Sweden Allows Public Masturbation

[APACHERAT]

Wrong. "Buggery" or rather sodomy has been legal in the US military since 2003. Homosexuality is what was not allowed in the US military. It was a US military Appeals Court that ruled sodomy could not be prosecuted in the US military if it was consensual per the Lawrence v TX ruling.

Now I'm aware of liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench, but only Congress can revise the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (UCMJ)

Article 125 of the UCMJ wasn't revised back in 2003. In fact it wasn't revised until 2010 and the Obama administration got their panties all wadded up when they found out that bestiality would still remain being illegal under the UCMJ.

 

[roguenuke]

Now I'm aware of liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench, but only Congress can revise the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (UCMJ)

Article 125 of the UCMJ wasn't revised back in 2003. In fact it wasn't revised until 2010 and the Obama administration got their panties all wadded up when they found out that bestiality would still remain being illegal under the UCMJ.

The US military Appeals Court has just as much say in what UCMJ laws can be enforced lawfully as our SCOTUS does. It doesn't matter what was on the books. What matters is what can legally be enforced and consensual sodomy could not be charged as a violation of the UCMJ since that Appeals Court decision, just as laws restricting interracial marriage, despite being on the books in some states until the 1990s or later, could not be enforced due to the Loving v VA decision in 1968.

 

[APACHERAT]

The US military Appeals Court has just as much say in what UCMJ laws can be enforced lawfully as our SCOTUS does. It doesn't matter what was on the books. What matters is what can legally be enforced and consensual sodomy could not be charged as a violation of the UCMJ since that Appeals Court decision, just as laws restricting interracial marriage, despite being on the books in some states until the 1990s or later, could not be enforced due to the Loving v VA decision in 1968.

Are you one of those barracks lawyers ?

 

[roguenuke]

Are you one of those barracks lawyers ?

I'm one of those that actually reads things and understands how the laws and rules work.

Now, there were times when consensual sodomy could be charged, even after, but just going after someone suspected of being homosexual wasn't one of them. Basically it had to be added on to another charge or policy violation. So you could get charged if it were part of fraternizing or if it was how adultery was committed or done on a ship and caught.

 

[APACHERAT]

I'm one of those that actually reads things and understands how the laws and rules work.

Now, there were times when consensual sodomy could be charged, even after, but just going after someone suspected of being homosexual wasn't one of them. Basically it had to be added on to another charge or policy violation. So you could get charged if it were part of fraternizing or if it was how adultery was committed or done on a ship and caught.

Your another Lt. Keefer ! :scared:

 

[ChrisL]

The US military Appeals Court has just as much say in what UCMJ laws can be enforced lawfully as our SCOTUS does. It doesn't matter what was on the books. What matters is what can legally be enforced and consensual sodomy could not be charged as a violation of the UCMJ since that Appeals Court decision, just as laws restricting interracial marriage, despite being on the books in some states until the 1990s or later, could not be enforced due to the Loving v VA decision in 1968.

He said bestiality though. That's not considered consensual. Is that true? They want to make it so that bestiality is not against the rules?

 

[PerfectStorm]

Imprisoned, really? How about stoned?

He probably was stoned.

 

[roguenuke]

He said bestiality though. That's not considered consensual. Is that true? They want to make it so that bestiality is not against the rules?

Huh? No, that isn't true at all. Bestiality is still against the rules. It would be covered under other rules of the military, including sexual misconduct. And it wouldn't be consensual, since animals cannot legally give consent to sex. It is sort of like our rules about age of consent. It depends on the rules of the state we are in.

But I'm pretty sure by "buggery" he was referring to sodomy mainly, not bestiality.

 

[ChrisL]

Huh? No, that isn't true at all. Bestiality is still against the rules. It would be covered under other rules of the military, including sexual misconduct. And it wouldn't be consensual, since animals cannot legally give consent to sex. It is sort of like our rules about age of consent. It depends on the rules of the state we are in.

But I'm pretty sure by "buggery" he was referring to sodomy mainly, not bestiality.

No he said bestiality.

Now I'm aware of liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench, but only Congress can revise the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (UCMJ)

Article 125 of the UCMJ wasn't revised back in 2003. In fact it wasn't revised until 2010 and the Obama administration got their panties all wadded up when they found out that bestiality would still remain being illegal under the UCMJ.

