Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Kevin Spacey's new film grosses $126 on opening day

The Lounge is for non-sport-related topics other than politics, war and religion. Order up your favorite beverage, kick back and enjoy the conversation! LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • fenderbender123 wrote:But I spent a lot of my school years getting in trouble. And I get in trouble at work, too. And the reality is this...the more I get punished, the more I want to be a shithead. The more I hate people. The more of a rift it creates between me and them. It does NOT correct my behavior. It is only when people reach out and show that they respect and love me that I begin to flourish and feel bad for the things I've done.


    Except the world doesn't revolve around you and your feelings. The ones you've hurt deserve justice.

    The collapse of this movie is the product of the world's anger at pdeophilia. I don't feel sorry for Spacey in the slightest.

    And your McDonald's example is non-applicable and ridiculous to the point of being cringeworthy. You're defending a pedophile. You picked a bad time to be contrarian.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16055
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:But I spent a lot of my school years getting in trouble. And I get in trouble at work, too. And the reality is this...the more I get punished, the more I want to be a shithead. The more I hate people. The more of a rift it creates between me and them. It does NOT correct my behavior. It is only when people reach out and show that they respect and love me that I begin to flourish and feel bad for the things I've done.


    Except the world doesn't revolve around you and your feelings. The ones you've hurt deserve justice.

    The collapse of this movie is the product of the world's anger at pdeophilia. I don't feel sorry for Spacey in the slightest.

    And your McDonald's example is non-applicable and ridiculous to the point of being cringeworthy. You're defending a pedophile. You picked a bad time to be contrarian.


    Okay, then carry on and continue to be angry and let the cycle continue.

    BTW, he's not a pedophile. 14 is pretty young, and yes too young, but calling somebody a pedophile for that is HUGE exaggeration. Pedophiles are into actual children. You know, like 8 year olds.

    Just another way language dictates are thinking instead of the other way around. It's like how they call it "statutory rape" just so they can throw the rape word in there to make people think it's just as bad as aggravated rape. If we called it something else entirely, people would still think it's bad, but not nearly as bad.

    I guess I'm just tired of concept creep.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:But I spent a lot of my school years getting in trouble. And I get in trouble at work, too. And the reality is this...the more I get punished, the more I want to be a shithead. The more I hate people. The more of a rift it creates between me and them. It does NOT correct my behavior. It is only when people reach out and show that they respect and love me that I begin to flourish and feel bad for the things I've done.




    BTW, he's not a pedophile. 14 is pretty young, and yes too young, but calling somebody a pedophile for that is HUGE exaggeration. Pedophiles are into actual children. You know, like 8 year olds.



    pe·do·phile.
    [ˈpedəˌfīl]
    NOUN
    a person who is sexually attracted to children.


    14 is still considered a child.
    "Practice without improvement is meaningless" - Chuck Knox
    User avatar
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:40 pm
    Location: South Seattle


  • fenderbender123 wrote: It's like how they call it "statutory rape" just so they can throw the rape word in there to make people think it's just as bad as aggravated rape. If we called it something else entirely, people would still think it's bad, but not nearly as bad. .


    It's not called statutory rape just so people will think it's bad. It's called that, because by Statute, the person of a certain age (Varies by state) cannot legally consent to sex and rape is non-consensual sex. It's legal terminology not some psychological ploy. The term literally means that by statute, a rape occurred.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19566
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • 2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:But I spent a lot of my school years getting in trouble. And I get in trouble at work, too. And the reality is this...the more I get punished, the more I want to be a shithead. The more I hate people. The more of a rift it creates between me and them. It does NOT correct my behavior. It is only when people reach out and show that they respect and love me that I begin to flourish and feel bad for the things I've done.




    BTW, he's not a pedophile. 14 is pretty young, and yes too young, but calling somebody a pedophile for that is HUGE exaggeration. Pedophiles are into actual children. You know, like 8 year olds.



    pe·do·phile.
    [ˈpedəˌfīl]
    NOUN
    a person who is sexually attracted to children.


    14 is a child.


    Child
    noun

    A young human being below the age of puberty.

    14 year olds are not below the age of puberty.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • kidhawk wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote: It's like how they call it "statutory rape" just so they can throw the rape word in there to make people think it's just as bad as aggravated rape. If we called it something else entirely, people would still think it's bad, but not nearly as bad. .


