I was interested in. They certainly avoided a lot of the heart ache and generalized hormonal challenges of high school, although I’m sure they dealt with problems of their own. But I certainly didn’t think of these people as laughable or pathetic, and I wouldn’t have mocked them if they had belonged to abstinence clubs...

"...What worries me is not abstinence, but abstinence which is thrust upon people. What worries me is sexual education which isn’t sexual education, but rather a series of lectures about purity and saving yourself which leave people lacking basic knowledge, like information about human anatomy or resources to turn to if you need advice. What worries me is shaming for non-heterosexual sexuality. What worries me is a lack of information about how pregnancy happens and how to avoid it, a dearth of information about how STIs are passed on. All can be passed without having penetrative sex, and graduates of abstinence-only programs are sometimes not aware of this.

"What worries me is the use of religion to abuse people, and the heavy and sometimes extreme focus on female purity in particular, paired with shaming of girls who have not chosen abstinence, along with shaming of rape victims who may have very much wanted to remain abstinent. Father-daughter purity balls creep me out. Getting together with some co-religionists over lunch does not. But neither is funny, and it makes me uncomfortable to see abstinent individuals consistently made fun of in popular culture. I think it’s tragic to see the virgin/whore dichotomy being pushed on everyone from high school girls to young women in pop culture like singers and actresses who are simultaneously supposed to appear pure while also being highly sexualized..."

I WILL say, though, that "virginity" is a word that turns many people off in a way that the word "abstinence" does not, so I don't blame those who get slightly hostile when others insist on using the former term. It's sort of like the difference between "your reputation" and "your privacy." (For the record, I swear I never heard ANY adult or teen use the words "virgin" or "virginity" in the 1980s, and I believe that was because we had more important things to worry about. It would have been like obsessing over whether your classmates had driver's licenses or not - even if they did, it doesn't necessarily mean they'd be allowed to drive anyone else's car.

After all, just how often do you hear any evangelical leader talk about the sanctity of MALE virginity? Or compare teen boys who have had sex to used chewing gum?

Bottom line: Virginity is not a "tangible" object in the way that sex is, and as Shakespeare humorously put it, after a certain age, it is no more appealing than a "withered pear," so, whether you've had sex or not, there's every reason to keep that information private. (The fact that some people DO talk about it as if it were tangible is likely why so many teen girls still think that using tampons destroys virginity - or that it's OK to be manipulated into oral or anal sex but not PIV sex.

"Why would you want to get labeled as gay if you were unsure"

You have a problem with people being gay Lenona?

"what parents would want to take that risk with their teen?"

Quite a few. Even accepting your assumption that being gay is a pejorative, we have a lady in Dallas who is putting her preteen son through gender reassignment mostly as a personal fashion statement. The boy pretty clearly isn't transgender. But it doesn't matter. She is the mom and mom gets what she wants.

You know perfectly well I didn't mean that - and that the real problems are the lethal homophobia that still exists in society, the higher suicide rate for gay teens, and the crushing problem of labeling in general. Just being openly gay is still a pretty brave act in many parts of the U.S. - and getting labeled as something you may not be, sexually related or not, can be very hurtful.

As far as your alleged case in Dallas goes, I have no reason to believe it's the rule rather than the exception - and a pretty wild one at that. Assuming she exists at all. But if she does, that is clearly abuse in the same way that DENYING a child (for religious reasons, maybe) any type of surgery when the child's doctor strongly recommends it would be abuse.

She exists Lenona. Lives on the north side of Dallas. You can look her up if you want. The father sued her to stop it but the courts sided with the mother.

As for coming out as gay being brave, nope. In most of the US it really isn't. You are ~30 years out of date. There was a 'gay' guy in my high school. He had a new girlfriend every week or two. Never a boyfriend. Still claimed to be 'gay'. He isn't unusual. There are lots of other examples of people claiming to be gay, trans, other races, etc if you care to look around.

Being gay has it's downsides. As does being trans to a much greater degree. But most of those are individual issues, not societal ones. Claiming to be gay or trans has pretty much zero consequences these days. Hence the increasing number of 'trans' athletes setting records in women's sports.

