Here's the curious thing......

Post #37,556 by Mike 5/5/02 10:01:37 AM Reply	Here's the curious thing...... when it comes to a 15 year old having sex with Pamela Andersen my opinion means nothing and is unsubstantiated and therefore valueless. If you are to be believed...this is also true if we petition 1000 men about this.....their opinions will be unsubstantiated and mean nothing. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37546\|Link] And yet..... when it comes to pursuing your own agenda its okay to ask these questions and make judgements based on the answers. Is that a sweet system of debate or what? Anyhow.....you're not going to understand the subtleties of this... and you can no doubt can justify it to yourself. Lets press on with your lame attempt to garnish something you can object to shall we? >>16 - 30, you've said "okay" with reservations about was meant by okay. If its legal behavior, I have no right to take away that persons rights. Doesn't mean I like it. Doesn't mean I would foist it upon the boy. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. 15 - 29 Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Doesn't mean I like it. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. 14 - 28 Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Doesn't mean I like it. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. 13 - 27 Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Doesn't mean I like it. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. 12 - 26 Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Doesn't mean I like it. Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. Okay.......I've indulged you......haven't I? Now your turn........15 year old boy, Pamela Andersen. 15 - 24 15 - 23 15 - 22 15 - 21 15 - 20 15 - 19 15 - 18 15 - 17 15 - 16 15 - 15 I would like answers for the U.S.A and for France. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,565 by Brandioch 5/5/02 12:18:49 PM Reply	Well, it's time to wrap this up. Here's the curious thing...... when it comes to a 15 year old having sex with Pamela Andersen my opinion means nothing and is unsubstantiated and therefore valueless. Well, you may FINALLY have learned SOMETHING. If you are to be believed...this is also true if we petition 1000 men about this.....their opinions will be unsubstantiated and mean nothing. You don't believe me? Okay. I can find 10,000 people who's opinion is that UFO's landed on Earth in the past. Does this make it a fact that UFO's landed on Earth in the past? I can find 1,000 people who will claim to have been abducted by said UFO's. Does that support the "fact" that UFO's landed on Earth in the past? And yet..... when it comes to pursuing your own agenda its okay to ask these questions and make judgements based on the answers. Ah, I see the limitation of your experience here. #1. You are proposing that your OPINION be taken as FACT. #2. I am saying that your OPINION is nothing more than your OPINION and is NOT a FACT. #3. I ask for your OPINION on various questions (which you STILL seem unable to answer, such as if 16 - 30 is okay, is 15 - 29, 14 - 28, 13 - 27, 12 - 26) to ESTABLISH the CRITERIA you are OPERATING UNDER. In other words, you've made statements about how we are too uptight regarding teen sexuality. Then you've spent JUST ABOUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD (60+ messages) trying to evade simple questions. (like, if it is okay for 16-30, what about 15-29, 14-28, 13-27, 12-26) I think that is sufficient proof to show where the ACTUAL problem exists. It is between your ears. You make claims about everyone else being uptight. You say that YOU are okay with it. But you can't give any criteria and you spend DAYS and VOLUMES avoiding the simple questions. Then you try to blame ME for your avoidance? Allow me to provide SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of your avoidance: In EVERY ONE of these referenced posts, I have SPECIFICALLY asked you what the age criteria was. I even made it simple and supplied a chart based off of the ONE instance I could (finally) get you to comment on. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37502\|Very interesting.] [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37516\|"okay" == "do you see any problems with it".] [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37524\|Allow me to quote you.] [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37547\|How much EASIER can it be?] So, Mike, Mr. Everyone-else-is-uptight-but-me, cannot even answer simple questions about his opinion. In fact, he will avoid answering them, over and over and over. And then you blame >ME< for telling you that your OPINION is NOT A FACT? OPINIONS are WORTHLESS as FACTS. Drop into any Aryan Nations meeting and you SHOULD be able to understand that. Even when the same OPINION is held by 1,000 (or more) people. As for me, I've established that you are NOT going to provide the CRITERIA you use in forming your OPINION. Which means that this "debate" will NEVER progress beyond you endlessly repeating your adolescent sexual fantasy.
