User talk:Legitimus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
  2. User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
  3. User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 13:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Your reverts[edit]

Hi, I see that you have reverted me on ephebophilia and pederasty. I added these lines because I think it is important to add why many people with these sexual attractions believe that they are not doing anything wrong. Most people who are attracted to postpubescent adolescents are completely normal people who do not want to harm children. Van Hæften (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you have no source supporting that argument. Second, pedophiles (who target prepubescents) also do not believe they are doing anything wrong either and that molestation is good for the child too. It's a self-serving delusion well documented by medical science.Legitimus (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Chronophilia article[edit]

I just made this revert at the Chronophilia article, and might need your help watching that article/reverting mess like that (though, as you know, there is a bit of truth in it with regard to how some societies, especially American, British, and similar Western societies, view age disparity in sexual relationships). Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit revert on corporal punishment in the home - uk section[edit]

Hello

Thank you for your message regarding the above. I would like to put some paragraphs to you, with the appropriate link underneath to see if these would be classed as verifiable in order to have the above link updated.

The Children’s Act 2004 makes it illegal to hit a child if it causes bruising, swelling, cuts, grazes or scratches and this is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/children/parental_advice/500558.html


'However, physical punishment will be considered "unreasonable" if it leaves a mark on the child or if the child is hit with an implement such as a cane or a belt.

There are strict guidelines covering the use of reasonable punishment and it will not be possible to rely on the defence if you use severe physical punishment on your child which amounts to common assault or battery'.

http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/userfiles/Smacking.pdf

What rights do children have? The UK Government ratified the Convention on 16 December 1991. This means that the Government must make sure that every child in the UK has the rights that are listed in the Convention. The Government can do this by passing laws or by taking other action, including making sure that the rights in the Convention are widely known in the UK. • Protection from violence, exploitation, abuse, neglect and maltreatment: The Government must make sure you are protected from any type of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse or exploitation, while you are living with your parents or in the care of anyone else (article 19). Special procedures must be set up to help you if you have been the victim of abuse. • Torture: The Government must make sure that you are never tortured or never treated in a way that is cruel, inhuman or degrading (article 37). Sexual abuse: The Government must protect you from any form of sexual abuse (article 34). Work: The Government must make sure that you do not do any work that is harmful to you, or that interrupts your education (article 32). Website relating to above. http://www.lawstuff.org.uk/the-facts/what-are-childrens-rights

Is smacking illegal?

Under Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, it is unlawful for a parent or carer to smack their child, except where this amounts to ‘reasonable punishment’, though this is not defined in the legislation. As such, whether a smack amounts to reasonable punishment will depend on the circumstances of each case, taking into consideration factors like the age of the child and the nature of the smack. Physical punishment will be considered ‘unreasonable’ if it leaves a mark on the child or if the child is hit with an implement such as a cane or a belt. http://www.protectingchildren.org.uk/cp-topics/disciplining/smacking-assault/

Peter Wanless, CEO of the NSPCC, said: 'There is no place for Dickensian work house punishments in modern families. Hitting a child with an implement - aside from being cruel and unjustifiable - is illegal in the UK. So if parents followed the so-called parenting guidance in this book to the letter they would be committing an act of child abuse.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/news-and-views/media-centre/press-releases/2013/Parenting-book-on-Amazon/public-call-for-amazon-to-remove-book_wdn99694.html

Chapter 4: Bases of liability 4.1 Principal and secondary offenders 4.1.1 Plainly where there are multiple participants in a crime, the various offenders will be almost inevitably playing different roles. The principal offender will be the one most directly and immediately linked with the actus reus but as regards the overwhelming majority of offences there may also be secondary parties, for example the party who hands the weapon to the perpetrator of a crime of violence or the party who shouts encouragement to the attacker. The fact of secondary participants does not create a multiplicity of offences. There remains one crime. The relevant statute law is section 8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 as amended by Schedule 12 Criminal Law Act 1977 which provides as follows: ‘whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any act passed or to be passed shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender'. Having said this, liability as a secondary participant is a common law concept and, unless excluded explicitly or by implication, applicable to all offences whether indictable or summary notwithstanding the reference to ‘indictable offence' in section 8 above. Furthermore, there is an equivalent to section 8 as regards summary offences by virtue of section 44(1) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 which provides that ‘a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him' . Perhaps a little curiously given the above, some statutes make explicit that being an accessory to an offence is an offence. Websites relating to above: http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/criminalch4.htm

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc300_Inchoate_Liability_for_Assisting_and_Encouraging_Crime_report.pdf

I would appreciate your assistance and input. Regards Mary Marynic (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I just feel that it needs updating to reflect the whole, rather than just a part of the corporal punishment and the use of implements, as it appears to do at the moment. The reason for my looking at this is that someone has quoted this particular page and section of Wikipedia in a review on the use of corporal punishment and stated that using implements is not illegal because Wikipedia says so. I would appreciate your input and assistance in wording, or indeed if there is someone at Wikipedia who can look into this and update it appropriately. Many thanks, Mary Marynic (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, I appreciate your help. Marynic (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Legitimus, Thank you so much, I've read what you've put and I think it's really good. Thank you again for updating this, I really appreciate your patience, understanding and the help you've given. Mary Marynic (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Age of majority#Alternate Title Dispute[edit]

Legitimus, do you have anything to offer to the above linked dispute regarding the Age of majority article? For example, Iran actually designates 8-year-old girls as adults? And if they do, perhaps it has some connection to the Muhammad matter we are familiar with? If you don't think you can offer anything to this dispute, simply ignore this message. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This info was already provided to you in that section - The Iranian Civil Code, Article 1210, Note 1 - the age of majority for boys is fifteen lunar years [14y7m cal] and for girls nine lunar years [8y9m cal]. While an adult, contracts are void until she hits puberty. Marriage is set at 13 years. As to the rape issue it's crazy complicated: docs are available here: http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/english/human-rights-documents/iranian-codes/index.1.html JMJimmy (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I asked for Legitimus's help, if he can provide any on this matter. He can see what is stated at the relevant talk pages, and does not need the debates here on his talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't have any extra knowledge about this. I'm neither Muslim nor speak any Farsi, I simply know a little more than the average guy off the street about the Muslim faith from reading and talking to Iranian and Tunisian friends. This is a matter of law of a nation and, as you can probably see, these matters are subject to wide interpretation by those in power in these countries. It's one of the reasons my aforementioned friends fled those areas at considerable risk and expense to themselves.Legitimus (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Walker (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DMV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)