In a similar vein ask the SAT who are the mentally ill (they get more time on the test these days). You will find the mentally ill are mostly well educated, get excellent grades in school, and end up going to top tier colleges. Doesn't exactly match up with reality does it?

As for coming out as gay being brave, nope. In most of the US it really isn't. You are ~30 years out of date.
_____________________________________

I believe Illinois is a "blue" state, for one. But, as one columnist pointed out, it's not quite true. ("Freakin' CHICAGO is blue.")

So the number of "red" states might be higher than we thought, if you see what I mean. I'd doubt it's completely safe to be openly gay in those.

Yes, gay conservatives exist. But how many, percentagewise?

Yep, 30 years out of date. Houston is a red town. So is Dallas. This isn't a red/blue issue anymore.

The main issue with actually being gay (as opposed to just pretending) is there just aren't that many gay people period. At roughly 2% of the population you may be the only gay person you know. That sense of isolation isn't a good thing. But there aren't a lot of good options to resolve it.

But as I pointed out falsely claiming to be gay isn't a big deal anymore. It isn't as popular as falsely claiming to be trans is today with the younger crowd. But for the very vast majority of the US population there are near zero consequences to it. And sometimes there are benefits. Heck, I know a couple that falsely claimed to be gay to get on a roommate's medical insurance. And they live in the Texas pan handle. That's about as red state as you can get. Very rural area. Guy was dumb to let his friend on his insurance in my opinion. Still a nice thing to do.

So back to the original question.

"Why would you want to get labeled as gay if you were unsure"
"what parents would want to take that risk with their teen?".

Is it a better school? If so then lots of people. Not a hard choice to make.

@Ben: "You should look up gun violence statistics Kent. There are 30 year old 'children' when some talk about child gun deaths."

Can you provide a link to _anyone_ calling a 30 year old a "child", for misleading gun statistics or anything else?

But it is quite easy to find ones that call 15-24 year olds something that will be read as "children". Criminologists find that the simplest useful age classification is 0-14, 15-24, and 25 and up. Most kids under 14 are physically or psychologically incapable of committing major crimes, so crime stats for that group are mainly things like shoplifting candy, plus a few 12-14 year olds that grew up too fast, and a few freak incidents. Most people over 25 are in control of their impulses and will think ahead to the consequences of an action before doing it - and those that don't probably never will improve and may need to be locked up forever.

But many those in-between are big enough to get into real trouble, but not old enough to think before proceeding. That's the age range of the highest crime rates, and also of most crime victims. So it makes sense to aggregate the crime statistics for this group, disregarding their legal status as "child" or "adult". BECAUSE IN REALITY, A 15 YEAR OLD IS PROBABLY NOT A CHILD PHYSICALLY, AND A 24 YEAR OLD IS LIKELY TO STILL THINK LIKE A CHILD.

IOW, the laws are quite disconnected from reality. There is no magic age separating children from adults. Most 15 year olds are grown up sexually, with raging hormones, although no sense about it - and they're not going to be thinking much better at 16, 18, or 21. Furthermore, no one develops common sense until they've been given the opportunity to make their own decisions and suffer the consequences, so raising the age of majority raises the age at which kids _might_ stop being idiots.

Some of the legal age limits:

16 to drive. This is a compromise between urban areas where there are slower but reliable transportation options so kids who aren't working don't _need_ to drive, and rural areas where kids need to drive if they're going to have a social life outside of school, or any independence at all. (And in my experience, farm kids grow up mentally much faster, and are ready for independence younger.) It's pretty common for farm kids to actually be driving without a license at 14, with the approval of their parents because when the neighbors are miles away, no one has time to chauffer teens everywhere. An 18 year old driving age would only be obeyed in a farming area by someone like me, who was spastic and could not drive safely until my nerves matured a bit.)

18 to be drafted: That was because (at least for the Civil War through Vietnam) the military preffered their cannon fodder to be young and impressionable. Officers were nearly always a few years older at intake (delayed by the requirement of a college degree), but they needed young and stupid privates. I don't know if the far more professional and technological modern military still needs that, but it's a tradition that has not been re-considered yet.

