Questions for our American friends

[scoundrel]

In Britain the legal age of consent is 16. I think it should be 18 but what I think doesn't count. But there are special rules for people in positions of authority, of whom teachers are a good example. If you are a teacher and you form a relationship with a pupil, even if they are aged 17 or 18, you are still breaking the law. I am sure it happens much more frequently than is ever detected or punished but the law can be the ruin of a teacher's life if he (usually "he" in these cases) is caught.

It is far from unknown for teachers and former students to marry and live happily ever after but there is a line which may not be crossed.

[ManofKent]

Originally Posted by ManofKent

All I'm going to say to you is this:

You.Are not.Alone.

Can I say I'm so glad to see someone here who's in the same position as I am.

The book I've brought for myself is Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen:

https://www.waterstones.com/book/bud...195965#reviews

Due to very hectic lifestyle and work commitments I've only had the chance to skim through it so far.
But from the few pages I've read so far the concept and-indeed-the CLARITY of what it means is PROFOUND!

Has I was reading it there were whole PARAGRAPHS that just seemed to leap off the page and hit me between the eyes with their meaning.
Almost everything I read on those few pages really struck a deep chord within me has to what it all meant.

Just those few pages were enough to make me think "THIS is exactly what I've been thinking all this time!"

Oddly enough, it was The Simpsons that first brought up this subject for me. One of the earlier episodes of involves Lisa embracing Buddhism, much to the dismay of her Christian family.
However, it was a visit by Richard Gere (played by himself) that finally convinces her that it was okay.

That episode went some way to exploring a bit of the virtues of Buddhism, including the line (and I quote) "There's no Creator God".

This has been lurking at the back of my mind for the last twenty years, so now I've finally got to a point in my life where I can explore it with more detail.

A while back (well, about 7 months ago actually!) I saw a program on the BBC called Buddha: Genius of the Ancient World, presented by Betty Hughes.

In it she chronicled his whole life-where he came from, where he traveled and how throughout his life taught others the deep philosophies about the nature of the world, the universe and the very core of what it is to be Human.

And I'll say it again-the very principles and ideals that he was exploring was utterly fascinating!
Like I said earlier there was just so much he was exploring about the very nature of Human nature itself and the realm of existentialism that the CLARITY of his logic and understanding about life absolutely struck me!

It was a huge eye-opener for me, and since then I've watched it about three times already.
This is something I am now very seriously want to look into from now on. With the book Buddhism Plain and Simple and having seen this amazing documentary I'm going to start doing has much research as I can into this spiritual philosophy from now because deep down inside my core this is what I've always wanted for many years now without even realizing it.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

Is this the country, were teachers are being forced to protect a allegedly freedom with a gun in the hand, and on the other hand a female Teacher of ~32 don't have the freedom and got a fine of (I think) ~eight years because she had sex with their - now it comes - 19 !!! years old students (in Texas).

What wacky standards !

Originally Posted by scotpens

If you're talking about the Nicole Marie-Faires Andrews case, the boy was 16 at the time.

It is really hard for me to conceive that any 16 year old male would consider himself harmed by getting laid. Of course, he would probably start hanging out by the teachers lounge hoping to get lucky again. The other teachers probably were alarmed by the nuisance created.

[Rogerbh]

The puritanical standards of the Bible Belt should not be underestimated.

They were still trying to put people in Porn in jail just a few decades ago. Interracial marriage was still illegal in some states until 1967. Small amounts of pot will get you thrown in jail. In 2010 in Louisiana, a habitual pot smoker got 13 year sentence for 2 joints worth of grass.

You do not want to break a law in the Bible Belt.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

The puritanical standards of the Bible Belt should not be underestimated.

They were still trying to put people in Porn in jail just a few decades ago. Interracial marriage was still illegal in some states until 1967. Small amounts of pot will get you thrown in jail. In 2010 in Louisiana, a habitual pot smoker got 13 year sentence for 2 joints worth of grass.

You do not want to break a law in the Bible Belt.

Much depends on the law being broken and the color of the accused.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by ManofKent

A while back (well, about 7 months ago actually!) I saw a program on the BBC called Buddha: Genius of the Ancient World, presented by Betty Hughes.

...

This is something I am now very seriously want to look into from now on. With the book Buddhism Plain and Simple and having seen this amazing documentary I'm going to start doing has much research as I can into this spiritual philosophy from now because deep down inside my core this is what I've always wanted for many years now without even realizing it.

Buddha was one of the purest anticapitalist guy living on Earth ever.

A genius.
Such a shame that we teach Adam Smith's or Milton Friedman's craps in Occidental schools and not a modern Buddhism. Even if, there are some tests made in American schools to develop altruism in young children instead of competition.
For sure, a society in which all the people would collaborate instead to fuck their neighbours would be much more fair, ethical and efficient.

When capitalist people spend all their life wanting to earn more money and totally passing through their life in beeing stooges, slaves or dictators, Buddha explained (a long time before Jesus Christ or Mahomet), how to live a plain spiritual life.

But like a lot of philosophies, it seems that the main part of other Buddhist followers were not as great as Buddha himself.
They created several unfair theocracies and today are more and more fond of stupid capitalism.
That's sad.

[cginok]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

At the age of 19? That is just silly. I can see why a teacher might be dismissed for this, but sent to prison when the student was of age and fully consented is not fair and not even intelligent public policy.


Ah. Didn't catch this post until I had already written the above.

What is the age of consent in Texas? Although it is much different with a teacher who is in loco parentis this is still excessive unless the boy was not of age and/or was not consenting. For sure the woman cannot be allowed to teach ever again, but to send her to prison needs to be warranted by the facts and I haven't yet heard anything which would incline me to agree to send her there.