    It's not called statutory rape just so people will think it's bad. It's called that, because by Statute, the person of a certain age (Varies by state) cannot legally consent to sex and rape is non-consensual sex. It's legal terminology not some psychological ploy. The term literally means that by statute, a rape occurred.


    Fair enough. But you have to admit that the fact that it includes that word triggers that part of the brain in people.

    I guess I just see everything as a slider rather than an on/off switch.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote: It's like how they call it "statutory rape" just so they can throw the rape word in there to make people think it's just as bad as aggravated rape. If we called it something else entirely, people would still think it's bad, but not nearly as bad. .


    It's not called statutory rape just so people will think it's bad. It's called that, because by Statute, the person of a certain age (Varies by state) cannot legally consent to sex and rape is non-consensual sex. It's legal terminology not some psychological ploy. The term literally means that by statute, a rape occurred.


    Fair enough. But you have to admit that the fact that it includes that word triggers that part of the brain in people.

    I guess I just see everything as a slider rather than an on/off switch.


    People make up society...society decides what they believe to be right and wrong and we make laws based on those societal beliefs. Society finds sex with a minor as criminal and therefor people who engage in this activity are always going to be seen in a negative light by most of society. This isn't something that's going to change because of phrasing or even if a small minority of people want it to change.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19566
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:


    BTW, he's not a pedophile. 14 is pretty young, and yes too young, but calling somebody a pedophile for that is HUGE exaggeration. Pedophiles are into actual children. You know, like 8 year olds.



    pe·do·phile.
    [ˈpedəˌfīl]
    NOUN
    a person who is sexually attracted to children.


    14 is a child.


    Child
    noun

    A young human being below the age of puberty.

    14 year olds are not below the age of puberty.



    So your basis of determining rape is if someone has gone through puberty or not? So when a 10 year old girl goes through puberty, game on?

    Good god man.
    "Practice without improvement is meaningless" - Chuck Knox
    User avatar
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:40 pm
    Location: South Seattle


  • It will change to a certain degree, but I agree that it won't go away completely. That was my point all along. We let certain things skew our better judgement. It doesn't skew things a lot, but it does a little bit.

    I just think it's important to separate things for what they are. An adult who has sex with an 8 year old is committing a worse crime than an adult who has sex with a 14 or 15 year old, for OBVIOUS reasons. That isn't to say that it's 'okay' to sleep with 14 or 15 year olds. But it isn't nearly as bad of an offense. So to lump people in who do that with people who screw literal babies and toddlers? That's just messed up and really stupid. Really, really stupid.
    Last edited by kidhawk on Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Reason: Edited for language
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • 2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:



    pe·do·phile.
    [ˈpedəˌfīl]
    NOUN
    a person who is sexually attracted to children.


    14 is a child.


    Child
    noun

    A young human being below the age of puberty.

    14 year olds are not below the age of puberty.



    So your basis of determining rape is if someone has gone through puberty or not? So when a 10 year old girl goes through puberty, game on?

    Good god man.


    Considering I said absolutely nothing of the sort, no, that is not my basis. Why are you making stuff up out of thin air?
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:It will change to a certain degree, but I agree that it won't go away completely. That was my point all along. We let certain things skew our better judgement. It doesn't skew things a lot, but it does a little bit.

    I just think it's important to separate things for what they are. An adult who has sex with an 8 year old is committing a worse crime than an adult who has sex with a 14 or 15 year old, for OBVIOUS reasons. That isn't to say that it's 'okay' to sleep with 14 or 15 year olds. But it isn't nearly as bad of an offense. So to lump people in who do that with people who screw literal babies and toddlers? That's just messed up and really stupid. Really, really stupid.


    This is why there are varying sentences, but just because one isn't as bad as the other doesn't make it right, and if something is deemed as wrong, then it's each individual's right as to how much they are willing to forgive or overlook the offense. If people choose not to have anything to do with someone who behaves in a manner they find abhorrent, then that is their right. If it hurts them financially, then so be it. No individual should feel compelled to continue to watch a movie (in this instance) if they don't wish to. Just as on the flip side, everyone who wishes to still watch him perform is free to go see this movie or any future endeavors he may be involved in.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19566
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • kidhawk wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:It will change to a certain degree, but I agree that it won't go away completely. That was my point all along. We let certain things skew our better judgement. It doesn't skew things a lot, but it does a little bit.