18 for voting and most privileges of adulthood: That was synced to the draft age during the Vietnam War, under the argument that it was unfair to draft kids before they could vote for or against the men sending them to war. (When the WWI draft began, the draft age was 21 to match the voting age. But it didn't pull in enough men until they lowered it to 18, and people understood that when something as big as a world war was going on, fairness would fall by the wayside.)

21 for drinking: That's the one age that's actually been adjusted experimentally - most states lowered it to 18 or 19 around the same time voting was set to 18, then brought it back up to 21 because of the increased highway deaths. But I don't think the age itself matters, it's that there will be a problem whenever kids with limited driving experience start drinking. We'd probably save lives with the drinking age at 15 and the driving age at 18, so most kids knew their limits before driving. Except that would not work in rural areas...

18 to be drafted ~ markm at June 4, 2019 11:31 AM

Today, more recruits are delaying entry - if a certain nephew's experience is any indication. He enlisted at 18 and found himself surrounded by 21-year-olds in basic training at Fort Benning (infantry). They were able to drink - on base and off - while he was not. His social life and socialization into the military suffered as a result.

Another nephew enlisted at 18 and had no issues. However, he was MOS'd to a technical specialty and did not get sent to Benning for basic.

But I don't think the age itself matters, it's that there will be a problem whenever kids with limited driving experience start drinking. We'd probably save lives with the drinking age at 15 and the driving age at 18, so most kids knew their limits before driving. ~ markm at June 4, 2019 11:31 AM

There's a certain logic in not having the drinking age set at 18, or lower. At 18, many kids are still in high school and would be able (and inclined) to provide their underage friends with party fuel. At 21, they've not only theoretically matured, but they are also less inclined to hang around with high school kids.

Here's a Mental Floss article on why the original drinking age was set at 21:

That answers the legal question of why the drinking age is 21, but what was the underlying logic of the original policy? Did lawmakers just pick 21 out of a hat because they wanted college seniors to learn the nuances of bar culture before graduation? Not quite. The concept that a person becomes a full adult at age 21 dates back centuries in English common law; 21 was the age at which a person could, among other things, vote and become a knight. Since a person was an official adult at age 21, it seemed to make sense that they could drink then, too.

This is the logic by which it was it lowered to 18:

Believe it or not, Franklin Roosevelt helped prompt the change in a rather circuitous fashion. FDR approved lowering the minimum age for the military draft from 21 to 18 during World War II. When the Vietnam-era draft rolled around, though, people were understandably a bit peeved that 18-year-old men were mature enough to fight, but not old enough to vote. Thus, in 1971 the states ratified the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18. Legislators started applying the same logic to drinking.

Here's an argument for keeping the drinking age set at 21 from Reason's Steve Chapman:

Why permit 18-year-olds to vote but not drink? Because they have not shown a disproportionate tendency to abuse the franchise, to the peril of innocent bystanders.

Another reason is that extending the vote to 18-year-olds doesn't let even younger people gain illicit access to the polls. But if high-school seniors could legally patronize a liquor store, sophomores would find it much easier to get party fuel. Raising the drinking age to 21 reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities not only among 18-year-olds, who lost the right to drink, but 16-year-olds, who never had it.

Chapman counters the "old enough to fight" argument:

There are other arguments for lowering the age. Maybe the most popular is that if you're old enough to join the Army and die for your country, you're old enough to buy a beer. But there is a good reason to avoid such blind consistency. Among the qualities that make 18-year-olds such good soldiers are their fearlessness and sense of immortality -- traits that do not mix well with alcohol.

I still find it kind of weird to suggest that it's safe to be openly gay in a country where, in the last two years, hate groups are coming out of the woodwork as never before. (So to speak.)

I would have to dig for a while Markm. I will admit I've not seen anyone credible making that claim. But there are a lot of obviously biased people who put things out there.

As for the child/adult there is only one biological change related to that, puberty. Pre-puberty you a physically a child. Post-puberty you are physically an adult. Any behavioral changes post-puberty I'm convinced are learned and not biological in nature. So a specific age is often irrelevant.

Lenona, you still think the SPLC isn't a hate group and is in any way credible despite the clear evidence to the contrary. You live in a bubble. Most of the hate groups coming out these days are left wing ones. Most of the violent groups are left wing ones. They are not likely to target homosexuals.

Ben Says:

"Any behavioral changes post-puberty I'm convinced are learned and not biological in nature."

