... deter them more next time than the 5 minutes? Likely not in most cases. At least according to psychology. Humans don’t actually remember duration very long. Wether it was an amazing meal or a terrible illness, years after it has passed we remember it was a “good meal” or that it was a “bad time” but we are removed from the concept of time except for possibly a recollection we wished it was longer or shorter at the time. So- what actual constructive benefit does imposing extremely harsh sentences do to the crime of perjury, when someone was already willing to lie to police and a court, and sentence an innocent person to a crime they knew they didn’t commit? What justice is done by it? An eye for an eye? In what way does it “make whole” the person falsely accused to add extra years to a persons life long felony conviction sentence?

very little concept of just how bad it is- they know “prison sucks,” but they don’t KNOW it. It isn’t a personal truth but a general truism like not staying up late, drinking lots of water, not eating junk food, or any number of things we know are bad ideas and can lead to bad consequences but we don’t actually realize the impact unless it happens to us, or at the very least to someone close to us. Despite many millions of deaths people still smoke and drink or do drugs, and one thing that is often heard from people who have quit is that someone close to them actually died. Seeing it, being able to relate to it made it “real” for them and not a statistic or a generic warning it’s “bad.” So there isn’t any compelling evidence I have that says extending prison sentences has a positive effect. I mean- if a kid hits another kid at daycare- and you make them stand in “timeout” for 5 hours instead of 5 minutes will it really have an increase in effectiveness to justify it, will the 5 hours..

... punishment they often don’t realize just how bad it is. Moreover, locking people away long term does little to teach. That person isn’t learning not to commit crime, they don’t have the opportunity and usually end up in a worse place than they started which can increase the likelihood of crime. Long prison sentences also acclimate people to prison to the point it becomes normalcy, which takes away much of the preventative nature of the threat and replaces it with an increased desire to not be caught. But even more so, others don’t learn. There’s no real impact to most people when they hear someone was put in prison for a long time because “they aren’t bad” like them. Drunk driving, people who killed someone while texting and driving, on and on- and the impact isn’t very jarring to most, who despite others being convicted everyday generally continue to behave as they always have. And since most people who aren’t prisoners spend very little time with prisoners or in prison, they have

@pokethebear- are you saying that the burden of proof you would require, to prove that a person accusing rape lied, is that person must fully confess and admit to lying? As for increasing the penalty for perjury- The crime of perjury is a felony carrying 1 year federal sentence, it is also a state crime but each state treats it differently with sentences up to 5 years and permanent fellon status along with hefty fines. Someone who lacks the foresight to think that is an offense that isn’t worth perjuring ones self is unlikely to think more seriously on a longer sentence- so what would be the actual impact of the change? 3 strikes laws which put people in jail for repeated offenses of an often trivial nature were not shown to reduce crime at all- people have trouble conceiving long term consequences and balancing those against short term impulse. (we’d all have huge saving accounts and amazing careers, investments, be in good shape etc otherwise...) So until someone receives a...

A woman for tax fraud is a slime ball, but that anyone reporting any other human being for tax fraud, or any other crime, who has no serious reason to believe a crime was committed, but instead is doing so out of obvious malice and spite, is doing society a disservice.

.... resources. In order to have serious reason to suspect these women of tax fraud one would need certain information. One would need to know perhaps how much their total monthly income was, and have some idea of their monthly expenses on a running basis so as to indicate mathematically that they could not afford the expense- however without knowing what credit is available to them, one can’t know that they aren’t simply poorly managing their finances with a huge debt on minimum payments unless one knows what assets they have in liquidity. So one needs to know their bank account information, to do math on wether they could possibly make a minimum payment on purchases when subtracting taxes from publicly reported income, and still maintain a savings that is increasing at an anomalous rate. That or have evidence of tax shelters being used illegally such as illigitimate fleeing acclubts or investments, investment fraud, shielding assets, etc. so bethorien isn’t saying anyone reporting...

@garlog- I get where you’re coming from and you make a valid point- but I don’t see it applying here. Bethorien is speaking specifically on those who are doing a “thot audit,” not on people legitimately reporting tax fraud that happens to be perpetrated by women who make money in certain ways or have a certain public image. Targeting a industries or contractors statistically likely to not report taxes, like internet merchants, isn’t wrong per se. but combining that targeting with pejorative language indicates malice, that one isn’t doing it out of good intent but spite to a group. Secondly, and more importantly- while one can legitimately target a group for review to try and find tax evaders, simply reporting someone for tax evasion because of their job, or in other words reporting a person for a crime simply because who they are or what they do makes you think they are probably a criminal, but without any proof or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity- IS a waste of public...