    I just think it's important to separate things for what they are. An adult who has sex with an 8 year old is committing a worse crime than an adult who has sex with a 14 or 15 year old, for OBVIOUS reasons. That isn't to say that it's 'okay' to sleep with 14 or 15 year olds. But it isn't nearly as bad of an offense. So to lump people in who do that with people who screw literal babies and toddlers? That's just messed up and really stupid. Really, really stupid.


    This is why there are varying sentences, but just because one isn't as bad as the other doesn't make it right, and if something is deemed as wrong, then it's each individual's right as to how much they are willing to forgive or overlook the offense. If people choose not to have anything to do with someone who behaves in a manner they find abhorrent, then that is their right. If it hurts them financially, then so be it. No individual should feel compelled to continue to watch a movie (in this instance) if they don't wish to. Just as on the flip side, everyone who wishes to still watch him perform is free to go see this movie or any future endeavors he may be involved in.


    Agree 100%
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • You used the basis of "age of puberty" for your example. Last time I checked, not all 14 year olds have gone through puberty, some prior some later.

    So your logic of 14 is young, "but not that young" is complete horseshit.
    "Practice without improvement is meaningless" - Chuck Knox
    User avatar
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:40 pm
    Location: South Seattle


  • 2_0_6 wrote:So your logic is complete horseshit.


    FTFY
    User avatar
    OkieHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6174
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:48 pm
    Location: Oklahoma City


  • 2_0_6 wrote:You used the basis of "age of puberty" for your example. Last time I checked, not all 14 year olds have gone through puberty, some prior some later.

    So your logic of 14 is young, "but not that young" is complete horseshit.


    You're right. Out of the hundreds of other high school freshman I knew while I was in high school, I do recall one guy that appeared to not have hit puberty yet and was still talking and looked like a child.

    So yes, that does happen. There are always rare exceptions. Sorry I didn't point that out.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • So you guys are saying that an adult screwing a 14 year old is just as bad as an adult screwing a toddler? Because if you're disagreeing with what I'm saying, then that's what you guys are saying. Factually.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:Okay, then carry on and continue to be angry and let the cycle continue.


    Are you implying I shouldn't be angry about pedophilia?
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16055
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:Okay, then carry on and continue to be angry and let the cycle continue.


    Are you implying I shouldn't be angry about pedophilia?


    Why do the same thing over and over again and hope for a different outcome? Do we not care about a little thing called prevention? Personally, I'm *FOR* the prevention of these things happening. That's why I think the way I do. Sure, out methods are somewhat preventative now, but can't we do better? If we're gonna find out, we're gonna have to try something new and radical.

    That's not say that *I* personally would be able to prevent myself from getting mad if somebody close to me was the victim of a situation like this. I understand how our brains and emotions work. I'm actually a very emotional person overall. But because I am, I've learned to understand how important it is to put them aside.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:So you guys are saying that an adult screwing a 14 year old is just as bad as an adult screwing a toddler? Because if you're disagreeing with what I'm saying, then that's what you guys are saying. Factually.


    The problem here is you make it black and white. There are always varying degrees.

    The thing here is that you are actually the one that is comparing the 14 year old with an 8 year old. What people are saying here is that it's wrong to have sex with a 14 year old and that they have the right to decide not to be involved with that person if they so choose. Obviously you and anyone else has the right to be involved with that individual if you should choose. That's the great thing about choice, we all have one.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19566
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • I only brought it up because people were using improper terminology. I'm not the one who accused Kevin Spacey of being a "pedophile".
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:I only brought it up because people were using improper terminology. I'm not the one who accused Kevin Spacey of being a "pedophile".


    Whether you believe he is one or not, there have been accusations made by accusers who have said he is a pedophile. He may or may not be, but I have serious doubts that there's any evidence that anyone in this forum has to exonerate him from the accusation. This is why when you defend him, it comes off as defending pedophilia (even though you've stated that isn't your intent). He isn't a convicted pedophile is really all anyone without personal knowledge can say about it. That doesn't mean he isn't one, only that he hasn't been convicted. Two very different things.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19566
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • The people calling him a pedophile are just people who are misusing the term. Of all the allegations, the youngest was 14 at the time of the incident.

    And honestly, at what point have I ever defended any of the allegations against him? I have not once said that any of those things are okay behavior. That is defending. Discussing how we should punish and react to things, and discussing how we should classify certain behaviors and the labels we attach to them, again, is NOT defending the acts themselves.

    Defending an act is saying "No, this is okay". I never did that.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:The people calling him a pedophile are just people who are misusing the term. Of all the allegations, the youngest was 14 at the time of the incident. .



    Nobody is misusing the term. If in fact he did do this, then yes, without 100% doubt he should be labeled a pedophile.
    "Practice without improvement is meaningless" - Chuck Knox
    User avatar
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:40 pm
    Location: South Seattle


  • 2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:The people calling him a pedophile are just people who are misusing the term. Of all the allegations, the youngest was 14 at the time of the incident. .



    Nobody is misusing the term. If in fact he did do this, then yes, without 100% doubt he should be labeled a pedophile.


    Okay then, you need to justify the use of that term. Why should we classify adults who have sex with 5 years olds the same as adults who have sex with 14 year olds? In other words, why don't you think one is worse than the other?

    Because if one is worse, then we should obviously classify them differently. Kind of like how battery is one thing and assault is another. Or like how lying is one thing and fraud is another.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • Comparing the ages of CHILDREN that are ok to have sex with is utterly disgusting. A child is a child, regardless if they are 4 or 14.


    Are you a parent?
    "Practice without improvement is meaningless" - Chuck Knox
    User avatar
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:40 pm
    Location: South Seattle


  • 2_0_6 wrote:Comparing the ages of CHILDREN that are ok to have sex with is utterly disgusting. A child is a child, regardless if they are 4 or 14.


    Are you a parent?


    Your reading comprehension is utterly atrocious. Waste of my time talking to you.

    If you want to actually read my posts and get back to me, go for it. But this is just...just wow, dude. You are basically saying that you also wouldn't understand why stealing $1,000 is worse than stealing $1.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:The people calling him a pedophile are just people who are misusing the term. Of all the allegations, the youngest was 14 at the time of the incident.

    And honestly, at what point have I ever defended any of the allegations against him? I have not once said that any of those things are okay behavior. That is defending. Discussing how we should punish and react to things, and discussing how we should classify certain behaviors and the labels we attach to them, again, is NOT defending the acts themselves.

    Defending an act is saying "No, this is okay". I never did that.


    Legally speaking, sex with a child is any child under the age of 18. Sex with a child being the definition of pedophilia, means legally speaking, that is not incorrect.

    The law also allows for varying degrees of criminality and age of the victim plays heavily in sentencing, but as there is currently no court case, that really is not relevant here.

    There are currently over a dozen allegations against Spacey with many of them stating that he was aggressive and/or forceful in his attempts while several where under 18 and two as young as 14.

    And although you may have never said it's "ok" you have said...

    I find it very barabaric how we want to shun people from society just because they struggle with one of their demons and just because they are famous.


    When you say he's struggling with demons, it comes off as sounding like he has a drug issue or an alcohol issue or some other issue that doesn't really harm anyone other than himself. You may or may not have meant it that way, but that is how it comes off to others reading it. The fact is, he is accused by more than one minor of either having sex with or forcing himself on them. This isn't something that most people will take lightly and they are well within their right to distance themselves from him in any way they deem necessary. If that hurts his career, most won't find a problem with that, because forcing yourself on others (adults and minors) is something that affects the victim for the rest of their lives.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19566
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Yes, but the law is there specifically for the law. The law is not the physical world as we see it. It is only there to determine crime and punishment. It does not define what is and isn't in reality. That's what science is for.

    And again, it's really not my fault if people don't have good reading comprehension. They should read what I'm actually saying instead of just letting the words attack them.

    So many people fall victim to this trap. Just because I don't fully agree with our methods of dealing with something, doesn't mean I think that what we are reacting to isn't bad. I don't see what is so hard to separate about the two things. Maybe it's just too complicated for people to understand.

    A person who can't tell the difference between sex with a child and sex with a teenager must also lack the ability to tell the difference between sex with a teenager and sex with adult. And that's quite disturbing to me.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:The people calling him a pedophile are just people who are misusing the term. Of all the allegations, the youngest was 14 at the time of the incident. .



