"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a47867e$1@news.povray.org...
> On 06/28/09 08:05, somebody wrote:

> > The crux of the matter is, I believe someone can be a pedophile and
*not*
> > have had any sexual acts with kids, for whatever reason. The law, of
course,
> > should only consider if the act took place. Last thing we want is a
thought

> Actually, I don't think so. Or rather, the law likely has a looser
> definition of a sexual act than you or I may think.

The law may have *different* definitions. But courts are to apply those
definitions in a binary manner, and I don't have to.

The court may come to completely different conclusions if a partner in sex
is 17.9 years as opposed to 18.1 years old. To me, that's more or less
meaningless, and I have a much more smooth judegement curve, which takes
into account the age differential between the partners.

Or, as in the previous mugging example, the court will dish out rather
different punishments depending on whether the victim was killed or not.
From my point of view, that doesn't matter at all as far as judging the
mugger, so long as he pulled the trigger with the intent to kill.

Finally, I can judge people on acts that do not fit the definition of a
crime at all.

> > black including all shades of gray. It looks to me that MR is at least
> > slightly racist, however you define "slightly". That video *is*
information,
> > and as information, I don't feel at all that it should be discarded
because
> > "it's a single datum" and hence statistically meaningless, or because
"it
> > doesn't amount to a crime in court"... etc.

> Here I disagree with you. Courts have nothing to do with it. I feel
> that for serious charges, judgment should be suspended until there _is_
> enough data to declare it.

My mind does not work in a binary manner (gratefully).

See below.

> > It may be isolated (and any data about him will be isolated unless you
> > follow them 24/7), but why would you assume that latter? I haven't seen
any
> > non-black raven and I have seen one black raven: I have not seen
anything
> > that says MR is not a racist (granted, that's something you don't get to
see
> > much), and I've seen one case which suggest he may at least have some
latent
> > racism in him. Am I to ignore what I saw?

> See above paragraph. I personally need more data of being a racist
> before coming to a conclusion that someone indeed is a racist.

Do you believe that it's all black and white? That if MR crossed a certain
treshold (say, 12 episodes of racist rants per year) that you'd consider him
a racist, but anything below that you would not? Can you honestly say even a
single episode will not change your mind about him just a little bit?

Post a reply to this message