Convinced by what? The available scientific data clearly demonstrates that significant brain and cognitive development continues to occur until the mid 20s... which is well past the initial onset of puberty.

Here is one article detailing this:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.410340113

Needless to say, you cannot "learn" to increase the size of the corpus callosum, that is a fundamental biological change.

Indeed they do happen Arty. The brain is called a plastic organ for a good reason. Those changes are learned. Needless to say you are wrong.

Benji,

You clearly do not understand the science.

You cannot "learn" to increase the size of the corpus collosum.

The brain being a plastic organ has to due with things like synaptic rewiring following a stroke... not organ growth.

This is a direct quote from the abstract:

"We observed an increase in the size of the corpus callosum as long as human mentation expands, up to the middle 20s."

That isn't something you learn how do to from experience, it is a biological change.

...in a country where, in the last two years, hate groups are coming out of the woodwork as never before. (So to speak.) ~ lenona at June 4, 2019 5:53 PM

Are there emerging hate groups? Or are non-hate groups been classified as hate groups to appease an increasingly hostile political (and donor) base?

I didn't mean any new hate groups. I was thinking of the tiki torches in Charlottesville and such. Like those who aren't afraid to make themselves look hideous wherever cameras and reporters might be - especially those who are middle-aged and used to work below the MSM radar whenever possibile.

So, recently emboldened hate groups?

I think that's as much an emboldening of fringe groups on both sides of the aisle as it is emerging right-wing groups.

No way Occupy Wall Street or Antifa operates so publicly until the Bush-Obama years (not blaming either). And no way the "white nationalists" operate so publicly until then either (again, not blaming either specifically).

Conan,

Come on... are you really equating the folks of occupy wall street who were upset with government bailouts of corrupt banks with people marching in Charlottesville who chanted "Jews will not replace us" and ran over a killed someone?

These aren't even remotely the same thing.

There is a real and very serious problem happening with folks on the extreme political right at the moment and you aren't helping with these false equivalences.

It would be like someone going to court on an assault and battery charge and defending themselves by saying that one time someone accidentally bumped into them on the street and the police did nothing.

These aren't the same things and you know it.

What happened in Charlottesville was a disgrace and there is no recent equivalent from any left wing group.

There you go again, Artie, cherry-picking one part of someone's post, twisting it, presenting it without context, and lying.

Conan,

I don't think you really understand what cherry picking means.

If you say something that is particularly wrong... and I point out that that part is wrong that isn't cherry picking.

Lenona stated that she was specifically talking about the following:

"I was thinking of the tiki torches in Charlottesville and such."

and you compared it to the following:

"No way Occupy Wall Street or Antifa operates so publicly until the Bush-Obama years (not blaming either)."

What I am saying is that including Occupy Wall Street in your comparison is completely ridiculous.

That isn't what cherry picking is.

You don't get freebie outrageous statements.

Conan,

As a matter of fact I am going to coin a new term for what you are guilty of:

"embedding"

This is where you embed a completely outrageous claim in a paragraph that has no justification or warrant... and then when you are rightfully called out on it you complain that someone is "cherry picking".

How about you just say reasonable things without embedding stupidity like drawing spurious comparisons between occupy wall street and white supremacists.

Artie, you conceited ass. I know exactly what cherry-picking means. Perhaps you should look it up. You selected one part of what I said and used that without context to claim I made a false equivalence.

I never equated the violence at Charlottesville with any political movement and you know it. I never defended it, either.

I was speaking of the phenomenon of recently emboldened fringe groups on both sides of the aisle - from OWS to Charlottesville to Antifa to lone operators.

What happened in Charlottesville was a disgrace and there is no recent equivalent from any left wing group. ~ Artemis at June 8, 2019 4:39 PM

Nothing? Have you forgotten the shooting of Steve Scalise? Wait, that wasn't a left wing "group" so you're able to give violent leftists a pass. How convenient for you.

What I am saying is that including Occupy Wall Street in your comparison is completely ridiculous. ~ Artemis at June 9, 2019 10:56 AM

OWS is a fringe group on the left - and that was the subject of my post; not violence, but the emergence of fringe groups.

