Germany? Nope, 14 unless the parents can prove there is a reason (like mental illness) that would prevent the minor from making an informed decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Germany

Uhhh... you are aware of the atrocities Japanese soldiers committed less than a century ago during WWII, right? And I think you're confusing psychopaths (who may or may not be violent) with those suffering from a psychosis (a complete mental break with reality).

Either way, mental illness is a huge problem in Japan and in fact treatment of mental illness is one area where their socialized medicine is sorely lacking behind other countries.

I don't know of any credible studies that say that mental illness rates are lower in Japan than in other developed countries, but I do know that the overwhelming majority of crimes in pretty much any country are actually committed by people who are legally sane.

So, despite what you may believe, "genetic" predisposition is an unlikely factor in explaining Japan's crime rate. Besides which, criminologists agree that whatever role genetics plays in people becoming criminals it isn't nearly the most important factor and is dwarfed by environmental factors (see this for a scholarly article on the topic and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212>this for a popular news article).

You're trying to paint this as two equal parts of the recipe for crime when in reality it's more like "add two cups of environmental and a dash of genetics/personality/whatever."

Crime does happen here. The kinds of stuff I hear about on a daily basis in the news: crimes of desperation (homeless guy stealing to survive), thrill-seeking crimes (stealing a bike because you're young and stupid and the chances of getting caught are pretty low), crimes of passion (i.e. domestic violence, drunken bar fights, etc.), organized crime (i.e. yakuza), and the big one--sexual assault.

Sexual assault is so prevalent in Japan that there are actual signs warning women of areas where they are likely to be groped or have men expose themselves. There are train cars for women only so they don't have to get groped on the way to work or school. I mean, how fucked up is that?

So it isn't all rainbows and unicorns over here. Crime happens, and unfortunately is much more likely to happen to you if you're a woman. Still, even accounting for that the crime rates here are ridiculously low, for the reasons I stated above.

The thing about bump stocks that people are not realizing is that they are simply a mod that allows you to do the same thing you could already do with many semi-automatic weapons, emulate automatic fire.

There is a slightly more dangerous method which can be done simply by not bracing the stock and using the pistol grip. Many semi-auto weapons also can easily be 'broken' to cause slamfires, where the rounds are auto-fired as soon as they are loaded due to a stuck firing pin.

I highly believe in gun rights and the second amendment. But this latest tragedy has finally done it. There is simply no need to have that many semi-automatic rifles in one's possession. We need to re-enact the AWB from 1994, we need to set a cap limit on how many semi-automatic rifles a person can own, and we need to clearly state that ANY modification that can simulate automatic fire is illegal.

We have fostered a state where the mentally ill are no longer being treated or taken care of, except by drugs. Since it is clear that we have multitudes of people separated from becoming the next mass murderer simply based on whether to not they took their meds (or were diagnosed correctly to begin with), we need to make a stricter environment that prevents these people from getting the weapons to make it easier.

Racism is a mental illness. Political views vary. I do know that the hatred for blacks jumped as soon as Obama became president.

@Diogenes

Thank you for your detailed answer. I do agree with you that context matters and that words are neither inherently good or bad by themselves. However, I think you’re looking at the situation from a more microscopic point of view as a simple joke between two people. I prefer to take a more macroscopic view of the situation. Allow me to explain.

Going back to my hypothetical example, it’s true that I didn't mean any harm when I used the term "retard" towards my brother. I think all people like to think of themselves as "good" people. For example, I would never in my life point at person with Down Syndrome and scream "Retard!" at the top of my lungs or attempt to belittle someone with an actual mental disability. The problem, however, is that by using the word in the way I did in the example I am tacitly--and quite publicly (remember this is happening in a parking lot)--endorsing the equating of people with mental disabilities to stupidity. I may be making a joke towards my brother but it isn’t just my brother that winds up being the butt of the joke.

Now maybe from your perspective, it’s just one person saying a joke. Look at the context, you might say. It’s a distasteful joke but no big deal, right? And I could agree with that if it was just some off-color joke limited to a single individual. Unfortunately, and I think we can both agree on this, the use of “retard” to mean “stupid” is a relatively common occurrence in American vernacular. You couple that with the stigma against mental illness and mental disability and I think it becomes fairly plain to see that on the macroscopic level (i.e. society) we have a problem: a group that is socially disadvantaged and historically discriminated against is even further marginalized by the language people use in their everyday lives. Now, if you don’t agree this is a problem, I’m afraid the conversation has to end here since the logical conclusion of such a stance is that people should be free to say whatever they want and be immune to criticism, damn the consequences.