I actually do know a Lexus. She is an office manager for an NPO specializing in environmentally responsible practices.

No. The architectural design for the original “McDonalds was “red and white.” The roofline penned by the architect Stanley Meson was deemed too flat and the iconic arches were added at the credit of McDonald brother Dick McDonald. An uncredited sign maker added the yellow neon to the arches to be more eye catching. The origins of the Golden Arches (source McDonalds corporate history) were around the early 1950’s. The original and first “McDonalds famous hamburgers” in LA, the earliest thing we could consider a “McDonalds” at all- was erected in the late 1940’s. The soviet flag was selected in the 1920’s- predating McDonalds by a number of decades. HOWEVER- “who would have guessed.?” Beyond many casual observers- pretty much every student of art for quite some time, or anyone with a knowledge of colors. Red and Yellow are primary colors- and not separated very far on the color wheel. The color theory gets more complex than that- but in short it’s no secret that the two can work together

... for that, and how severely? Where do we draw the line now that we opened the door for 100x jeopardy, where the convicted can turn around and try and imprison theor accuser, and then the accuser can do the same? How many times does someone have to be accused of the same crime back and forth before you just say duck it and let them both walk- or throw them in jail for life, or... what then? It’s not a well thought out stance- and it is NOT inline with justice or our justice system, let alone everything we know about how human beings react and learn based on imprisonment. The whole idea is ludicrous. If you want to discuss something intelligent- discuss how to change the way rape is prosecuted. You don’t need a “revenge” clause in the law if you do your damndest to get it right the first time. If you do the best- and it goes wrong- yeah. That sucks. Shit happens, and it still beats mob justice.

So- if it is better to let 1,000 guilty men walk than let 1 go to prison for a crime they didn’t commit- if in so many peoples opinions it is best to protect the potentially innocent against false prosecution- how would you propose we then protect those who make accusations of rape? Because now they can be prosecuted simply for reporting a crime- yes. The “guilty ones.” But how is guilt determined? By trial. And IF a trial could perfectly and flawlessly determine guilt- we wouldn’t be discussing this because any man accused of rape who was innocent wouldn’t be convicted right? So the same justice system that can fail those people can fail people making accusations legitimately and label THEM guilt you of a crime they didn’t commit right? So how do you then protect them from that? And what is the punishment then- if someone is accused of rape- and they claim it is false. The rapist is acquitted and accuser is convicted- but then- on appeal the accuser is acquitted? Who do we punish...

You realize that the ENTIRE point of the justice system is 4 fold:
1. Protect the general public from threat.
2. Make whole, or as whole as possible all parties as they were before a crime.
3. Discourage and rehabilitate against future criminal action.
4- and probably most important: protect and uphold the rights of all humans.
If is not always possible to get all of these perfect. The system is designed and (hopefully continually improved,) to do as well as it can, but without total surveillance of body and mind, it is not possible to KNOW guilt, an accusation is made, a burden of proof is set, the accuser must prove the guilt of the accused or the accused may walk. It is possible to wrongly convict for ANY crime and if it happens just 1 time- that is a travesty that we should try to avoid, but NOT by forgetting the fundamental reasons the legal system exists.

What I see here is a fundamental missunderatanding of the justice system. A trial is not a debate. You do not go in gladiator style. It is a defense. The prosecution will present all evidence they have, the defense will present theirs. If the evidence is sufficient for judge or jury they will convict. If not, they will acquit. If afteryour trial you believe you were falsely accused, or come into new evidence you request an appeal. The notion of creating punitive laws against those pressing charges destroys that system because every hearing becomes a fight where each side is seeking to put the other in prison. Anyone can accuse you of a crime. The question of taking away the rights of anyone to accuse people of a crime is ridiculous. If you want to examine something, examine the burden of proof. That is what this is really about. Punishing a false accuser after a conviction or trying to run two trials concurrently is like locking the stable after the horse is stolen.

Keep in mind- whatever criteria you select that will determine the burden of proof that a person is lying in a rape case, also sets the standard of evidence for rape. If you require for instance- video proof- then any person who is raped and Does not have that proof, had no legal recourse. They cannot pursue a rape charge without likely having a defense attorney turn their case insider out on them, ending up with them in prison and the person they are accusing going free- and this applies to real victims too. Because the moment someone fails to meet your burden of proof- they can be declare a liar, and the moment they are declared a liar, they have no case. So whatever you require they provide to prove they are not bringing false accusations- will be the thing required by ALL rape victims to even seek justice or speak about being raped.

