Do I get a biscuit for pointing out your personal abuse ?

As should have been obvious the initial post was to point out the rampant sexism in recent legal judgements.

Was your previous expectation that your posts on other matters would be a catalyst to world change ?

I have no idea what you are on about but here you go

Didn't I see a thread from you recently where you moaned at people making personally abusive remarks ? Perhaps then you shouldn't be so quick to throw stones at others.

EDIT: I'll even try to bring the thread back on track - the OP refers to some people's idea of fun causing insult and even injury to others - in this case I was comparing physical assault and druggin with a person's online remarks.

Angela, correct me if I'm wrong, but you yourself usually post about your vast medical knowledge and how we should show compassion to people with disorders, since it is not their fault....in fact I recall a thread where someone posted about her ''crazy roommate'' and wasn't it you who got offended by the usage of the term ''crazy'' ? (Again please correct me if I'm wrong). I just want to understand why this is different.

Also, of course he has no capacity of understanding and doesn't care, he can't! Jail will not make him feel any remorse or sympathy...

__________________
''In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that he did not also limit his stupidity''

I think you are wrong and I was not offended, I do not claim vast medical knowledge, I just have medical knowledge. Autism/Asperger's is not my specialty as I am more oriented towards oncology and transplant medicine.
Asperger's patients have a lack of empathy yes, but they are not dumb so they can understand that an action is not accepted. This guy, apparently has had other offenses for which he was let off with a warning, he keeps on doing this so that is why he got jailed. I honestly cannot say this is wrong or right as I am not familiar with treatments for Asperger's but it would seem that there aren't any, I can only assume that the judge's actions were to prevent him of continuing this behavior (at least temporarily). I guess the only other way of stopping his actions would be to prohibit his use of social networking sites but I doubt this would be likely to happen.

1.- Do not throw stones and then hide the culprit hand (sorry bad translation from Spanish)
2.-I do not see the relation between the original post and your remark about the girls being jailed really.

A build your own Jail party !!!

I feel like DB...

Having a 'developmentally challenged mong' in the family, I'm not so sure I like the use of the word 'mong'. Although I do agree with your point.

How about 'twit' or 'pratt' instead?

I saw that (from UTH). It isn't a thin line Ang - it's a line that's so far back in real life that it is over some distant horizon. Based on that "law" we would all be prosecutable for whatever we write if someone has taken offence. As I mentioned we'd all be up for it if the letter of the law was adhered to - we've all caused offense somewhere along the line.

In this thread, you've denigrated Parnell by suggesting that he's a dog (although I too am not sure about the relevance of the article he posted) - don't go to the UK, you could be had up because you've posted an offensive (the letter of the law) image, or an image that has caused offense.

It's stupid law for stupid people, enacted by dumb idiots and they've now set a precedent - way to go!

Here you go - Parnell's also caused offense - quick take him to court!

__________________
Never let right or wrong get in the way of a good opinion

1. Perhaps you shouldn't translate your thoughts from Spanish to avoid misinterpretation - I'm not sure if you're saying:

• that I threw stones - in that case - where ?
• admitting that you have done this - in which case well done

2. I posted this relationship already in post #41 - kindly read.

Thanks - I thought about the choice of the word "mong" as well and considered it likely that I'd be pulled up on it - I'm perfectly happy to accept your suggestion of "twit" instead since - as others have correctly pointed out Asperger's means that the guy MIGHT indeed not be capable of comprehending why his actions have caused offence - which merely increases the incredulity of his sentencing - and especially compared to other sentences in the same jurisdiction - a point which you , unlike some others here seem to have understood quite easily.

Well I didn't get the point either. Completely irrelevant - you get different judgements for different crimes. If you want to show "rampant sexism in the courts" then find exactly the same case where a woman was trolling and upsetting memorial sites. HTH

don't call them stupid, they might be offended!

This was my thought too, going back and reading the article closely, it appears he WAS banned (although it doesn't specify for what instance) from using social networking.

Why was he not banned the first time - or was he? Given the placement in the article, I assume he was banned for this instance being reported now...

Meanwhile, my thought is that for something as severe as this, the signals that he understands so little about what is and is not proper (empathy or no, proper behavior is TAUGHT anyhow) should have been evident long ago. So, someone along the line, his parents, special education teachers, whomever, someone failed to teach him what is acceptable.

Then again, being active on some of the other forums which I am, I know that for the past number of years (10+), people on internet forums have very little regard for how their words affect others. So, perhaps despite the teachings of parents and educators trained to deal with folks who have Aspergers, he LEARNED from other internet thugs that such way perfectly okay as "everyone else" does it.


So, to me, I take it as a message to all of us to watch what we say. You never know who is observing and taking your words to heart, not only on a personal level for themselves but as a signal of what sort of behavior is acceptable at large.

__________________
The Joys of Opticianry

Don't you agree you should have consistency ACROSS the legal system ?

For example - "online trolling" less grevious than "providing alcohol to minors with intent to engage in statutory rape" - as per the case above ?

If you see this not to be the case then we'll agree to disagree - but I suspect that most people see consistency of treatment , particularly in the absence of any absolute logic within the legal system as being important.

i thought it would be quite obvious: serious crimes involving drugging a victim and physical and sexual abuse give rise to no jail time. whereas the comparatively minor offence of upsetting people via an internet forum garners jail time (particularly in this case where there may be questions over mental capacity of the defendant).

sutor, ne ultra crepidam.....