But if you do agree it is a problem, how are we going to solve it? My take on the situation is that doing absolutely nothing when witnessing a situation like the one I've described is unlikely to improve society in any way. The status quo will be maintained if people are not confronted about their language use.

That being said, people often say things without fully comprehending the implications of what they are saying. They often talk the way they were raised and never once questioned whether what they were saying was actually harmful or not. I don’t think people should be pilloried for that, but in the event that they are unaware of how they are contributing to the discrimination and oppression of others they certainly need to be educated.

This necessarily entails confrontation, although that confrontation might be very low key. Continuing the example above, I think a good way for the woman in the example to “enlighten” me about my misguided use of the word “retard” would be something along the lines of this:

“Excuse me. I really wish you wouldn’t equate having a mental handicap with stupidity. My nephew has Down Syndrome and even though, yes, he can’t do everything that a person without an intellectual handicap can do he is most certainly not stupid.”

Now, all of that said, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those who clearly understand the implications of what they are saying and out of either stubbornness, a need for attention, or actual spite willfully continue to use language that is degrading or oppressive. A white person frequently using the N-word in public to describe black people, for instance, is a situation where I’d be completely fine with them getting verbally eviscerated. We don't always have to be polite, even when being politically correct.

As a final note, I want to make it clear that I believe in free speech in the sense that everyone should be free to say whatever they wish. However, as a caveat to that I also believe that free speech comes with the responsibility that people must own everything they say. If someone wishes to use offensive, degrading, or oppressive language that is their choice. Free speech in no way gives them a free pass from criticism of that choice, however.

@Diogenes

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:

I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.

Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.

Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I love science.

Also good to remember that it's corruptible too. Despotic leaders get dissidents declared mentally ill.

Going farther back a kind of science brought us eugenics.

Science is often a victim of orthodoxy. Bad science becomes "common sense" way too easily. Just off the top of my head, telling parents not to feed their babies peanuts may have caused thousands of cases of peanut allergies. https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/04/14/960387/0/en/Pulling-the-Plug-on-Peanut-Allergy.html

I don't wanna judge people too much who make that decision, cos, you know, who really knows where their mind was at... but wherever it was it wasn't a good place to be making life/death decisions. Terminal illness is perhaps a different story, but ye, if its a mental illness that they have a reasonable chance of recovering from or managing with help, then ye, I don't really know if I'd ever accept it as a "wise" decision.

I don't think it is selfish to want people to stick around because I don't think it comes from wanting them for yourself at all. Would you not stop somebody from self-harming even if they wanted to? Do we not have a responsibility to care for those who are mentally ill, to the point where they are unable or unwilling to care for themselves?

Sulking might just be what they're calling it. It might be pathological, like hoarding. 23 years, I'd think it was mental illness, not just being a dick. Also, if it just took telling him he's an ass to stop it, why'd no one say bugger all for 23 fricking years?

If not mental illness, complete bullshit. I vote for the latter.

Also if you've read any veteran's accounts of WWII, seeing action with your brother's dying at your side IS epic and thrilling. Those words don't have automatic positive connotation. Many WWII vets say their time then was so over-the-top epic that everything afterwards felt like dénouement to their life's story. Causing a lot of mental-illness issues in many cases.

Also from what you see in this trailer, it's mostly showing the horror of being helpless while hundreds die around you. So I'd say nothing has happened to that aspect of film treatment.

Trust in the Nolan, for he is great;)

The problem is that you can't immediately execute, because we have decided that an irreversible ultimate punishment should be reserved for crimes that have been proven more conclusively than by a single trial in a system we all know can make mistakes. That means numerous automatic appeals, which account for a majority of the expense in executions. If we insist on executions, I think that's proper, do our utmost to be sure we only execute people guilty of what they're convicted of....even then we make mistakes.

I would think that those prisoners that require solitary for 'safety' should be closely examined for mental defects, as they likely belong in maximum security mental institutions rather than prisons, especially when you consider the effects of solitary on 'sane' people. Subjecting a mentally ill person to something that causes psychosis then releasing them is almost guaranteeing they not only re-offend, but escalate in the damage they do. It's cheaper and more moral to properly treat these people than it is to imprison and/or execute them....even if you never release them.