    Nobody is misusing the term. If in fact he did do this, then yes, without 100% doubt he should be labeled a pedophile.


    Okay then, you need to justify the use of that term. Why should we classify adults who have sex with 5 years olds the same as adults who have sex with 14 year olds? In other words, why don't you think one is worse than the other?

    Because if one is worse, then we should obviously classify them differently. Kind of like how battery is one thing and assault is another. Or like how lying is one thing and fraud is another.


    Kid tried to point out that “we” do recognize a difference.
    It’s done In the courts when these people get charged/sentenced.

    But the fact remains children are children, and adults that have sex with them are considered pedophiles.

    State by State there is an age of “consent”to sex, prior to that age, we are talking about children.

    Not sure why you would argue anything different because you don’t have a leg to stand on.
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 17186
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


  • fenderbender123 wrote:Yes, but the law is there specifically for the law. The law is not the physical world as we see it. It is only there to determine crime and punishment. It does not define what is and isn't in reality. That's what science is for.

    And again, it's really not my fault if people don't have good reading comprehension. They should read what I'm actually saying instead of just letting the words attack them.

    So many people fall victim to this trap. Just because I don't fully agree with our methods of dealing with something, doesn't mean I think that what we are reacting to isn't bad. I don't see what is so hard to separate about the two things. Maybe it's just too complicated for people to understand.

    A person who can't tell the difference between sex with a child and sex with a teenager must also lack the ability to tell the difference between sex with a teenager and sex with adult. And that's quite disturbing to me.


    You don't want to label a person who has sex with a minor as a pedophile (unless they are prepubescent) , but the law says otherwise. People can choose to use legal terminology in their thoughts and beliefs, just as you are free to choose not to use the legal terms in your descriptions.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19566
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • pmedic920 wrote:But the fact remains children are children, and adults that have sex with them are considered pedophiles.


    Right, and that is technically WRONG.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • I made the above post prior to reading your last one.

    Like I said above, in this instance any person below the age of consent is a child.

    Yes there is a difference in a teenager and an infant but in terms of “pedophile”, a child is a child period.
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 17186
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


  • kidhawk wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:Yes, but the law is there specifically for the law. The law is not the physical world as we see it. It is only there to determine crime and punishment. It does not define what is and isn't in reality. That's what science is for.

    And again, it's really not my fault if people don't have good reading comprehension. They should read what I'm actually saying instead of just letting the words attack them.

    So many people fall victim to this trap. Just because I don't fully agree with our methods of dealing with something, doesn't mean I think that what we are reacting to isn't bad. I don't see what is so hard to separate about the two things. Maybe it's just too complicated for people to understand.

    A person who can't tell the difference between sex with a child and sex with a teenager must also lack the ability to tell the difference between sex with a teenager and sex with adult. And that's quite disturbing to me.


    You don't want to label a person who has sex with a minor as a pedophile (unless they are prepubescent) , but the law says otherwise. People can choose to use legal terminology in their thoughts and beliefs, just as you are free to choose not to use the legal terms in your descriptions.


    There are also laws that say certain things are harmful to us when science says they aren't. Sorry, but science wins in terms of what is ACTUALLY TRUE.

    I think I pinpointed the problem. You guys let the law dictate your thinking. When really, it's just there for crime and punishment.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • pmedic920 wrote:Yes there is a difference in a teenager and an infant but in terms of “pedophile”, a child is a child period.


    And science and the dictionary say that a normal teenager in high school going through puberty is NOT a child.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • The problem with this conversation is, we have folks posting their opinions as though they are facts.

    Fairly common around these parts.
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 17186
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:Yes, but the law is there specifically for the law. The law is not the physical world as we see it. It is only there to determine crime and punishment. It does not define what is and isn't in reality. That's what science is for.

    And again, it's really not my fault if people don't have good reading comprehension. They should read what I'm actually saying instead of just letting the words attack them.

    So many people fall victim to this trap. Just because I don't fully agree with our methods of dealing with something, doesn't mean I think that what we are reacting to isn't bad. I don't see what is so hard to separate about the two things. Maybe it's just too complicated for people to understand.

    A person who can't tell the difference between sex with a child and sex with a teenager must also lack the ability to tell the difference between sex with a teenager and sex with adult. And that's quite disturbing to me.