 

[roguenuke]

No he said bestiality.

I noticed afterward. He is really just complaining. It was pointless to leave 125 in place just for bestiality. It is easily covered by other rules we have. People like Apache are looking for excuses to condemn the repeal of sodomy as a crime and using bestiality from that article as an excuse.

 

[NoC_T]

I don't think you should punish someone for what they might do. I'm not saying stroking off in public is appropriate behavior, I've already said the exact opposite -- I just don't think it rises to the level of a danger to public safety.

At any rate, do everyone a favor and lay off the ad hominem attacks. You don't know a single thing about me.

I know you have a lackadaisical attitude to common decency and public safety. Which is fine as a stand alone expression, but expect to be called on it. This is a political discussion forum. You have no immunity from criticism. How could there be any ad hominem, since I'm basing my responses directly on what posters say?

It wouldn't be a case of what he might do, had we no knowledge of what he did do. Given that, why take the chance? From my perspective, whatever benefit of a doubt he was owed as a private citizen, he dispensed with when he got his dick out in public and started wanking off in an environment that children could be reasonably expected to frequent. Personally, I have a problem with that, though I understand my opinion may not be shared by others.

 

[calamity]

Yeah, wait till you get home wankers.

This sounds reasonable.

 

[NoC_T]

As others have pointed out, this should never have been charged as sexual assault to begin with. It is obviously indecent exposure or an indecent public act, but not assault. If he aimed at someone, sure, sexual assault. If there were other circumstances, then maybe. But from what we know, it is not sexual assault.

And public nudity really should even be on a case by case basis for how we view it. Some people just like to be naked. It has nothing to do with sex or getting turned on. And we shouldn't be putting people on sex offenders lists for something like this or peeing in public or just exposing private parts. We need to determine true sex offenders by their actual actions/psychology, not assumptions based mainly on fear or prudish beliefs about sex and/or nudity.

Masturbation is non-sexual? In conjunction with such indecency, does it not become sexually indecent?

 

[Gipper]

Masturbation is non-sexual? In conjunction with such indecency, does it not become sexually indecent?

Doesn't have to be. Sometimes I just wanna fire off some knuckle children to make myself feel better. Therapeutic release.

 

[NoC_T]

Doesn't have to be. Sometimes I just wanna fire off some knuckle children to make myself feel better. Therapeutic release.

I don't quite see you....unburdening yourself in a public setting, Gipper.

My point was that one might choose to get drunk, for example. One might also choose to drive a car. Do both, and it becomes both illegal and immoral.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I know you have a lackadaisical attitude to common decency and public safety. Which is fine as a stand alone expression, but expect to be called on it.

Calling me on my views is different than personally insulting me. If I were to posit that your opinion of what kind of person I am is erroneous or demand evidence to back up your opinion of me, I'm calling you on your views. If I were to say that you'd have to be huffing paint or suffering from a congenital birth defect to misunderstand what ad hominem means, that would be a personal insult.

It wouldn't be a case of what he might do, had we no knowledge of what he did do. Given that, why take the chance? From my perspective, whatever benefit of a doubt he was owed as a private citizen, he dispensed with when he got his dick out in public and started wanking off in an environment that children could be reasonably expected to frequent. Personally, I have a problem with that, though I understand my opinion may not be shared by others.

As you said earlier, "As I said in a previous post, do we wait until they actually make a move, and, ya know, just kinda hope that they won't?" You are in fact arguing that he should be punished for what he might do, rather than punishing him strictly for what he has actually done.

 

[Gipper]

I don't quite see you....unburdening yourself in a public setting, Gipper.

My point was that one might choose to get drunk, for example. One might also choose to drive a car. Do both, and it becomes both illegal and immoral.

Is a bathroom at the local Taco Bell considered a "public setting"?

 

[NoC_T]

Calling me on my views is different than personally insulting me. If I were to posit that your opinion of what kind of person I am is erroneous or demand evidence to back up your opinion of me, I'm calling you on your views. If I were to say that you'd have to be huffing paint or suffering from a congenital birth defect to misunderstand what ad hominem means, that would be a personal insult.