My long time issue with the "they would be too intelligent/evolved to have any interest in us" type scenario, such as he puts as number two here, is that we go through great lengths to try and research and understand very primitive life. There are efforts being made to talk to dolphins and apes. We're looking to build ships to crash or land ships onto Titan to see if there is microbial life on a moon orbiting a gas giant, not to mention work to see if Mars once upon had life. So the very fact we're able to get off our little rock (though not much off it), I think would warrant a stop and look, perhaps to help answer what was life like at such an early stage of evolution.

Not said stop and look doesn't imply any sort of communications. Indeed there may be a Prime Directive like thing with them where by they see and observe, but leave no evidence of such a visit (alien abductions being just mental illness coupled with abuse or other issues).

Now distance is a super valid point, but by far the most likely point is the survivability window, which he talks about in point three. We're still a level zero civilization (Kardashev scale) and decades until we reach a level one civilization (unfortunately it seems delayed even further due to some very anti-science moves being made by certain groups). Moving up that scale is only one thing, avoiding killing ourselves via war is another huge one. With CRISPR technology advancing, there is a very real danger of a Division/Stand/Utopia type disease coming to the foreground, especially if driven by a zealot (ala Division and Utopia). I highly doubt a man made black hole or something, but war or a CRISPR engineered disease... Not to mention the natural disasters he mentioned, and others, such as huge gamma ray bursts and others that we've managed to avoid. And we'd have to think that most civilizations go through somewhat similar phases, with a universe that is fairly hostile to life, even if many planets are capable of at least starting life. Generally I figure that most civilizations never make it past the stage we are at now, and those that do probably don't get to stage two and beyond (to be fair, I doubt any civilization can achieve stage two on Kardashev's scale as it goes beyond knowledge needed, but materials and more).

Back to the technology of communications point. I've generally figured if you are space faring, you gave up on radio communications and are using strange properties or something along those lines.

Her's the problem that so many people have failed to consider. Why did Clinton lose? That is an answer that can't be so easily answered as one would think. Up to this point, the news medias all said the exact same things and focused only on the negatives for Trump and all the positives for Hillary even though one can easily argue how both of them were bad choices.

Trump said alot of terrible things, no denying that. But the thing however, is that Hillary Clinton isn't the most honest person either. It is because of how secretive she was and how it all felt as though this was all being "gift wrapped" for her that got people who voted for Trump.

The Racists, The Bigots, The Sexists and all other nutjobs that we have seen on the news medias and social medias are not the majority that voted in Trump. They are a percentage, but not the majority. To say that is the case would bring to question of how Obama won so easily in states that Trump took just as easily.

If you are struggling to tell your kids anything... Tell them this: Be honest and Trustworthy. Someone that others can rely on. Tell them that when they grow up, they will become better people than Trump and all other politicians in Washington D.C. and raise them as such.

This is why I struggle between watching this video. The things Trump has said should not be emulated in anyway, but the reason why Trump won was far away from the idea of how "Grabbing pussy" "building a wall" "Insulting races and the mentally ill" and all other nonsense we had to put up with this year being key factors of why Trump won.

Trump won because the people lost their confidence in those in DC right now and decided to gamble on Trump to make America Greater than it already is. Screw "Make America Great again!" this is about making our country even better and even greater than we stand now, and people believe that if there is a person who can do it, it is Donald Trump.

Just remember: Repubicans hate the guy as much as anyone else, and they will not hesitate to impeach the man the moment he f***s up.

For the curious, the flash at 1:52 says:
Some of you might be curious what attending bandcamp is like. Well let me tell you.

You're 12. You're playing in the cornet section. You've had a crush on Holly Willis for weeks now. But you notice her sneaking off with Chris Jones - the first violinist - one day and later at rehearsal they're holding hands.

So you start intentionally playing the wrong notes but everyone just thinks you're mentally ill and the conductor verbally destroys you in front of the entire orchestra.

I hope you're doing great, Chris Jones. I bet you work in IT now and you're rish, Chris Jones.

Fuck you, Chris Jones.

You know I agree with you, right? I am the one who said that this incident is the worst example of racism, after all.

To me, things like this are just more proof that every person who interacts with police should treat them like dangerous people they have the potential to be and show absolutely nothing but abject subservience. Because you absolutely can't trust them, whether you are white or not.

It can get you shot, making your point that "you can't do this to me" patently untrue. They can and they do.

So unless you are mentally ill or intent on "suicide by police", allow the humiliation and tug at your forelock.

Live to fight another day. Save yourself legal fees. Don't spend the night in jail. DON'T ARGUE. Seethe and GET EVEN.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

And get the training and the resources where they need to be.