    You don't want to label a person who has sex with a minor as a pedophile (unless they are prepubescent) , but the law says otherwise. People can choose to use legal terminology in their thoughts and beliefs, just as you are free to choose not to use the legal terms in your descriptions.


    There are also laws that say certain things are harmful to us when science says they aren't. Sorry, but science wins in terms of what is ACTUALLY TRUE.

    I think I pinpointed the problem. You guys let the law dictate your thinking. When really, it's just there for crime and punishment.


    We think an adult forcing himself on people is wrong and when those people happen to be minors as well, we consider it even worse. Feel free to disagree with that.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19566
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • The problem with this conversation is that it's taking place on the internet. That's why everyone is going all out with their shitposting.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • kidhawk wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:Yes, but the law is there specifically for the law. The law is not the physical world as we see it. It is only there to determine crime and punishment. It does not define what is and isn't in reality. That's what science is for.

    And again, it's really not my fault if people don't have good reading comprehension. They should read what I'm actually saying instead of just letting the words attack them.

    So many people fall victim to this trap. Just because I don't fully agree with our methods of dealing with something, doesn't mean I think that what we are reacting to isn't bad. I don't see what is so hard to separate about the two things. Maybe it's just too complicated for people to understand.

    A person who can't tell the difference between sex with a child and sex with a teenager must also lack the ability to tell the difference between sex with a teenager and sex with adult. And that's quite disturbing to me.


    You don't want to label a person who has sex with a minor as a pedophile (unless they are prepubescent) , but the law says otherwise. People can choose to use legal terminology in their thoughts and beliefs, just as you are free to choose not to use the legal terms in your descriptions.


    There are also laws that say certain things are harmful to us when science says they aren't. Sorry, but science wins in terms of what is ACTUALLY TRUE.

    I think I pinpointed the problem. You guys let the law dictate your thinking. When really, it's just there for crime and punishment.


    We think an adult forcing himself on people is wrong and when those people happen to be minors as well, we consider it even worse. Feel free to disagree with that.


    I don't and I never have. I'm not even sure the point of this post as it has nothing to do with what I just said.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:Yes there is a difference in a teenager and an infant but in terms of “pedophile”, a child is a child period.


    And science and the dictionary say that a normal teenager in high school going through puberty is NOT a child.



    Well, if you ever get caught having sex with a 14 y/o, use that defense in court. Give your definition to the jury.

    Let us all know how it works out for you.

    Good Day Sir.
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 17186
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:Comparing the ages of CHILDREN that are ok to have sex with is utterly disgusting. A child is a child, regardless if they are 4 or 14.


    Are you a parent?


    Your reading comprehension is utterly atrocious. Waste of my time talking to you.

    If you want to actually read my posts and get back to me, go for it. But this is just...just wow, dude. You are basically saying that you also wouldn't understand why stealing $1,000 is worse than stealing $1.


    So you aren't a parent, your twisted views make so much more sense now.

    Rape is rape, and Pedophilia is Pedophilia. Comparing theft to this is absurd.

    Twist, turn and shake it how you want to, but your "opinion" of Pedophilia is incorrect..
    "Practice without improvement is meaningless" - Chuck Knox
    User avatar
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:40 pm
    Location: South Seattle


  • pmedic920 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:Yes there is a difference in a teenager and an infant but in terms of “pedophile”, a child is a child period.


    And science and the dictionary say that a normal teenager in high school going through puberty is NOT a child.



    Well, if you ever get caught having sex with a 14 y/o, use that defense in court. Give your definition to the jury.

    Let us all know how it works out for you.

    Good Day Sir.



    EXACTLY.

    :irishdrinkers:
    "Practice without improvement is meaningless" - Chuck Knox
    User avatar
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:40 pm
    Location: South Seattle


  • pmedic920 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:Yes there is a difference in a teenager and an infant but in terms of “pedophile”, a child is a child period.


    And science and the dictionary say that a normal teenager in high school going through puberty is NOT a child.



    Well, if you ever get caught having sex with a 14 y/o, use that defense in court. Give your definition to the jury.

    Let us all know how it works out for you.

    Good Day Sir.


    This is the dumbest post you have ever made.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • 2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:Comparing the ages of CHILDREN that are ok to have sex with is utterly disgusting. A child is a child, regardless if they are 4 or 14.