The evidence is that which you presented. Namely, your comments to the effect that exposing oneself and masturbating in public are somewhat tame and undeserving of prosecution. I disagreed. Had I gone so far as to imply that your attitude to other forms of sexual deviance, such as rape, was unacceptable, that would have been an ad hominem. Not criticism of that which you clearly and directly stated.

As you said earlier, "As I said in a previous post, do we wait until they actually make a move, and, ya know, just kinda hope that they won't?" You are in fact arguing that he should be punished for what he might do, rather than punishing him strictly for what he has actually done.

Based on what he did do, not conjecture. As a cautionary measure not applicable to one entirely free of wrongdoing.

 

[NoC_T]

Is a bathroom at the local Taco Bell considered a "public setting"?

Is a beach considered an enclosed cubicle?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The evidence is that which you presented. Namely, your comments to the effect that exposing oneself and masturbating in public are somewhat tame and undeserving of prosecution. I disagreed. Had I gone so far as to imply that your attitude to other forms of sexual deviance, such as rape, was unacceptable, that would have been an ad hominem. Not criticism of that which you clearly and directly stated.

You didn't take issue with my views, you took issue with me. You said I am "every bit as dangerous as these reprobates are." Textbook ad hominem.

Based on what he did do, not conjecture. As a cautionary measure not applicable to one entirely free of wrongdoing.

From your very own words, you want to punish him for conjecture on what he might do based on what he already did -- not simply for what he already did. Would you like me to quote your words back to you again?

 

[NoC_T]

You didn't take issue with my views, you took issue with me. You said I am "every bit as dangerous as these reprobates are." Textbook ad hominem.

In the context of being in a position to influence the judiciary, which is what I expressly stated. You see no difference between any influence in that capacity, and someone who masturbates in public?

From your very own words, you want to punish him for conjecture on what he might do based on what he already did -- not simply for what he already did. Would you like me to quote your words back to you again?

I said he should be imprisoned. My condemnation to that effect was based on what he did do. As to what he might do, we could consider the sentence as a deterrent from further transgression. Which is why I described it as a 'cautionary measure'. In tandem with sentencing already passed. It's called reading comprehension, brah.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yeah, wait till you get home wankers.

The charge doesn't fit. In the United states that would be called lewd conduct, and the charge would be indecency.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

In the context of being in a position to influence the judiciary, which is what I expressly stated.

You said "you." Not "your view" or "that view" or any such thing. "You're every bit as dangerous as these reprobates are." Apparently you do not understand the meaning of ad hominem.

I said he should be imprisoned. My condemnation to that effect was based on what he did do.

"As I said in a previous post, do we wait until they actually make a move, and, ya know, just kinda hope that they won't?"

 

[NoC_T]

You said "you." Not "your view" or "that view" or any such thing. "You're every bit as dangerous as these reprobates are." Apparently you do not understand the meaning of ad hominem.

Apparently, you're another poster who goes for the omission ploy. That's okay. 'Your' influence in such a capacity would endanger the public in a wholly different fashion than that threatened by a sexual deviant. So there's no comparison on a literal level. It's based on your comments, not character assassination. So no. There's no ad hominem. I already tried to explain this with the rape analogy. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"As I said in a previous post, do we wait until they actually make a move, and, ya know, just kinda hope that they won't?"

Because with any luck, sentencing based upon the act in question, dissuades our budding pervert from further lapses in judgement.

Is this any easier?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Apparently, you're another poster who goes for the omission ploy. That's okay. 'Your' influence in such a capacity would endanger the public in a wholly different fashion than that threatened by a sexual deviant. So there's no comparison on a literal level. It's based on your comments, not character assassination. So no. There's no ad hominem. I already tried to explain this with the rape analogy. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

That absolutely is a personal attack, because you directed it at me personally. You can redefine the term all you want, you can obfuscate all you want, but that doesn't change the reality of what you did.

Because with any luck, sentencing based upon the act in question, dissuades our budding pervert from further lapses in judgement.

Is this any easier?

Prison time shouldn't be used to dissuade someone from esclating. It should be used to punish someone for what they've done. If you want to dissuade, you look into diversion programs and therapy.