Jump to content

Nijyo

Members
  • Posts

    2,251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Nijyo's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

5

Reputation

  1. Oh wow, I thought this thread had bit the dust...
  2. Originally Posted by MrKnobs It's only you and me. Terry D. Never assume you're alone. (seems a good bit of advice in a groupies story thread )
  3. It warms my heart to see this thread show up in my inbox again, even though it has no new stories.
  4. Hm. Is this thread bugged now? I see 66 pages on the bottom here but only can view through page 65...
  5. We actually are supposed to delete those. Terry D. Well, then I guess the solution is simple. I expect we'll never see references to any crimes on HC again. Alas. Actually it IS your call, as well as everybody on this forum. It's not within the spirit of this thread and serves only as a soapbox for people to preach from. How is it your call? Stop responding to it here.I was referring to whether or not it would be mod-deleted. The whole "deleting threads / banning people that aren't clearly abusing of the forum system itself / spamming" has annoyed me ever since I ran IRC channels in the 1990's (where, for the record, I practiced what I preach, and unless you were hacking/spamming you got to say whatever -- no one has a right to not be offended). Guess I'll shut up now.
  6. I have to put my $ .02 in on this line. I don't get why you and your "friends in the legal field" would have such a hard time understanding that registering as a sex offender is PART of the punishment . Time served AND you have to register as a sex offender. What is there to get? Because that's not how it's itemized in the correctional system. The sentence is one punishment and being on a sex offender list is not a sentence, so you're being punished twice for the same crime (which is forbidden by the constitution). It's an end-run around the justice system, an (often successful) attempt to give a chronic life-long punishment no matter the crime. As a matter of fact, SCOTUS' argument was that it is *not* a punishment, in spite of the fact that in many cases, it makes minor offenses (i.e. 19 year olds having sex with 17 year olds in states that have no romeo and juliet laws) into life-long sentences. Some states have different "levels" of offense lists, but that doesn't matter to the general public, and aforementioned 19 year old young lover of his 17 year old sweetheart (or the guy who got caught at 4am peeing in an alley) on the list may as well be a serial child rapist/killer for as much as people will bother to figure out. Do a little research on the subject. You'll find that its not at all a thoroughly well though out and just system.
  7. i know i said i'd stop, but this is just too much nonsense to ignore Nijyo is saying there is no difference between 14 and 12 by basing his argument on the onset of puberty, whether he knows he's said that or not doesn't matter. Onset of puberty is the only logical, non-arbitrary way to set such laws. That's why most laws skew much closer to onset of puberty than higher. Now, how one sets laws on something that happens differently in different people, that's a conundrum, but in the US, at least, we should err on the side of more liberty, and less "putting people in jail". I'm talking about older men with younger girls, which is how the conversation started in the first place. Sex between two 15-year-olds is not a crime in most places, even though we still have moral and emotional issues to consider.Nor should it be, but if you're only going to care about older (which is a very vague term) male on younger (vague again) female, then we start having issues with unequal justice. As for moral issues, that's the purview of religion which, as with marriage, has only *really* started sticking its nose into legal matters in recent history (i.e. marriage "today" is not even how it routinely was for non-nobles in modern history -- so much for "traditional" marriage!) Nijyo won't go to 12 or 13, even though I've pointed out that girls can reach puberty as young as 11. His argument has been countered, but he has no answer for it.I'm not sure if we should or not. It's a fuzzy line. All I'm certain of is that 18 is an outlier age both in terms of history and in terms of present societies around the world, and for good reason, because it makes children out of adults. His argument is still about the onset of puberty, but I've clearly shot it down. He's ignoring it. That's not logical debate. Where exactly do you allege this happened? Some people will never get it. It will take an arrest and some hard time before they wonder if maybe they should have given it more thought. And if you think you'll get any sympathy from the general prison population for a sex offence involving a child (and they'll find out what you're there for), think again. You'll wish you were dead.Ad hominems don't make your case stronger, it just makes your intellectual stance look weaker. Incidentally, sex offenders don't go into general population anymore, since they're an at-risk population. You need to stop watching TV crime dramas as your source for prison system information. And it's an adult's responsibility to know if a girl is legally able to consent. You can whine about it all you want, but it's not a legal defense to say she looked old enough or she didn't resist.As I said before, "not able to resist" does not cover most of the "impairment" cases. Many are, "she was actively participating" and yet its still a consent issue, because alcohol was involved in some way. Most importantly if you know that you are taking advantage of a woman of any age, it's indefensible. Like I said, if she's of legal age, and can consent in every other way... meaning you haven't drugged her, well then {censored} like the wind... you have my blessing.Your blessing is irrelevant, it's the blessing of the legal system that has tied itself into a knot, based in no small part on flawed thinking like yours. Too often though men are opportunists, like this is the jungle and they become predators trying to pick off the vulnerable. That’s not being a good man; it’s having a dark criminal heart.What are you, Sam Spade? Having grown up with a sister 2 years younger than me in the 80's and 90's (and, as such, her friends), and as having had a relatively large number of female friends through my teens and 20's, I can tell you that from a very young age, women are just as likely to be prowling the herds of man, attempting to achieve their personal ends via sexuality. Your perception of women as innocent, vulnerable waifs, only barely making through day-to-day society but for the guardian angels of morality and rigid law enforcement is very, very inaccurate with regards to both teen-aged and those who are older. Women can be convicted of sex with minors too. Check out your county or state’s sex offender list on the web…. And hey, try not to wind up on it. I’m beginning to wonder if some of you already are.Sex offenders registries are also fairly problematic in terms of legality. How SCOTUS could determine that it wasn't continued punishment after time served confuses not only me, but my friends in the legal field (the answer, actually, is that Scalia is a mental case). By the way, I'm speaking as a former college law enforcement officer and paramedic with a degree in social psychology. I'm not going to continue indefinitely if you guys can't manage a logical debate. I know all about human development, both physical and emotional development. If you just want to make {censored} up this won't go anywhere.This explains why you skew towards the "its illegal, so it's also wrong" mindset, in addition to the "bright line" philosophy. Namely, that its hard to make hard and fast decisions when the reality of such issues makes prosecution difficult. Simple maxims makes law enforcement easier, but it doesn't necessarily make it more *just*. It also kind of explains why you're unable to have a real conversation about this sort of thing. You're used to arguing from a position of "authority", where even if you're wrong, you get to come out on top in the end. Doesn't work like that when all you have is equivalent words, my friend. You're demonstrably wrong in a variety of ways, and your inability to refute my arguments with anything more than a "wave of the hands" retort only reinforces we weakness of your position. Also, it doesn't take a paramedic or a cop to know about human psychology and physiology. I've had more than the average bear's share of practical and theoretical learning in that regard. Life is a strange, inexact thing, and just because something makes you feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean needs to be outlawed (or is even wrong). Base your world view wherein you err on the side of liberty and *not* putting people in jail for non-violent crimes, and suddenly both freedom *and* justice are much easier to balance.
  8. Gee, d00ds.... Can you stop that {censored}in' EMO debate about age of consent and {censored} and instead tell your groupie stories, which, I remind you, is THE ONE topic of this thread ??? Sorry man, but it chaps my hide when sex between biological adults is called pedophilia. The mindset also makes these very threads difficult, because no one cards before they do a groupie, and booze is the social lubricant of history. But no, we have to dance around, avoid saying ages, not make sure we don't run into someone who thinks that sex while drinking is rape (but only for the women, it's not possible for women to rape a man while drinking, etc). It bugs me, and it's hard for me to ignore that sort of really intellectually weak reasoning. I'll stop now, since I'm buggin folks. Sorry.
