Jump to content

Beck

Members
  • Posts

    4,180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Beck

  1. So you're saying there is no difference between 14 and 12? Are you saying there is no difference in personal development? It's a highly individual thing, and generalizing like that is, quite frankly, demeaning to women and to individuals everywhere. Everyone is different, and you should respect that. I know young people, who are extremely mature and older people who are acting as dumb teenagers, making generalizing statements that a 14 or 15 year old in no way can know whether or not they want to have sex with someone, is ridiculous. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ~Beck
  2. 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. Completely incorrect – outdated. We now know that it is harmful to young girls physically to conceive and give birth when they themselves are not fully developed. We cannot discuss sexual activity without the possibility of pregnancy. They may be able to conceive, but since we are not animals, but human beings we make decisions when or if to procreate. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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). 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 (which a different set of knowledge). 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. 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. This is exactly what I'm talking about. And "Misandrist" Ha! C’mon now, that's your Misandristanding. You seem to have no lines at all... everything is fuzzy to you. Fortunately your thinking doesn't represent society or even most musicians for that matter. You’re not going to call me a pedophobe next, I hope… meaning I have an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward pedophiles and pedosexuality. After all, some people are naturally sexually oriented to children, right? 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. I don't know what the point would be to try to answer you line by line from here, because in nearly every point you’ve misconstrued my statements... reworded them into something that perhaps makes sense to you, but yet is not what I said. 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. And it's against the law. It’s against the law in every state to have sex with an adult woman who is blacked out drunk, as you put it. Unless of course she says when she is sober, “Please wait until I black out before having sex with me.” The law was created by society to protect the vulnerable and defenseless in this case. Contrary to your statement above, the ethical and moral (higher thinking), which is what makes us human, comes first, only then comes the law. 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? No one said anything about people having to be self-actualized. Good luck with that. You're taking a very simple matter and trying to blur the lines. However, what might be sufficient double talk to confuse you may not be sufficient to confuse anyone else, least of all me. Thus it only seems blurry to you, but still perfectly clear to me. For you to assume that I am in the same fog you have managed to stumble into puts you at a great disadvantage. 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). 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. Personally I don't need the threat of prosecution for me to keep my hands off of children, even if an individual might look more mature than her years. Apparently you have no problem with it. I see the young and vulnerable as something to guard and protect… to guide them safely through adolescence until they are truly adults. You apparently see the young and vulnerable through the eyes of a predator, or are just playing devil’s advocate. I hope it’s the latter. What you don’t seem to realize is that you are endorsing sexual abuse and exploitation of children. ~Beck
  3. In some first world countries, she'd be legal at 14, and so far they haven't fallen into anarchy. 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. 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. - A 40-year-old woman who is given a drug or intoxicated to the point she can’t walk cannot give consent either. - When a 14-year-old says yes, it means no. - When a 40-year-old woman (or any age of consent) who has her wits about her says yes it means yes. 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. Men like this are my natural enemies. They are weak, pathetic losers I would hardly call men. ~Beck
  4. apparently God wasn't particularly concerned with the US' statutory laws when he was designing humans. You should be.
  5. You are doing it wrong. Could you please give me some tips?
  6. EMO kid alert !!!! Forgive him, Father, for he knows not what he thinks he knows.
  7. I once {censored}ed this girl who would always come to the shows 4 years ago, I was 20 at the time, and she told me she was 17, so I didn't think it was that bad, turned out she was 14, and I did a 14 years when I was 20. Haha. Fuuuck it. Not funny.
  8. I've never seen this thread, but I'm only on HC because SSS moved here so I don't get out of there much. My take on groupies... they're overrated. If a girl, groupie or not can sleep with me one night and sleep with someone else the next night with no feelings, well I just don't feel special, so it's no good for me.
  9. Here's a blind challenge for everyone who is certain that all prosumer grade converters are crap. Below are two short files for you to identify. One was recorded through a $25 SoundBlaster X-Fi card, and the other through a $6,000 Apogee. This is one performance captured through one microphone that was split after the preamp, then sent to both converters and recorded at the same time. Anyone here care to identify them? Clip 1 Clip 2 After enough people have posted their guesses I'll reveal which is which. --Ethan Ethan, A little OT, but what is the piece being played in the samples. It's pretty... I like it. Would like to hear more of it. ~Tim
  10. Allow me to weigh in with a little personal experience. I thought my converters were just fine sounding (audibly transparent) for the longest time. I sent various sounds (guitars, full mixes...) out through the D/A and back in through the A/D a half dozen times in a row before I heard ANY change. I could see a change in the waveform (so I knew something was happening) but my ears could not hear it for a while, and even when I could it was very subtle. I figured if I couldn't hear a difference with cheap converters, why would I ever dish out thousands on 'nice' ones? Turns out the fact that I listen through those converters was greatly impacting the way I heard things, which is why I barely noticed a change when things were converted over and over again. One day I was playing guitar (amp in another room was mic'd up, going into my interface). I was monitoring through software at low latency, so I could play in real time but hear both A/D and D/A conversion. Then I switched over to an all analog signal path (mic -> preamp -> speakers), something that hadn't occurred to me before... BIG DIFFERENCE All of a sudden, when you took my cheap converters out of the equation, the low end was full (it sounded like a high pass filter had been removed), the high end was no longer harsh, there was an 'organic' detail to the whole frequency spectrum I had not yet heard through this setup. I couldn't believe how much my interface (converters specifically) had been coloring my sound. I'm not sure if audibly transparent converters exist, but my Firepod's certainly aren't them. To get audibly transparent (or even just 'nice color'), I would spend thousands in a heartbeat though. You're not imagining it. This is why I still use analog tape and outboard analog devices for most serious work. We're in a digital world to be sure, but the affordable digital systems available to the masses don't necessarily represent the state of the art. In fact when it comes to A/D/A quality in some interfaces, I've seen manufacturers release inferior products in a rush to stay "current." In some cases a company's 20-bit converters were better designed and still sound better to me than their later generation 24-bit. But you know they just had to get something out with 24/96 stamped on the front panel because it was "The Thing." Converters are crucial, but I'm not one to say you necessarily have to get a second mortgage to get a decent converter. I've discovered a few little gems over the years that are just well designed and not pricy at all. But since the days when we were transferring analog masters to the PCM-1630/Umatic for CD duplication the narrowing of the stereo field and funky high end were quite apparent. Despite many years and advances in digital technology, that hasn
  11. One of my all time favs is the old Rockman Stereo Echo. It's a half-rack analog unit that you could set on top of your amp and activate with a footswitch. I still have one from 1989 and wouldn
  12. It comes down to this: do you want more tracks or better sound quality? I would choose sound quality without evening wringing my hands over it, but you have different needs. My thoughts exactly.
  13. Of course the seats were about $90/ea. but the dog's beer and parking were astronomical. Your dog shouldn
  14. There are a lot of good ones out there, but I'll have to go with Tom Scholz (Boston) for his innovation, natural sense of music, love of analog, and the drive and ability to bring it all together into pure magic.
  15. Swirling otherworldly sense of space. I would never be without one myself.
  16. Scholz Rockman Stereo Echo. It has a warm tape echo feel, but with complex stereo ping-ponging delays normally found in digital units. Hmmm
  17. Originally posted by fantasticsound Remakes have been a part of music as long as there has been recorded music and long before then. Yes, I know.
  18. Originally posted by VotaIdiota I dislike the Dixie Chicks as much as the next person (which is to say, a lot). But come on. Last time I checked, they were platinum many times over BEFORE they ever said one thing about Bush. So it's not like they were trying to revive a career by suddenly catering to the Democrat demographic. Their career was doing just fine. I think you missed something here. Yeah they were doing well in the country charts
  19. "System" Used to classify every f-ing thing sold on TV infomercials. "Amazing" Used to describe every f-ing thing sold on TV infomercials.
  20. "If you will." Surprisingly, it was overlooked when CNN unveiled the most overused phrases of the Iraq war coverage. If I hear it one more time I'm going to retch... (if you will)
  21. Originally posted by Andersonology Now, look at me...I'm a total loser...... me too... all except to loser part.
  22. made by slave labor in China with poor QC... oh wait, that now includes everyting we buy here in the states... never mind.
  23. Tom Scholz (Boston) He was no virtuoso, so he said. But what he did with the guitar as a composer was magical. Those hooks and that ethereal space he created brought you into another world. No one who lived in that time will ever forget the emotion and power in their sound when they came on the scene. -Tim
×
×
  • Create New...