Post #37,577 by Mike 5/5/02 4:38:14 PM Reply	You are too precious One piece of information you are missing..... the schoolteacher was acquitted of all wrongdoing by a jury of her peers as they found no evidence of indecent assault. Things that make you hmmmmmm. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,590 by Brandioch 5/5/02 8:05:49 PM Reply	The state of education today...... One piece of information you are missing..... the schoolteacher was acquitted of all wrongdoing by a jury of her peers as they found no evidence of indecent assault. Things that make you hmmmmmm. Why, oh why does it ALWAYS fall to >ME< to correct the errors of idiots? And OJ didn't do anything "wrong". He was acquitted by a jury, also. You are the one who can't tell OPINION from FACT. You are the one who can't tell "okay" from "legal". You are the one who can't answer a simple question even after it has been asked FIVE times. Yet you STILL seem to believe that the problem is on my end? So, if a jury acquits, then you didn't do anything wrong? And >THAT< is the highest level you've managed to achieve in the years of your life?
Post #37,664 by Mike 5/6/02 4:44:31 PM Reply	Jane you ignorant slut So far you have proved ignorance of..... norms in other countries sociology international law ..... and now criminal and civil law. OJ was found not guilty because the jury felt that the defense had raised sufficient reasonable doubt. Whether it was sufficient...is their call and not yours. Don't like the system.......campaign for something else. If you do some research you will be able to figure out why he was found liable in civil court (hint: burden of proof is not the same its "on a balance of probabilities"). The questions of the facts of the case in England are not in doubt by ANYONE. The schoolmistress admitted that the events occurred. What was needed was for someone to judge whether the actions constitued indecent assault. They felt that it didn't. Ba da bing. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,672 by CRConrad 5/6/02 5:04:06 PM Reply	You, OTOH, are not an "ignorant slut"... ...but a total fucking idiot. You don't understand logic, rules of debate, or just about fucking anything. If everything were so fucking cut and dried as you try to make out ("OJ was found not guilty because the jury felt that the defense had raised sufficient reasonable doubt ... The schoolmistress admitted that the events occurred. What was needed was for someone to judge whether the actions constitued indecent assault. They felt that it didn't" -- i.e, in essence, "some random collection of fuckwits didn't THINK it was ILLEGAL, so that means it WAS actually RIGHT"), then why the fuck would anybody ever discuss anything, here or anywhere else, in the first place? Oh, couldn't be because there's a DIFFERENCE between what some people think is illegal and what is actually right, could it? And that the latter can be discussed, on its own merits, regardless of the former? Naah... "Ba da bing", in-fucking-deed. You're the biggest fucking nitwit I've seen here since Le Moron left for good, I think. Are you sure you aren't Danny Ross? Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #37,681 by boxley 5/6/02 5:46:54 PM Reply	He aint doc On this subject the temp would be a LOT higher, remember the last time this topic came up? thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #37,692 by Mike 5/6/02 9:14:12 PM 5/6/02 11:19:46 PM Reply	LOL.....hey snot brain..... Show me some Empty "a" tag; no attributes <a>knowledge OR Empty "a" tag; no attributes <a>learning ...or fuck off and die. Who the fuck are you to preach ME about what is right. Find me a place where I have said its right. In fact.... read the places where I said that it "doesn't mean I like" the idea. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37690\| Response] >>Are you sure you aren't Danny Ross? Pretty damned sure.......... -ARNOLD xoxox -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 6, 2002, 11:19:46 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,709 by Silverlock 5/6/02 11:33:42 PM Reply	That, sir, is inexcusable Using a poignant, cherished and above all, Classic line of near-genuis comedy as the title of your post..... Well, sir, have you (k)no(w) shame? K-mart. The company that beat Microsft in customer satisfation.

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Empty "a" tag; no attributes

Empty "a" tag; no attributes