  9. (I've had to shorten some of this due to post length limits in the forum, no "trickery" intended) Completely incorrect – outdated. Uh, no. In all except for the US, AoC laws are much more aligned around onset of puberty, not arbitrary ages based on old property laws or the public school system. We now know that it is harmful to young girls physically to conceive and give birth when they themselves are not fully developed. (snip). Ah, so we can look at the extensive biological basis for the legal age of consent in AoC laws? Good luck with finding that. As for planning human reproduction, people can *potentially* make the decision. The idea that this happens routinely other than "lets have kids" and then it happening at some unspecified time in the future seems doubtful. Many girls can conceive at 11 or 12 years old. History has in fact shown that there are ideal minimum and maximum childbearing years. Societies in which sexual activity begins too soon are weaker and more subject to disease and birth defects, not to mention long term injury to the mother. Citation needed all over the place in this party. Additionally, correlation is not causation. Child birth is very dangerous to women, full stop, end of statement. The correlation you perceive has very little to do with their age at pregnancy, and everything to do with the public health infrastructure in those countries. This is exactly what I'm talking about. And "Misandrist" Ha! C’mon now, that's your Misandristanding. Point out where my reasoning implied that I, logically, must have a distaste for all males? You seem to have no lines at all... everything is fuzzy to you.No, I simply don't take "lines" for granted. Life is fuzzy, that's how reality is. If those lines were hard and fast, they would never have been different (I direct you to the various forms of Prohibition throughout history). Assuming that the current state of societal affairs in any regard is right, simply because they've occurred in the last century or so, really has very little basis in reasoned thought. After all, some people are naturally sexually oriented to children, right?At what point were we talking about pedophiles. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. By definition, pubescent humans are not children. Sounds funny now I’m sure, but I predict it won’t be long before the terms are used in a derogatory way for people that still believe sex between adults and children is wrong.Do you spend time on Free Republic? Just asking, because this sort of empty rhetoric is an epidemic there. (snip) reworded them into something that perhaps makes sense to you, but yet is not what I said.No, I addressed your points and then followed them to their logical conclusion. I also pointed out that your timeline for how the AoC laws in the US (and the basis for them) have come about is flawed. I think you, or any reasonable person should know exactly what I mean by taking advantage of people that are impaired, through substances or mental state.(snip)Ah, but many, many people have have differing ideas on what is "impaired". That's one of the very fuzzy lines we're currently dealing with in society. The attempt to make the subjective into hard and fast ideals is what leads us to the sort of shaky reasoning you're presenting. Alcohol is a good example. If a woman, for the sake of argument let's make her 25, has a couple beers and starts hitting on me. Now, I'm not exactly the hottest guy in the world, but with a few drinks, everyone gets beer goggles. She is, by many legal definitions, now impaired. However, I can't know to what extent, since I've just met her, and have no idea what her tolerance level (or how many drinks she's had). Logically, she is not in her "sober" mind, however, and, therefore, she's mentally impaired. Saying that having sex with an unconscious or mentally disabled person is something easy to agree on, but the situations above are not only more common, but are the basis for charges and a variety of nanny-state laws. The law was created by society to protect the vulnerable and defenseless in this case.AoC laws were not created for those cases. They have been recently extended with that ideal in mind, but it's demonstrably false just by googling for "history of age of consent in the US" or "europe" that they were not *created* for that purpose. Contrary to your statement above, the ethical and moral (higher thinking), which is what makes us human, comes first, only then comes the law. Ah, so that's why divorce and abortion are still illegal and hard to obtain. There is nothing artificial about it. I see you failed to answer my question, “Why not 13 or 12 year old girls.” If you truly believe what you are stating, those ages are off limits by man’s artificial imposition of law as well, are they not? Because 12 and 13 year old girls are often not pubescent yet (some are, some aren't). In the case of just-got-to-puberty women and men (why are you so concerned with women and not men at the advent of puberty), the problem often fixes itself, since they have little interest in males outside their age range anyway (there's exceptions, obviously). I know you're gonna go the "girls are getting to puberty earlier and earlier!" route, doing the slippery slope reasoning until we're talking about 9 year olds, but I've yet to see any real statistical proof that 9 year olds hitting puberty are much more than slightly more prevalent end-points, rather than a skewing of the median bell curve. No one said anything about people having to be self-actualized. Good luck with that.Your blanket statement leads to that conclusion. We're all confused, traumatized, and emotionally unstable to some degree. Where do we get the "bright line"? It's the same sort of thought process that led to the "I know obscenity when I see it" legal standard. And that's not a problematic standard at all, as I'm sure we all know. You're taking a very simple matter and trying to blur the lines. (snip)Life, reality, is not an environment where rigid, bright lines of society occur naturally. That's the effort of religion and philosophy. Many things that people assume are objectively true, are not. The law is not 18 in all states. It's as young as 16, with provisions. In most cases the man cannot be 5 or more years older. This is simply society protecting its children from older manipulative males who are attracted to children (pedophiles).The law is as low as 14 in states with Romeo and Juliet laws, this is certainly true. But your statement betrays your bias. You're under the impression that female teenagers are confused and helpless. Certainly they are not as worldly as a 25 year old, but that applies to men as well. Are we only concerned with protecting women against men? Furthermore, there is not a significant difference between a 14 year old and an 18 year old in terms of "life experience", and I know from experience (as I'm sure many others know) that teenaged women are hardly incapable of manipulation, instigation, and treachery of their own. As I said earlier, your mindset makes adults into children, not vice versa. And, again, 14 year olds are *not* children by any objective standard, therefore it is not correct to call anyone who has sex with them pedophiles. Granted, most 14 year olds are annoying, chatty little things that aren't sexually appealing for a wide variety of reasons, but that has little to do with biology. Back to age 14, which is where we started. Your thinking would be fine if we were just animals, but again we are not. We're talking about humanity and society.(snip).My issue is, as I have said before, is that you seem to believe that we've magically come up with an empirical, objective way to draw a bright line in the sand that 3500 years of human history missed, previous to the last 50 years of American society discovering it. You also seem to believe that 18 (or 16) is a magic age where its all okay. Your concept of "consent" in adults is troublesome, to say the least, and you insist on calling sex between two biological adults "pedophilia", which isn't even the right terminology (but it is inflammatory, which I think is part of your tactics in this particular debate). What you don’t seem to realize is that you are endorsing sexual abuse and exploitation of children. ~Beck What children? Define children? For you, a "child" is apparently anyone who is under an arbitrary legal age. 14 year olds are not biologically children, that's for damned sure. Did you grow up in Pleasantville? I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but your experience of what 14 year old females are capable of intellectually does not line up with my (or most of my female friends') experiences. The idea that they're innocent little people, incapable of rational thought processes about their sexuality for themselves is, for lack of a better term, a "parental illusion". Underage girls as the sexual aggressors is not an uncommon situation, and them using their sexuality to get what they want isn't, either. The objective difference between the two is the variable age of consent (i.e. in Canada, AoC was 14 with 16 as the limit if there was a "power" component to the relationship: i.e. a teacher, etc. -- It was only recently, as in the last few years, changed to 16 for both). Extrapolating that to child exploitation is alarmist at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.
  10. Then why not age 13 or 12? About 1990 I got into a debate with someone in the opinion section of one of our newspapers. That’s how we did it back then. It was over the so-called “Child Rights Movement.” We sparred back and forth over the course of a few weeks. My problem then was that some of the thinking would basically make children adults, including age of consent for about anything. I saw it coming already then and predicted people would slowly lose outrage over the idea of sex with children in the future as morality declined. See, the problem is that you're coming from the wrong angle. Historically, in the 20th and 21st century, we've made adults into children. Biologically, once we hit puberty, nature considers us to be adults. That's why age of consent laws at a hard 18 are an oddity in the world, not to mention history. So, here we are 20 years later, and I’m seeing adults openly and shamelessly defending having sex with children without batting an eye; adults that otherwise probably think of themselves as fairly decent people. But they’re pedophiles, plain and simple. - A 14-year-old girl is a minor… a child. She cannot give consent, so it is rape. And if she’s given alcohol or a date rape drug it aggravates the crime to a more serious level. Expect to do some hard time if caught and convicted. There's nothing magical about the age of 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18. There's