• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Vixen said:
Can you clarify why it is all right to be a sex worker aged eighteen but not aged 17? (In the USA, that is, as in the UK that would be fine, as long as the sex worker pays her taxes.)
Click to expand...
Here comes the sorites argument. If 17, why not 16 etc.? If the age specification is wrong, there's a big difference between arguing that the age is wrong than that the idea is.
 
Ideally the age of maturity should be substantially higher than the typical age at which children "mature". None of these things need to be rushed, and there's probably a lot of children who would benefit from having another year or so to get there.

Different societies estimate this a bit differently, but they're all working towards the same basic principle. Vixen's argument dismisses the principle. It's also irrelevant to the topics actually being discussed, since the rest of us accept the principle in principle, so to speak.

I'm not going to argue with Vixen about what the optimal age of consent should be. And I'm definitely not going to waste any time advocating for the principle itself in law.
 
Vixen said:
Sex Ponzi as an analogy.

Individuals that engage in a Sex Ponzi analogy focus all of their energy into attracting new Johns/clients to make investments in your Sex Ponzi.
Click to expand...

There is exactly one person in the universe engaged in a "Sex Ponzi analogy" -- does that individual really want to admit here on a public forum that they are focusing their energy into attracting Johns etc.?

Filippo Lippi said:
There's a noir-ish Scandi-drama just begging to be written right there. As I understand it, all we need now is some knitwear
Click to expand...
Frustrated pulp-fiction writer-cum-researcher in a scratchy fair isle sweater uses knowledge from their Accounting 102 class to take down a Sex Ponzi scheme. Definitely needs more murder, but it's a start.
 
Vixen said:
Erratum : I misread the kahden as kahdeksän (eight instead of two, I saw it as eight, which made me reel backwards to think it was two when I saw it).

ILTA-LEHTI [google translate]

Can Timhau tell me with a straight face murderers get life in Finland?
Click to expand...


He wasn't convicted of murder though.

The words "Ex-boyfriend escaped murder" in the title ought perhaps to have served as a clue....


(Anyhow, this is all now getting pretty off-piste as regards the actual topic of this thread)
 
Vixen said:
Nobody has answered the question yet: what is the difference between a sex worker aged 17 and one aged 18?

In the USA one is a victim of 'Child Sex Trafficking' although as soon as she turns eighteen suddenly she is not.
Click to expand...

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Where would you draw it? 16? 14? 13? 12? 10 perhaps?
 
smartcooky said:
A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Where would you draw it? 16? 14? 13? 12? 10 perhaps?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter exactly where we draw the line. The specific age of consent is a red herring. Vixen is minimizing the risk of harm in principle. Wherever you draw the line, she's still going to insist that what Maxwell is accused of probably isn't really so bad.

The fact that some countries put the age of consent lower than the ages of some of Maxwell's victims isn't supporting an argument that the age of consent should be lower. Vixen isn't arguing that. It's supporting her argument that the risk of harm isn't as great as we make it out to be, and maybe Maxwell doesn't deserve such a harsh sentence.
 
smartcooky said:
A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Where would you draw it? 16? 14? 13? 12? 10 perhaps?
Click to expand...

Speaking of drawing lines. What about someone born in California at 11PM who moved to New York and had sex 1 hour after her 18th birthday at 1AM. Wouldn't she/he be 1 hour short of 18 years old?

But it's hard to write a law without lines.
 
theprestige said:
Can we not? Vaccinating federal prisoners is the right thing to do. Regardless of how heinous the crimes they've been accused of.
Click to expand...

In principle, I agree. But apparently she has gotten her shot before most other prisoners. I suspect that in her current situation, she is probably less at risk than prisoners who live in dormitories and mingle in genpop.
 
Bob001 said:
In principle, I agree. But apparently she has gotten her shot before most other prisoners. I suspect that in her current situation, she is probably less at risk than prisoners who live in dormitories and mingle in genpop.
Click to expand...


I suspect - especially after what happened with Epstein - that the authorities are rather keen to minimise the chances of Maxwell contracting Covid-19 (and possibly even dying) before she's stood trial......
 
Bob001 said:
In principle, I agree. But apparently she has gotten her shot before most other prisoners. I suspect that in her current situation, she is probably less at risk than prisoners who live in dormitories and mingle in genpop.
Click to expand...

IDEFC. Shots in arms is a good thing. And "apparently" doesn't mean much to me in this context.
 
zooterkin said:
He wasn't found guilty of murder.
Click to expand...

Google translate didn't translate it very well. He was found guilt of causing her death.

Vuonna 1995 syntynyt mies tuomittiin törkeästä pahoinpitelystä, kuolemantuottamuksesta, törkeän petoksen yrityksestä, hautarauhan rikkomisesta ja maksuvälinepetoksesta.
Click to expand...

OK so he was found guilty was 'involuntary manslaughter' a huge body building guy weighing 225lbs, who admitted killing her by hitting her on the head and then deprived her and her family of a Christian burial. This epitomises the sentencing in Finland as they will very rarely impose life sentence, as I said. Just yesterday was a report of a man who virtually shook his baby daughter almost to death and now she is seriously brain damaged. He got away with it, apart from having to pay her €11K in compensation, after the prosecutor took it to appeal, pursuant to the original sentence being something trivial and a €1,000 compensation award, on the grounds 'the brain damage happened in stages' i.e., not just one event of shaking, which was all he admitted to. This just goes to underline my point that life (=15 years less legal entitlement to parole) is vanishingly rarely imposed.

So it remains disproportionate that Maxwell is facing anything from 35 years to 80 years maximum.
 
carlitos said:
There is exactly one person in the universe engaged in a "Sex Ponzi analogy" -- does that individual really want to admit here on a public forum that they are focusing their energy into attracting Johns etc.?


Frustrated pulp-fiction writer-cum-researcher in a scratchy fair isle sweater uses knowledge from their Accounting 102 class to take down a Sex Ponzi scheme. Definitely needs more murder, but it's a start.
Click to expand...

Sadly, already been done. This clip shows why Wolf of Wall Street was incredibly popular with us City accountants, as I was, then. I got it right with Sex Ponzi.

 
Vixen said:
So it remains disproportionate that Maxwell is facing anything from 35 years to 80 years maximum.
Click to expand...

I still don't know why you think this. "Hey, this guy was found guilty of a different crime, which I think wasn't the right decision" doesn't sound like it's related to any reasoning that explains your claim that it's disproportionate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom