You've demonstrated it once again.

Post #37,696 by Brandioch 5/6/02 9:49:24 PM 5/6/02 9:52:15 PM Reply	You've demonstrated it once again. 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. Contrast this with your earlier statment: Once again the state tells us whats good for us. Is this on the edge or what? The idea that I could have been abused at the age of 15 by a sexy school mistress is just absurd. At age fifteen I was a walking bag of hormones and semen waiting to explode on anything which was wearing perfume. I had mounted my mattress in every conceivable position possible and enjoyed the cigarrette afterwards. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37289\|Has the world gone crazy?] So, a 15 year old and an older woman would not be "okay" (see the second line of this post). But a 15 year old and an older woman would be "okay" with you (see the second quote from you, complete with link to your post for context). From your quotation "proving" that I was wrong, I'll break it down into numbers. 12 (or under) - 18 (or older) == abuse ----------------------------------------- 12 - 17 == abuse 11 - 16 == abuse 10 - 15 == abuse 9 - 14 == abuse and so one ----------------------------------------- 13 - 22 (or less) == not abuse 13 - 23 (or more) == abuse 14 - 23 (or less) == not abuse 14 - 24 (or more) == abuse 15 - 24 (or less) == not abuse 15 - 25 (or more) == abuse 16 - 25 (or less) == not abuse 16 - 26 (or more) == abuse ------------------------------------------ There, Dr. Finkelhor's professional opinion is nicely laid out with numbers. I await your reply with baited breath. Reply to what? If you will recall, I wasn't asking what Finkelhor's opinion was. I was asking what yor opinion was. And, it seems that Dr. Finkelhor's opinion is that, at age 15, you would have been "abused" if you had sex with a woman age 25 or more. Which does seem to contradict your claims. But at least Dr. Finkelhor is willing to put his reputation on the line and not hide behind "legal". If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Hmmm, if society says it is "okay" and "legal" then YOU will consider it to be "okay"? Compare/contrast that with another comment from you from your initial post (Has the world gone crazy?). Once again the state tells us whats good for us. So, you will consider something "okay" only if the state says it is "okay" but you don't like the state telling YOU what is "okay". Edited by Brandioch May 6, 2002, 09:52:15 PM EDT You've demonstrated it once again. 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. Contrast this with your earlier statment: Once again the state tells us whats good for us. Is this on the edge or what? The idea that I could have been abused at the age of 15 by a sexy school mistress is just absurd. At age fifteen I was a walking bag of hormones and semen waiting to explode on anything which was wearing perfume. I had mounted my mattress in every conceivable position possible and enjoyed the cigarrette afterwards. Has the world gone crazy? So, a 15 year old and an older woman would not be "okay" (see the second line of this post). But a 15 year old and an older woman would be "okay" with you (see the second quote from you, complete with link to your post for context). From your quotation "proving" that I was wrong, I'll break it down into numbers. 12 (or under) - 18 (or older) == abuse ----------------------------------------- 12 - 17 == abuse 11 - 16 == abuse 10 - 15 == abuse 9 - 14 == abuse and so one ----------------------------------------- 13 - 22 (or less) == not abuse 13 - 23 (or more) == abuse 14 - 23 (or less) == not abuse 14 - 24 (or more) == abuse 15 - 24 (or less) == not abuse 15 - 25 (or more) == abuse 16 - 25 (or less) == not abuse 16 - 26 (or more) == abuse ------------------------------------------ There, Dr. Finkelhor's professional opinion is nicely laid out with numbers. I await your reply with baited breath. Reply to what? If you will recall, I wasn't asking what Finkelhor's opinion was. I was asking what yor opinion was. And, it seems that Dr. Finkelhor's opinion is that, at age 15, you would have been "abused" if you had sex with a woman age 25 or more. Which does seem to contradict your claims. But at least Dr. Finkelhor is willing to put his reputation on the line and not hide behind "legal". If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Hmmm, if society says it is "okay" and "legal" then YOU will consider it to be "okay"? Compare/contrast that with another comment from you from your initial post (Has the world gone crazy?). Once again the state tells us whats good for us. So, you will consider something "okay" only if the state says it is "okay" but you don't like the state telling YOU what is "okay". Collapse All History
Post #37,699 by Meerkat 5/6/02 10:15:39 PM Reply	I know it's not for me to say but could you take this to Flames? On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #37,702 by bepatient 5/6/02 10:21:08 PM Reply	Sure it is. Anyone can do it. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,707 by Mike 5/6/02 11:24:52 PM 5/7/02 12:29:35 AM Reply	I think that's fair.... ....actually I think I'm all done now. Apologies for any offence caused. -Mike -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 7, 2002, 12:07:51 AM EDT Edited by Mike May 7, 2002, 12:29:35 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,704 by Silverlock 5/6/02 10:47:51 PM Reply	I await with trepidation The day Brandiich/Kahsim ever admits to an error, let alone an admission of strawmanning. I have followed this group for many more years than I contributed. I may be wrong, but I will wager money that Brandi has never made the proviso I did at the beginning of this sentance. Can't remember a single time that the possiblity of a mistaken assumption was ever acknowledged. I will readily admit that Brandi has an effective debate style (more like an attack style), but after who knows how many years (10/15?) of following this gruop of malcontents, I honestly never remember Brandi ever admitting to a mistake, a wrong interpratation or even an incorrect inference. Admit it Bran/Khas, you have an argumentative defect. You can not acknowledge another's point as sound (in the precise logical sense of the word) without a rebuttle of some smaller portion of the opponents argument. This is, of course, quite effective as a depating tactic. But aren't debating tactics a bit over the top? Don't blame me. I voted with the majority.
Post #37,712 by Mike 5/7/02 12:03:55 AM 5/7/02 12:27:56 AM Reply	Thanks for the info ...I didn't know Brandi was Khasim :-) >>This is, of course, quite effective as a debating tactic. I'm not so sure. I mean christ...... [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37680\|Link ] >>#5. Yes, I do believe that Mike lies. Why discuss/debate with someone who lies? I mean this is pretty weak stuff...isn't it? Would this pass muster in ANY academic/professional setting? I don't think so. Maybe that's not what the expectations are here...not really sure. I like to learn from the people here. (I've said before that more neuron-firing goes on in here than in my entire company.....okay perhaps a bit unfair). But it seems that to maximise learning...you have to drop the concept of "WINNING" as the yardstick which measures all contributions. If your sole (or primary) goal is to find your opponent's weakest argument, or assign one to him, I'm inclined to think that learning is suspended. (Yeah been a culprit). -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 7, 2002, 12:05:09 AM EDT Edited by Mike May 7, 2002, 12:25:43 AM EDT Edited by Mike May 7, 2002, 12:27:56 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,722 by Brandioch 5/7/02 1:49:16 AM Reply	The secret is knowing what you know. Can't remember a single time that the possiblity of a mistaken assumption was ever acknowledged. That's because I tend to skip discussions that I'm not informed about. When I lack sufficient facts, I will attempt to gather them. As in the discussion here. Admit it Bran/Khas, you have an argumentative defect. You can not acknowledge another's point as sound (in the precise logical sense of the word) without a rebuttle of some smaller portion of the opponents argument. Actually, I usually do that by not commenting on the post in the first place. Such as your Islam post in this forum. I don't see any problems in your reasoning so I don't comment on it. If I see a glaring error or if I need more clarification/criteria, I will seek that. Which is what this entire thread has been about. Re-read my first few posts to confirm that.
Post #37,745 by Mike 5/7/02 9:14:37 AM Reply	Re: The secret is knowing what you know. >>If I see a glaring error or if I need more clarification/criteria, >>I will seek that. Bollocks. Your technique is ...... 1) Raise a scenario which is problematic for the persons position. 2) Get the person to EITHER defend the scenario OR acknowledge that you have committed a coup. 3) If scenario appears to fail.......extend scenario or replace with new scenario. You don't start off with "could you clarify something because I may have misunderstood........". If someone says "I don't think I would have been traumatized at 15 with a sexy schoolmistress" and you follow that with a) "so you think its okay for adults to fuck children"? b) "so you think its okay for 15 year old boys to fuck 30 year old men"? I mean....you're not really in a discovery process here ..... are you? You are being entirely to kind to yourself. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,705 by Mike 5/6/02 11:03:15 PM 5/6/02 11:41:59 PM Reply	Doesn't get much sweeter than this. >>And, it seems that Dr. Finkelhor's opinion is that, at age 15, >>you would have been "abused" if you had sex with a woman age 25 or more. >>Which does seem to contradict your claims. The schoolmistress was 24 when she had sex with the boy. -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike May 6, 2002, 11:05:03 PM EDT Edited by Mike May 6, 2002, 11:09:19 PM EDT Edited by Mike May 6, 2002, 11:11:38 PM EDT Edited by Mike May 6, 2002, 11:41:59 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #37,719 by Brandioch 5/7/02 1:25:50 AM Reply	Whatever. So, that is TWO data points that you've admitted to. (if you can call that last one an admission). 16 - 30 is "okay" -and- 15 - 24 is "okay". All the rest are "okay" as long as the state says they're okay but you don't like the state telling you what is okay. Yes, that was your original point. Now, you have "won" because Dr. F.'s professional opinion is that, if you, at 15 had sex with the woman in the story (24), it would not be abuse. Now, find where I said it would be abuse. :) As I said in the beginning, all I'm doing is establishing the criteria you are operating under. I don't recall ever saying it was "abuse" or "wrong" or anything. All I've done, so far, is ask you what the criteria you operate under are. And point out where you contradict your previous statements.
Post #37,737 by Mike 5/7/02 7:59:28 AM Reply	"Just say prosecute" ............<wink> -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,739 by Brandioch 5/7/02 8:19:56 AM Reply	Again, proof that you lie. Here's the link to the post of mine that you referenced. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37395\|Just say "prosecute".] Allow me to quote myself from said post: "okay" or "legal"? You will notice that I did not address what the age of consent should be, only that it should apply equally to boys as well as girls. Again? "okay" or "legal"? Again, I haven't stated what I feel the age of consent should be, just that it be applied to boys as well as girls. Another time? Hmmmm, and here I thought the discussion was about adult/child sex. Yet you're using two 14yo's as an example. Whatever. Do you need me to quote it again? #1. It is about adult/child sex. Not about two 14yo's. #2. "okay" and "legal" are NOT the same. #3. I did NOT say that >I< would be traumatized. One more time? Again, is there any test or measurement to determine where each individual child is in that continuum? If not, then setting a "legal" age of consent is up to the society that the child/adult inhabit. And I'm saying that that age limit should apply to boy and girls. Now, could you point out where I said that X aged child would be wrong with Y aged adult? I didn't think so. The reference "Just say "prosecute"." was in response to your title "Just say no - yeah right!" Again, you started this thread with a rant about "the state" telling >YOU< what is good for you. My point was that if the laws were violated, they will be prosecuted. As I've pointed out, "okay" is not the same as "legal". You seemed to have a problem, in your initial post, with what was "legal". That being , what the state was telling you was good for you. So, prosecute what is illegal. Then I asked you for the criteria under which it would be "okay". And you retreated into what would be "legal". And now you've resorted to lies, again. In my previous post....[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37719\|Whatever.]I asked: As I said in the beginning, all I'm doing is establishing the criteria you are operating under. I don't recall ever saying it was "abuse" or "wrong" or anything. All I've done, so far, is ask you what the criteria you operate under are. And point out where you contradict your previous statements. You seem to imply that my post "Just say "Prosecute"." was where I contradict your previous statements or where I said it was "abuse" or "wrong". Yet, when I read it, it seems to, explicitely, request you to clarify your position. My only comments are that such criteria apply equally to girls as well as boys. So, what were you saying?
Post #37,748 by Mike 5/7/02 9:32:58 AM Reply	1,2,3,4 ....You take the low road..... Dude, your posts are festooned with questions about adults fucking children. Did you supply specific ages? You were intentionally evasive of this. You see ... you were so busy trying to learn my position from me, that you couldn't spare time to address this, despite my question. Guess the 'ole fact finding missions don't work both ways do they? >>Now, could you point out where I said that X aged child would be >>wrong with Y aged adult? <Brandi Mode On> So you DO think its okay for an adult to fuck a child? <Brandi Mode Off> -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,761 by Brandioch 5/7/02 11:00:06 AM Reply	Again, more lies. I'll provide links to the truth. Dude, your posts are festooned with questions about adults fucking children. Did you supply specific ages? Yes. I supplied specific ages. Over and over and over and over again. [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?] You were intentionally evasive of this. I believe the above links speak for themselves. They specifically ask for you to say "okay" or "not okay" for specific ages. Yet you claim I was evasive. You could not do so. Instead you said that "the state" was the best judge for what was best for everyone. A position that does seem to contradict your earlier statement about how you did not feel that "the state" knew what was best. Most curious.
Post #37,773 by Mike 5/7/02 11:58:18 AM Reply	Haw haw haw >>Now, could you point out where I said that X aged child would be wrong >>with Y aged adult? >>Yes. I supplied specific ages. Over and over and over and over again. Which is it? Let me guess.....out comes the "out of context" argument. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,774 by Mike 5/7/02 12:02:03 PM Reply	Hee hee hee. So, is it okay for an adult to do it with a child? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,779 by Mike 5/7/02 12:28:06 PM Reply	Har har har The schoolmistress was 24 when she had sex with the boy. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #37,948 by marlowe 5/8/02 2:36:53 PM Reply	Made me look. I suppose I should know better. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.

Welcome to IWETHEY!