And exactly how naive are you? Are you so naive or ideologically blinded that you actually think OWS was merely a spontaneous protest of bank bailouts?

There is a real and very serious problem happening with folks on the extreme political right at the moment and you aren't helping with these false equivalences. ~ Artemis at June 8, 2019 4:39 PM

I guess you really are that ideologically blinded.

How easily you ignore the serious problem with folks on the extreme political left. Extremist fringe groups on both sides of the aisle are becoming a problem right now.

Fascism is a collectivist philosophy - as is socialism. Collectivism, whether imposed from the left or the right, is the handmaid of totalitarianism.

Or are you going to ignore Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Laos, Russia, China et al and claim that totalitarianism only comes from the right?

By the way, Artie, there are a lot of folks on the right for whom white supremacists don't speak; a lot of folks who find their philosophy and actions at Charlottesville disturbing. So, how about you don't paint with such broad strokes.

Good bye Artie.

Artie, you conceited ass. I know exactly what cherry-picking means. Perhaps you should look it up. You selected one part of what I said and used that without context to claim I made a false equivalence.

I never equated the violence at Charlottesville with any political movement and you know it. I never defended it, either.

I was speaking of the phenomenon of recently emboldened fringe groups on both sides of the aisle - from OWS to Charlottesville to Antifa to lone operators.

What happened in Charlottesville was a disgrace and there is no recent equivalent from any left wing group. ~ Artemis at June 8, 2019 4:39 PM

Nothing? Have you forgotten the shooting of Steve Scalise? Wait, that wasn't a left wing "group" so you're able to give violent leftists a pass. How convenient for you.

What I am saying is that including Occupy Wall Street in your comparison is completely ridiculous. ~ Artemis at June 9, 2019 10:56 AM

OWS is a fringe group on the left - and that was the subject of my post; not violence, but the emergence of fringe groups.

And exactly how naive are you? Are you so naive or ideologically blinded that you actually think OWS was merely a spontaneous protest of bank bailouts?

There is a real and very serious problem happening with folks on the extreme political right at the moment and you aren't helping with these false equivalences. ~ Artemis at June 8, 2019 4:39 PM

I guess you really are that ideologically blinded.

How easily you ignore the serious problem with folks on the extreme political left. Extremist fringe groups on both sides of the aisle are becoming a problem right now.

Fascism is a collectivist philosophy - as is socialism. Collectivism, whether imposed from the left or the right, is the handmaid of totalitarianism.

Or are you going to ignore Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Laos, Russia, China et al and claim that totalitarianism only comes from the right?

By the way, Artie, there are a lot of folks on the right for whom white supremacists don't speak; a lot of folks who find their philosophy and actions at Charlottesville disturbing. So, how about you don't paint with such broad strokes.

Good bye Artie.

Conan Says:

"Artie, you conceited ass. I know exactly what cherry-picking means. Perhaps you should look it up. You selected one part of what I said and used that without context to claim I made a false equivalence.
I never equated the violence at Charlottesville with any political movement and you know it. I never defended it, either.
I was speaking of the phenomenon of recently emboldened fringe groups on both sides of the aisle - from OWS to Charlottesville to Antifa to lone operators."

Well that is wonderful Conan... but then you weren't participating in the conversation that Lenona was having. She was VERY specifically talking about "hate groups" like the one operating in Charlottesville:

"I didn't mean any new hate groups. I was thinking of the tiki torches in Charlottesville and such."

As a result you don't get to smuggle in occupy wall street and act like this is a reasonable inclusion in the conversation when the discussion is about hate groups.

You are the one who twisted a discussion about "hate groups" into a redefined conversation about "fringe groups"... and then pitched a fit about cherry picking when I held you to the original terms of the conversation you were engaging in.

What you did was you twisted and distorted a conversation... and then pitched a fit when I "untwisted" and "undistorted" it back to the original one.

Conan Says:

"By the way, Artie, there are a lot of folks on the right for whom white supremacists don't speak; a lot of folks who find their philosophy and actions at Charlottesville disturbing. So, how about you don't paint with such broad strokes."

I'm pretty sure I wasn't painting with broad strokes when I said "folks on the extreme political right".

That is a very narrow brush... or are you saying that the "extreme political right" includes a vast part of the population?