Used to, if the student was of the age of consent, which is 16 in most states, a teacher could have sex with them, and it was perfectly legal. Now, in most states, they've passed laws that state that, even if the person is of the age of consent, if you have legal authority over them, it's phrased differently in each state, it's considered statutory rape because the person isn't 100% capable of giving consent freely.

For example, if you're a prison guard, and you have sex with one of the prisoners, it's considered statutory rape. If you're a caregiver or nurse for someone who is mentally disabled in some way, it's statutory rape. Even if both of the people in both of those cases is well past 18.

The laws were enacted to stop male teachers from having sex with female students. I know, I'm like the rest of you, if I had been 16, and some hot female teacher wanted to get it on with me, I definitely would not have considered it rape...and at that time it would not have been rape. But, laws are gender neutral. If they weren't, they would not pass Constitutional muster. So, if it's illegal for a male to do it, it's illegal for a female to do it.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Buddha was one of the purest anticapitalist guy living on Earth ever.

A genius.
Such a shame that we teach Adam Smith's or Milton Friedman's craps in Occidental schools and not a modern Buddhism. Even if, there are some tests made in American schools to develop altruism in young children instead of competition.
For sure, a society in which all the people would collaborate instead to fuck their neighbours would be much more fair, ethical and efficient.

When capitalist people spend all their life wanting to earn more money and totally passing through their life in beeing stooges, slaves or dictators, Buddha explained (a long time before Jesus Christ or Mahomet), how to live a plain spiritual life.

But like a lot of philosophies, it seems that the main part of other Buddhist followers were not as great as Buddha himself.
They created several unfair theocracies and today are more and more fond of stupid capitalism.
That's sad.

Buddha was indeed a genius and a great spiritual master. Please become familiar with Adam Smith's work before dismissing it out of hand. Folks tend to treat The Wealth of Nations like the Bible. They quote a few phrases and repeat what they have heard. Most would be shocked at the dim view the Scots professor had of business people and their honesty. Adam Smith himself regarded his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments as the more important of his two works.

Really, it does not speak well of your espousal of Karl Marx's economic theories if you dismiss the predecessors on whose work he built as "crap" without having any real knowledge of that work. I have been critical of Milton Friedman's theories because empirical studies have failed to support them. Much of Adam Smith's thinking is accepted by economists of all schools, including Marxist thinkers.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Adam Smith himself regarded his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments as the more important of his two works.

I totally agree with you. That's what I learned listening Noam Chomsky's analyses saying: "A lot of economists only read the first chapters of Adam Smith's, but not the parts telling that Capitalism was extremely dangerous."

So will you agree, what were extracted and generally taught from Adam Smith's theories, were only the first chapters based on efficiency and not the caring ones ?

Even Marx was impressed by the incredible power of Capitalism.
That's written in the beginning of the Communist Manifesto.
Even Marx in the Kapital described how intelligent was Adam Smith, but Marx analysed the dangers of Capitalism that Adam Smith didn't plainly develop.

If I've to follow a model, that's not Marx, nor Smith who I'll follow, it will be Buddha.
Buddha is the incarnation of Marxism PLUS the peaceful solutions (like the meditation) that Marx didn't develop, because he probably was too absorbed to analyze the dangers of Capitalism.
The mission of Marx was colossal. He probably destroyed his life to demonstrate the absurdities of Capitalism.

Buddha was the demonstration that Marxism can exist on Earth, as long as Capitalists don't send bombs and impose embargo against Marxists. As long as Capitalists render their guns instead to fight miserable proletarians. That's the truth. If Capitalists would have accepted to share peacefully their wealth, there would have been no revolution, no wars.

When Soviets, Vietcongs, Chinese, Cuban or Venezuelan people bombed or made embargos against the USA ? NEVER.

The arable lands of Northern America do not own to American people, they own to all the humanity.
It's because American people consider this as their private properties, that they can use the great wealth of their country to bomb and make embargos against egalitarian people.
I've to tell that Occidental European people, in their great majority are like American people.
At the beginning, non-native American people were nothing else as European people.
I also know that there are non Capitalist American and European people and there are Capitalist Asian and African people.

It's just an observation that proves how Buddhico-Christiano-Marxists will demystify the notion of private properties defended by Monarcho-capitalists.

Don't see any rage in my message. Just a peaceful analysis.

Edit: Sadly for egalitarian American, their nation today symbolises the temple of unfair Capitalism.
But egalitarian people of all the planet do not respect the notion of nation and all the ridiculous metastasis that grew from.

[solarbear]

Long ago, and far away from most in Ancient Greece, there lived a philosophy that has to be applicable for a state with a massive population to thrive. Individuals have to be resourceful from within, not the other way around. Look within and excel within and outwardly impose your resources, they thought.

Then, in another time and place, ancient Rome, there lived a philosophy called "Bread and Circus" That is ..Keep the people fed and entertained, and the state can do whatever it wants.

Then, in 1787, in another time and place, the French state wasn't doing the bread and circus routine, and got overthrown, as did the Russian monarchy in 1917.

The US state hasn't forgotten any of these principles, individuals must excel from within, it can't be forced or given to them. If the individual can't or won't pursue education, well as the system exists, life won't be a pleasant affair....Keep the population fed and entertained, and voila, they look the other way when they see something they don't like in Washington.

In conclusion, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair summed it up quite harmoniously..

One can judge the success of any state by the number of people that want to enter its jurisdiction, as opposed to the number of people that want to exit.