There is a VERY strong difference in what is being said here. No one that I saw has argued that rape shouldn’t be held to the same standards of perjury or false reportin as any other crime. What I have not seen mentioned? What is the burden of proof? What is the HARD legal line, in legal language, that would separate the legitimate differences in human perspective, the unintentional failings in human memory common to all people? How would you separate between a person who legitimately believed a person raped them, and a person who intentionally lied? Not “you can tell...” what is the legal standard that ALL people would be potentially judged on? Further- what is the SPECIFIC legal precedent or logic behind having a special law to punish false rape accusers differently from someone who falsely accuses a person of murder or any other crime?

One could say- “I don’t want to be like Hitler, so if Hitler might do it, I won’t.” In theory, not bad. But... Hitler played with dogs. He briliahed his teeth and has friends and loved the people in his life. He created jobs and fostered industries and corporations that are not just functioning to this day, but many are world leaders in their fields. The man was evil, but we can’t simply say everything he did was evil. The USSR is not an aspirational system- but not everything they did was bad, not every concept or idea they had was bad- it was implemented badly, and we have solid examples of how things go wrong. When someone tries to build an airplane and fails- that doesn’t make airplanes bad, or even some of their ideas. We know communism doesn’t work. So skip communism, but that doesn’t mean in those failed planes aren’t some ideas that can help us soar.

.. Andes, there’s no reason to act like we are. When we aren’t in lofe or death combat on a battlefield there is no reason to react fast and hard to perceived threats, to conduct ourselves as though we are. We as human beings define the course of society. It is not an entity with Iran own will that we all are slaves to- like the economy it is a creation born from the thoughts and actions of individuals. The man feels threatened. That’s not a leap- he’s said so himself. He feels a threat to freedom and to his property and that of his “tribe” and his ways, and so he advocates based out of his fear of communism and fear of soviet distopia under the premise that anything that seeks like something “they” would do is wrong.

... but it isn’t truth. It has validity and merit, but it isn’t valid. So no, not everyone who looks at Dr. Peterson and says “what an intelligently phrased and obviously well thought out load of popular trite founded on flawed premises..” is dismissing him out of hand because they are part of a Marxist conspiracy to replace the word “your” with “our.” The fact is that much of what he says may well ring mechanically true. As humans- analyzing ourselves and little behavior can be uncomfortable. Stripped of sentimentality most relationships come back to us. What someone does or can do for us. Even our family. It comes back to what we want and how we get it. It’s much harder to be “enlightened” and “open minded” when one has nothing, much easier to be accepting and sharing when we have more than we need and feel no risk of loosing it. When the plane crashes in the Andes and gets stranded, humans eat their neighbor or get eaten. Uncomfortable truth. But when we aren’t stranded in the...

I like how he questioned the merits of the man’s argument, and the assumption was that he was salty because of his politics. You named a credential- ok, he got a degree in psychology- lots of people do. His degree in psychology makes him somehow an expert in politics? Or is he a popular intellectual with a degree in psychology- and the study of people could certainly help a person in how to push the right buttons to engage certain people and be popular without needing to necessarily be intellectual? One of my step moms was intelligent and sucessful, had a degree in psychology, her own practice. Said many valid things. Wasn’t the best person to listen to. Bernie Sanders- as far left as you can go just about without ending up in the ocean. Man only leaned left once in his life and it was to reach into a donation jar with someone else’s money. Yet- plenty of “left leaning” folks don’t follow him despite the fact he says many valid things- because at the core his message has truth...

To make an exact reproduction of the Hope Diamond would be trial and error. To make a “superior” stone of similar size, I don’t think would be too difficult. But you’re likely right that it would take a few shots, I think it’s more that it’s pointless to do. Unless you had some special application where you required a diamond that size (like a laser or other equipment...) I just can’t see much demand for it.

Lol.

So in 2018, the world is far less male centric and male dominated than in the past, and traditional masculinity isn’t necessarily such a prized virtue, nor is it to be held as the highest standard of virtue a person could achieve. So ok not saying we can’t discuss changing the lexicon or some other solution- but if one asks “why is saying balls.. blah blah...” that is why. Because balls are not synonymous with “toughness” and it has nothing to do with having babies or being kicked in the nuts- balls serve here as a symbol of traditional masculinity and its virtues, because masculinity is male and so are balls- that is kinda the point. Not that everyone on earth should have balls, and not that women can’t or shouldn’t be brave or tough or strong etc. the term is an artifact from when the virtues socially associated with femininity were largely different from those of masculinity- that doesn’t make those virtues exclusively masculine.