people at 30 who make horse{censored} decisions about their sexual lives. The 18-year old limit is entirely a product of two things: Our modern public school structure, and left-over laws about women as their fathers' property. I direct you to the fact that until very recently, many states had *no* age of consent laws for homosexual relationships (male-male and female-female -- historically female-female relationships in some countries were not something legal authorities were even concerned with, since it was assumed they didn't even happen). In any event, your argument is flawed, because it takes the position that "because it's illegal, it's morally/ethically wrong". There's all sorts of obviously contrary examples to this position. The simple act of making some "thing" illegal (or legally sanctionable) does not make it a morally or ethically wrong "thing". And, as should be obvious, I'm not arguing that it is or isn't illegal, I'm arguing that assuming that the current legal state of affairs (which is historically aberrant) is not necessarily the correct way to go, socially. - A 40-year-old woman who is given a drug or intoxicated to the point she can’t walk cannot give consent either.So a 40-year old woman who is black-out drunk has the cognitive power of a 13 year old? That should be pretty easy to back up scientifically. Please provide the citation. - When a 14-year-old says yes, it means no.No, we artificially state that in terms of sex and alcohol, this is the case (and often only in very certain circumstances -- i.e. a 16 and 14 year old are perfectly okay to fool around in the majority of jurisdictions, but god forbid they take pictures of themselves, or its child pornography!). In all other cases, we assume that when a 14 year old says yes, it means yes. To the point that when they say yes, and then procede do something different, we hold them responsible in a variety of ways (perhaps not legally -- tho in some cases we do -- but there are frequently punitive measured assessed, regardless). - When a 40-year-old woman (or any age of consent) who has her wits about her says yes it means yes.No argument there. Except when they're mentally deficient (which can be subjective) or intoxicated (which can be hard to judge) or otherwise impaired (ditto). What can seem to be clearly capable in one situation (with one set of knowledge) can be seen to be clearly incapable in another (or with a different set of knowledge). I’ll go even farther than that though. Those who take advantage of any woman who is broken, strung out and confused… her life falling apart, are predators… no better than the guy who crawls through a girl’s window in the middle of the night and forcibly rapes her.So, basically, you only endorse sex with perfect women who have no psychological problems (or men, for that matter)? What word do you live in here those people exist? The logical conclusion as the result of your reasoning is that any sexual encounter with someone who is not perfectly self-actualized is, in fact, "rape" to some degree. People get together because they see something in other people that they need, and no one really has their whole life together and figured out. You seem look at fuzzy lines and assume they are solid and bright. Men like this are my natural enemies. They are weak, pathetic losers I would hardly call men. ~Beck As per above, you're effectively a misandrist. Which is a perfectly valid thing thing to be, I guess, but it doesn't seem like you realize that's what you're endorsing.
  11. You should be. In some first world countries, she'd be legal at 14, and so far they haven't fallen into anarchy. Our AoC laws are comical, I'll agree with that.
  12. Not funny. Eh, if she can pass for a 17 (or 18, cuz its so different?) year old, apparently God wasn't particularly concerned with the US' statutory laws when he was designing humans.
  13. Because they don't know what a client wants until they ask for it. A client may well want an original blues music score or song to be used in a documentary or film or jingle, but they won't know that until they get a client needing it. Exactly.
  14. My opinion - If Taxi doesn't have any need for 40 YO Blues songwriters that can't tour, they should post that on their website. They should have their requirements disclosed BEFORE you sign up and before you send them your money. Business Consultants all know that they have to have a) some familiarity with a customer's needs and b) be able to gather any additional requirements, then c) go away and develop it. That's not what he said. He said that when the customers specify they want submissions that are of qualification (A)*, they get the TAXI members submitting songs that fit qualification (-A)*. That's not TAXI's fault. What he did not say was that customers ask ONLY for Timberlake-esque songs. Like pretty much everything in music, however, the greatest market is for very popular music genres. That's not going to vary, regardless of the service you use (i.e. you can submit to a publisher service / music library that specializes in industrial electronica, but that doesn't mean that a customer base exists for that genre that will enable you to get placement). *(A = Timberlake-esque song; -A = something that is not a timberlake-esque song)
  15. I think it was 21 million. I definitely would have sold for that figure. Can't fault him for that.
×
×
  • Create New...