UK law is a bit interesting in this regard so I don’t fully blame them for avoiding the term. Since they could have been fucking legally and they could be joining the armed forces at 16. So by extension we are okay with children fighting our wars and fucking their grandpas, but not distributing nudes. I’d absolutely expect these to be used in their defence when they go to court. Maybe this changes something and we can finally make 18 a hard line.
I've had an awful experience recently with an ex-friend, caught having an "affair" with his 16yr old employee. He's mid 40s. Turns out, the only illegal part is that there's pictures. He can fuck girls still at school legally, but he can't send her or request any pictures. It's insane.
Another layer is that the age of consent rises 18, but ONLY if you're in a school, healthcare, care-taking, Religion or sports club setting. According to the law, being her Boss doesn't mean he's in a Position of Trust or a Position of Authority over her. Yet, he plainly is.
As I understand it 16 is the legal age of consent. So a pensioner can have sex with a 16 year old and no legal laws are broken. (Unless the elder is a teacher, sports tutor, medical professional of the tenager). What is illegal though is to ask for or send explicit photographs of someone before the age of 18…
Also the Sun newspaper is a hypocritical shit rag. They were printing topless photos of Sam Fox on their daily page 3 ‘feature’ when she was 16……
18 should be the minimum age of consent, I would also say people before 20 are basically children, the hard-line is uneasy to draw but the vulnerable people should be protected.
Air India Flight 182 was a passenger flight operating on the Montreal–London–Delhi–Bombay route, that on 23 June 1985, disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean as a result of an explosion from a bomb planted by Canadian Sikh terrorists.
We live in an era of fake news, conspiracy theories, distortions and disinformation, simplifications and outright lies, assiduously spread by our rulers to compromise society’s capacity for informed democratic decision-making. We need all the more to be able to critically interrogate what’s around us, and that comes with experience in engaging with the content and language of texts we read. Those who read very little are the ones vulnerable to manipulation by false and motivated WhatsApp forwards.
The scholar-authors conclude that reading skills and practices are “the foundation for full participation in the economic, political, communal and cultural life of contemporary society”, including “social, cultural and political engagement” as much as “personal liberation, emancipation and empowerment”. A healthy democratic society that requires “the informed consensus of a multi-stakeholder and multi-cultural society” also needs resilient readers, they argue.
It sounds to me, that the issue is less with people reading, the article mentions that people do read, and more to do with a lack of critical thought about what is being read.
Critical thinking skills are the most important skills to build during a child’s education, its surprising they arent focused on even more than they are now.
I used to read 2-3 books a week, but between work, kids, keeping my house in order, I have so few contiguous time blocks for leisure reading that I’m lucky if I finish a book in a month or two. I do read a TON of books with my kids while putting them to bed, I just don’t count those for myself.
I’m in much the same situation. I bought myself a pocket eBook, and I read so much more, because it’s so small and light I can always have it on me. I have a moaan inkpalm I got from aliexpress, but there are a couple more polished ones out now that would probably be worth the extra money.
Even audio books, the authors point out, are not the equivalent of reading but a poor substitute for it.
I’d love to see the data that they have to backup this claim. I remember reading a while back that listening to an audiobook gets all the same mental benefits of reading a book, as long as you are reading above a 5th grade level (basically sounding out words).
Was that for reading for enjoyment or for information. In my experience I find folks who prefer written documentation over video explanations tend to figure out and perform things better. I also find those who mostly get their information from videos have a hard time understanding and doing due diligence on sources and thus tend to get emotional over things that are not entirely true or presented in a very slanted light. While you can rewind to double check something said before in a video I find few people, including myself (and I likely do do it more than most) will bother to rewind and do the double check. When reading its much easier to page back and check that item. Its also way easier to assess data from multiple sources and you can chekc particular parts of writings within minutes easily wereas finding and checking areas of videos where they all talked about the same thing is not so easily. Even scrolling around a forum or search for things is easier. Heck searching to get text is much more likely to quickly find you something than search video for a specific thing.
It was in reference to reading for enjoyment. There’s definitely a huge benefit to having written documentation to search through for technical purposes for sure.
theweek.in
Oldest