    Are you a parent?


    Your reading comprehension is utterly atrocious. Waste of my time talking to you.

    If you want to actually read my posts and get back to me, go for it. But this is just...just wow, dude. You are basically saying that you also wouldn't understand why stealing $1,000 is worse than stealing $1.


    So you aren't a parent, your twisted views make so much more sense now.

    Rape is rape, and Pedophilia is Pedophilia. Comparing theft to this is absurd.

    Twist, turn and shake it how you want to, but your "opinion" of Pedophilia is incorrect..


    Fine, disagree with science all you want.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    You don't want to label a person who has sex with a minor as a pedophile (unless they are prepubescent) , but the law says otherwise. People can choose to use legal terminology in their thoughts and beliefs, just as you are free to choose not to use the legal terms in your descriptions.


    There are also laws that say certain things are harmful to us when science says they aren't. Sorry, but science wins in terms of what is ACTUALLY TRUE.

    I think I pinpointed the problem. You guys let the law dictate your thinking. When really, it's just there for crime and punishment.


    We think an adult forcing himself on people is wrong and when those people happen to be minors as well, we consider it even worse. Feel free to disagree with that.


    I don't and I never have. I'm not even sure the point of this post as it has nothing to do with what I just said.


    You stated we let the law dictate or thinking, when I explained to you that the law is based on societies defining right and wrong, not the law dictating what is right and wrong to society. You have it backwards.

    We as a society see forcing yourself on a person as a crime. We see that when you do that to a minor it is even a worse crime. We see that the younger the minor the worse the crime is. This is pretty much what everyone here is saying. This is why many people have turned their backs on Keven Spacey. It's really as simple as that.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 19566
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:Comparing the ages of CHILDREN that are ok to have sex with is utterly disgusting. A child is a child, regardless if they are 4 or 14.


    Are you a parent?


    Your reading comprehension is utterly atrocious. Waste of my time talking to you.

    If you want to actually read my posts and get back to me, go for it. But this is just...just wow, dude. You are basically saying that you also wouldn't understand why stealing $1,000 is worse than stealing $1.


    So you aren't a parent, your twisted views make so much more sense now.

    Rape is rape, and Pedophilia is Pedophilia. Comparing theft to this is absurd.

    Twist, turn and shake it how you want to, but your "opinion" of Pedophilia is incorrect..


    Fine, disagree with science all you want.



    I cant remember the last time I read about a child rape case that the defendant got off on using "Science" as their excuse.

    I'm going out on a limb and going to say that you aren't a Lawyer.
    "Practice without improvement is meaningless" - Chuck Knox
    User avatar
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:40 pm
    Location: South Seattle


  • It's a chicken and egg thing.

    And again...disagree with science all you want. I don't care anymore.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • 2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:
    Your reading comprehension is utterly atrocious. Waste of my time talking to you.

    If you want to actually read my posts and get back to me, go for it. But this is just...just wow, dude. You are basically saying that you also wouldn't understand why stealing $1,000 is worse than stealing $1.


    So you aren't a parent, your twisted views make so much more sense now.

    Rape is rape, and Pedophilia is Pedophilia. Comparing theft to this is absurd.

    Twist, turn and shake it how you want to, but your "opinion" of Pedophilia is incorrect..


    Fine, disagree with science all you want.



    I cant remember the last time I read about a child rape case that the defendant got off on using "Science" as their excuse.

    I'm going out on a limb and going to say that you aren't a Lawyer.


    Who in the hell is even talking about legal defenses when shit goes to court? Who? Why this is even being mentioned is beyond baffling.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • You are something else :lol:
    "Practice without improvement is meaningless" - Chuck Knox
    User avatar
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:40 pm
    Location: South Seattle


  • 2_0_6 wrote:You are something else :lol:


    I'll take that as a compliment.

    :irishdrinkers:
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4482
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:
    And science and the dictionary say that a normal teenager in high school going through puberty is NOT a child.


    Can any child give consent, or enter into a legally binding contract? If the answer to these is no, then until the age of consent humans are considered children. The law varies state to that on the actual age, but my point still stands. This makes you wrong...again.
    User avatar
    OkieHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6174
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:48 pm
    Location: Oklahoma City


PreviousNext


It is currently Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:17 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE .NET LOUNGE ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests