Member Discussions

Great. I didn't miss the point then.

---

You stated that FireCat 'cannot detect the topic changes from relationship with a minor to Catholic bashing...'

'...to moose bashing'
Whoopsie! You were a little premature on eliding the quote.

No, the purpose of the quote was to demonstrate how your statement that there was a topic shift from "relationship with a minor to Catholic bashing" was erroneous. If you had gotten the point you would have known this. Therefore I can conclude that you missed it.

You'll just have to ask Firecat about the earlier topic shift as I was not a participant in that part of the thread.

Your participation is inconsequential. Your statements were incorrect.

Yui Unifex

My statements were quite correct. That is I completely disagree with the opinion you offered. And it should be clear to you exactly how much I value your opinion on this based on our earlier discussions. That's all I have to say.

My statements were quite correct. That is I completely disagree with the opinion you offered.

There was no opinion. You said there was a topic shift, and I pointed out that there was none. If you'd like to contest this, then by all means show how the topic shifted in the manner you described. You won't show it though, because you know as well as I do that it was just another of your lies. That, or you are too embarrased to admit that you miscomprehended the post.

Yui Unifex

Agreed. There was no topic shift, as the topic was still being discussed. However, there was a lot of 'American nationalist
and fundamental christian' comments thrown in for good measure. This could be taken as 'bashing' by anyone who may be
American nationalist or fundamental christian.

Just to point something out, Unifex, when you first went on this rampage, you clearly missed the fact that Tyche's statement about 'no
relevance at all to any subject heretofore mentioned on this thread' was refering to Tyche's own anecdote... not Firecat's.

Darrik Vequir
Not a pedophile or fundamental christian.
An American nationalist.

Darrik wrote:

Just to point something out, Unifex, when you first went on this rampage, you clearly missed the fact that Tyche's statement about 'no relevance at all to any subject heretofore mentioned on this thread' was refering to Tyche's own anecdote... not Firecat's.

I know that specifically he was referring to his own anecdote, but the context definitely betrays the implication that he meant people to think the same thing about FireCat's anecdote. Allow me to quote Tyche:

Wrong!!! It was a personal anecdote on a brand new topic with no relevance at all to any subject heretofore mentioned on this thread. That you misinterpreted it as an analogy is clear evidence that you are assuming a great deal regarding my thoughts and state of mind. That you cannot detect the topic changes from relationship with a minor to Catholic bashing to moose bashing is a tragic failure on your part to comprehend the written word. It was explicitly placed in this thread at the specific point in which it was inspired but wholly unrelated to your personal anecdotes

Note how he 1) states that his own anecdote is a "brand new topic with no relevance at all", then 2) states that FireCat's anecdote is a "topic change", 3) places this change specifically in sequence with his own, and finally 4) states his anecdote was "inspired" by hers. Since the two anecdotes are obviously very disimilar (and he mentions this), I must conclude that the inspiration to which he refers is about topic changing anecdotes. To me it is obvious from that paragraph that he believes his own anecdote to be equivalent to FireCat's in the aforementioned manner.

Yui Unifex

(Comment added by unifex on Fri Sep 19 11:49:19 2003)

Forgot this:

However, there was a lot of 'American nationalist
and fundamental christian' comments thrown in for good measure. This could be taken as 'bashing' by anyone who may be
American nationalist or fundamental christian.

Where? I don't see anything about American nationalists or fundamental christians anywhere in the relevant posts.

I can see your point in regards to linking the comment and Firecat's anecdote... Considering Tyche's love for obscurity, its always possible.

Examples of American/Fundamental Christian comments. Please note, I in no way shape or form am calling these bigoted comments... although they can come off that way, which is probably what caused the response:

http://www.mudconnect.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG&area=admin_ethics&message=6329

'Still, it's worth noting that - every generation - many parents [of American nationality and fundamental Christian religion]...'


http://www.mudconnect.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG&area=admin_ethics&message=6315
'Unfortunately, any relationship with a minor in the US or fundamental Christian communities...'

Darrik Vequir

I can see your point in regards to linking the comment and Firecat's anecdote... Considering Tyche's love for obscurity, its always possible.

Examples of American/Fundamental Christian comments. Please note, I in no way shape or form am calling these bigoted comments... although they can come off that way, which is probably what caused the response:

http://www.mudconnect.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG&area=admin_ethics&message=6329

'Still, it's worth noting that - every generation - many parents [of American nationality and fundamental Christian religion]...'


http://www.mudconnect.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG&area=admin_ethics&message=6315
'Unfortunately, any relationship with a minor in the US or fundamental Christian communities...'

Darrik Vequir

Please note, I in no way shape or form am calling these bigoted comments... although they can come off that way, which is probably what caused the response:

Wrong! There is no possible way any of those could be perceived as bigoted comments nor was there ever any attempt to shift the topic from relationships with minors to bashing religion or Americans. Unifex has already shown this to be fact. So you are either a liar, or you are just too embarassed to admit you are wrong! So which is it buster?


And yes the above is most definately parody. ;-)

The problem arises because one of the parties is a minor of 15 years old (oddly enough the male party). The girl is 26.
I've never had to deal with such problems in the muds I've ran, but I have to deal with that problem irl. I'm in, what people call, an illegal relationship. Even tho I have consent from her parents the laws in the state still claim it to be illegal. I for one am against the government meddling in relationships. Each case is diferent from the other and if necessary they should should be judged as they are and not based on a law.

They do/did talk about this on global channels and also to other players directly.
Considering your mud host is physicaly in UK and the couple is also in america you could give them an warning to keep such information private, for you only provide the channel in which they communicate and as such you're not responsable for their actions and their repercursions. Mind you that in certain states, such relationship is legal with the parents' concent.

I'm curious as to what the response would have been, if the minor was the female?
Hopefuly the same.

'm not sure that vocalized intent to marry is actually illegal;
I don't remember the laws correctly but as far as I know, it is the sexual act (Or anything related to the sexual act, but the judge is free to interpret a simple kiss as something related to the sexual act, some states have laws that specify what is considered a sexual activity) that is illegal, not the relationship. They claim the act to be Statutory Rape (yes, stupidity reaches new boundaries). Most states' concent age is either 16 or 17.

Yes, I know (logs, etc) of 'inappropriate comments' being made on the mud. My problem is mainly about protecting the interests of the game and players.
I believe that in such cases there should be no separation from an 'illegal' to a 'legal' relationships. If the comments where inappropriate for one party they should be for another. I believe that since you're facing this problem now it is a good time to consider a policy related to the use of open channels to make such comments. If it disturbs the other players you may as well warn them and ask them to use some other mean of communication.

No lawsuit at all, but you're still running a MUD where an adult has cybersex with a minor and you know about it.
I've always held cybersex as a banning offence in my muds. I don't care the age. Obviously cybersex is not something that cannot be non-concensual, so anyone involded will be warned and if it doesn't change, they will be gone.

Why is it unethical for a 26 and a 15 year old to be in a relationship?
It's not. The stupidity of simplicity is the striking fist in america and in other countries.

I find such a thing to be morally disgusting, and quite frankly, sad. Law suits at the drop of a hat are one thing that bother me about my country.
Finaly someone in his right mind.

A fifteen year old male has the intelligence, and normally the right state of mind to know exactly what they are doing.
So does a female, unless you believe they are inferior, instead of simply diferent.

Impressive I'm posting something in topic, forgive me for not reading the most recent posts.

It's not. The stupidity of simplicity is the striking fist in america and in other countries.

It's considered unethical because it's *very* easy for a 26 y/o to take advantage of a 15 y/o. They simply haven't developed the finess in relationships that a 26 y/o has.

A fifteen year old male has the intelligence, and normally the right state of mind to know exactly what they are doing.
So does a female, unless you believe they are inferior, instead of simply diferent.

A 15 y/o male can also look you straight in the face and tell you that his gf could get pregnant if they have sex. But do you think he really *understands* what that entails? The endless hours working minimum wage jobs just trying to provide for the child, on top of sleepless nights, and the loss of freedom as a result of the responsibility?

It's easy to know something. It's entirely different to *understand* something, and therein lies the difference between a 15 y/o and a 26 y/o.


When I was 19 I dated a 29 y/o, and I can tell you now I wasn't prepared for it. What makes you think a 15 y/o will be prepared to 'hold his/her own' against a 26 y/o, to make sure they're not being taken advantage of?

> It's considered unethical because it's *very* easy for a 26
> y/o to take advantage of a 15 y/o. They simply haven't
> developed the finess in relationships that a 26 y/o has.

You might want to take a look at this post I made quite some time ago. It still hasn't been answered. Another post in a similar vein was also not answered satisfactorily.

Just to reiterate the position that I still hold: I think a 15 year old is perfectly capable of having the wisdom you deem necessary for him to be able to run his life.

I want someone to provide some objective criteria for determining the level of sense required to enter into a relationship because the blanket stereotypes people are fond of flinging around are grossly inaccurate in some individual cases.

> When I was 19 I dated a 29 y/o, and I can tell you now I
> wasn't prepared for it. What makes you think a 15 y/o will
> be prepared to 'hold his/her own' against a 26 y/o, to
> make sure they're not being taken advantage of?

Because not all 15 year olds are you, of course. What makes you think that all 29 year olds are prepared to 'hold his/her own'? We need objectivity, not blanket age criteria!

Just to reiterate the position that I still hold: I think a 15 year old is perfectly capable of having the wisdom you deem necessary for him to be able to run his life.

That's a strawman. I never said a 15 y/o *couldn't* run his own life, nor did I say he couldn't do it successfully. All successful people were 15 once.

What I said was that a 15 y/o isn't going to be able to keep from being taken advantage of by a 26 y/o. They simply haven't had the life experience required for it.

Much the same way it's relatively easy for you to influence a 6 y/o(and to read their body language), it's much easier for the 26 y/o to do the same with the 15 y/o.



I want someone to provide some objective criteria for determining the level of sense required to enter into a relationship because the blanket stereotypes people are fond of flinging around are grossly inaccurate in some individual cases.

That, in itself, is a stereotypical statement. It's the stereotypical statement of the idealist who believes himself open minded. It sounds nice on paper, but it's just not a practical statement.



Because not all 15 year olds are you, of course. What makes you think that all 29 year olds are prepared to 'hold his/her own'? We need objectivity, not blanket age criteria!

Another stereotypical statement. I'm certainly not going to suddenly see the error of my ways simply because you mistakenly accuse me of something so that you can attack.


Do you think a 15 y/o can be a successful president?

One of the most mature players on the first MUD I played, years ago, was at that time 16. Heck, I know fourty-year-olds who aren't half as mature as she was then.

I still talk to her ocassionally as she works her way through med school, and she's the only person I met on that MUD who I still have any contact with. At the time, I often hung out with her in preference to people more in keeping with my own chronological age -- about ten years her senior.

She actually did acquire a boyfriend (briefly) about my age IRL, and it never occurred to me to tell her there was anything wrong with it. I figured she knew what she was doing a lot better than I did from way over on the other end of the internet.

But when you say you want "objectivity, not blanket age criteria", what exactly are you asking for? Measuring chronological age is totally objective. Judging someone's emotional maturity, that's totally subjective. There's no way it can be done fairly without expending a huge amount of time and energy getting to know someone.

Abolish chronoligical age, and then what can anybody do to judge the maturity of a casual acquaintence?

All I can assume is you're saying, "We shouldn't be judging the maturity of a casual acquaintence." -- that age doesn't matter, and we should all just butt out of each other's business.

It's a very nice utopian philosophy. Just two problems:

1) No man is an island. Being a society means we're always into each others business to one extent or another. Sometimes we have to make judgements on other people, and act on those judgements. That's just life.

2) The real world is full of predators: short-sighted, self-absorbed people bereft of empathy, who will happily use up anyone they can and spit them back out. They're hard to spot at a glance, too, and the rest of us can't possibly single them all out, much less keep tabs on them all. What we can do (and actually do) is construct a newbie training ground in the great MUD of life, and demand that no one who has passed a certain benchmark of experience be allowed to go back and prey on the up and coming members of our community while they're still learning the basic drill of the game.

The benchmark is arbitrary (18+ where I come from). It has to be. But we come to a concensus on it; we set it; and we're expected to live by it. All of us. Sometimes that leads to heartaches that, in the more focused picture, seem stupid and pointless, but no society can possibly muster the manpower it would take to decide these things on a case by case basis.

Ethics itself has nothing to do with case-by-case decisions. It's about the cumulative weight of long-term behavior patterns within a society, and whether you'd want to live in a world where those patterns went unchecked. Me, I don't want to live in a world where monsters are allowed free, unfettered access to my children.

Bravo!

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say, only you said it much better :)

> That's a strawman. I never said a 15 y/o *couldn't* run his
> own life, nor did I say he couldn't do it successfully. All
> successful people were 15 once.

Bull. I never said that you said that. But you implied as much clear as day, just look at your statements: "It's considered unethical because it's *very* easy for a 26 y/o to take advantage of a 15 y/o.", "But do you think he really *understands* what that entails?", "It's easy to know something. It's entirely different to *understand* something, and therein lies the difference between a 15 y/o and a 26 y/o.", "What makes you think a 15 y/o will be prepared to 'hold his/her own' against a 26 y/o, to make sure they're not being taken advantage of?"

You said that, 1) it's very easy for them to be taken advantage of, 2) they do not understand the significance of pregnancy, 3) they aren't prepared to hold their own. This all leads to the conclusion that such relationships are considered unethical ultimately because a 15 y/o can not run their own lives. If a 15 y/o could run their lives, they wouldn't have these problems, obviously.

>> I want someone to provide some objective criteria for
>> determining the level of sense required to enter into a
>> relationship because the blanket stereotypes people are
>> fond of flinging around are grossly inaccurate in some
>> individual cases.
>
> That, in itself, is a stereotypical statement. It's the
> stereotypical statement of the idealist who believes
> himself open minded.

Hahahahaha. Boo hoo, I'm an idealist who only believes I'm open minded. And to back up this this remarkable claim, Genteel is going to provide some remarkable evidence:

> It sounds nice on paper, but it's just not a practical
> statement.

Or maybe not. You are essentially stating that you won't provide any objective reason for your stereotypical blanket statements because objectivity isn't practical? How do you think the stereotypes were derived in the first place? Did the Argument Fairy just come down on high and say that young people can't run their lives, wave her magic wand, and it was so? I'm sorry but if you can't lower yourself to provide actual reasoning behind your argument, then you're a poor arguer.

>> Because not all 15 year olds are you, of course. What
>> makes you think that all 29 year olds are prepared to
>> 'hold his/her own'? We need objectivity, not blanket age
>> criteria!
>
> Another stereotypical statement. I'm certainly not going
> to suddenly see the error of my ways simply because you
> mistakenly accuse me of something so that you can attack.

Uh, what? Did you even read the statements that you responded to? I ask why you think all 29 year olds are prepared to hold their own. You respond that I mistakenly accuse you of something so I can attack you. Whatever.

> Do you think a 15 y/o can be a successful president?

Now who's throwing out straw men?

> But when you say you want "objectivity, not blanket age
> criteria", what exactly are you asking for? Measuring
> chronological age is totally objective.

And totally meaningless. It should be obvious from my context that I want an objective reasoning beyond the blanket age criteria.

> Judging someone's emotional maturity, that's totally
> subjective.

Yet where do you think the blanket age criteria come from?

> The benchmark is arbitrary.

Yes, exactly. It is asinine to force people to live a certain way without giving any reason why they must do so! But you do provide some reasoning:

> There's no way it can be done fairly without expending a
> huge amount of time and energy getting to know someone.

Then I'd propose that we only use this time in fringe cases. Say, for example, that a 15 year old wants to have a relationship with a 26 year old. Why can't that 15 year old prove his case before a court of law? Unlike you, I do not think that society's lack of resources is enough justification to dictate morality. I am of the opinion that if society feels it is important, society should allocate its resources accordingly.

A dictatorship is also a lot easier on the time and energy as well. No pesky lobbies to waste society's resources. See why that argument doesn't work?

> Ethics itself has nothing to do with case-by-case
> decisions. It's about the cumulative weight of long-term
> behavior patterns within a society, and whether you'd want
> to live in a world where those patterns went unchecked.

Sorry, this is just plain false. Ethics can be completely objective and not cumulative. In fact they must be so for there to be anything to aggregate in the first place! You don't tell a Christian that his Ethics are bound to society's behavior patterns and not God's word. There are several of us with objective ethical systems that have nothing to do with the moral stance of society.

> Me, I don't want to live in a world where monsters are
> allowed free, unfettered access to my children.

Yes, because we know that the only alternative to a completely arbitrary benchmark is a world "where monsters are allowed free, unfettered access" to your children. I may as well be building the sacrificial alter myself by challenging these rules. But that's OK, I can wash the blood out of my jeans easily enough.

It's considered unethical because it's *very* easy for a 26 y/o to take advantage of a 15 y/o. They simply haven't developed the finess in relationships that a 26 y/o has.
The finess you mention is obviously being deceived, hurt and abused. Those acts are unethical or rather, amoral (for most people), in any case. Just because -you- consider it very easy it doesn't mean it's a constant.

But do you think he really *understands* what that entails?
Yes, unless the mentioned boy is a dumbship with entrails for brains. I knew it when I was 10 and I know it now.

When I was 19 I dated a 29 y/o, and I can tell you now I wasn't prepared for it. What makes you think a 15 y/o will be prepared to 'hold his/her own' against a 26 y/o, to make sure they're not being taken advantage of?
Most people aren't even when it's a 30 years old with another 30 years old. You can't be sure even if you're a couple of 25 years old dating. Those apply for any relationship. Quite in fact, I've seen more relationships of old people gone horrible wrong than those that USA considers illegal. Btw, before you start saying crap, rape is rape, abuse is abuse, doesn't matter if the person was young or not. Claimming a relationship between a minor and a grown up is illegal will protect the minor from those as much as normal laws protect the rest of us. Absolutely nothing, before you ask.

Just to reiterate the position that I still hold: I think a 15 year old is perfectly capable of having the wisdom you deem necessary for him to be able to run his life.
I completely agree and I'm reading those posts now to see if there's something answerable there.


Riddle me this: Why is it unethical for a 26 and a 15 year old to be in a relationship? Do you honestly think that the older party always exploits the younger, that there are absolutely no cases whatsoever in which they can have a mutually fulfilling relationship?
Hah, I have the perfect example for that.
Fark Link for what I mean. The news link is in the thread
I mean, If I knew that boy, I'd beat him up until near death. The woman was stupid but what he did makes me almost angry as if it was rape. So any way, younger people can also exploit the adults. If you actualy have kids, you will know what I mean. Not sexualy in that case, of course.

I want someone to provide some objective criteria for determining the level of sense required to enter into a relationship because the blanket stereotypes people are fond of flinging around are grossly inaccurate in some individual cases.
People like to believe in the media. The fact stands that since it's something considered illegal in america, all successful minor/major relationship simply remain secret. Where I live, such relationships aren't illegal and I've known more of those that actualy ended well than the 25-30 relationships.

What I said was that a 15 y/o isn't going to be able to keep from being taken advantage of by a 26 y/o. They simply haven't had the life experience required for it.
'life experience' ... My friend, the way the media throws such things in the heads of our kids every day and the school simply create sexual education courses they pretty much have more experience than you do (I don't aprove those btw, home schooling for my kids, kthx). If you aren't able to defend yourself at 15 you wont be able to at 30. And really, being taken advantage of at 15 or 20 or 25 is the same freaking thing. There's a reason why at 14 homo sapiens females are able to give birth safely. Nature never lies.

Do you think a 15 y/o can be a successful president?
If you want to be that silly. Yes, and in fact, a few of them would do much better than Bush.

But we come to a concensus on it; we set it; and we're expected to live by it. All of us.
No we didn't. I didn't concent to it and like hell I will follow it.

no society can possibly muster the manpower it would take to decide these things on a case by case basis.
Uh... You're judged before you go to jail you know? ... Of course society decides it case by case. A law is an attempt to shape the future by a selected few which isn't always for the best of everyone. Countries are economy driven and emotional driven. Most times a single scandal is enough to create a blindfolded law.
Every single man and woman is responsable for their own safety and actions. Only a few actualy dedicate themselves to help one or another being. That's called love, if not in such high level, it's called caring. I bet you 1000 for 1 that a policeman doesn't love you. 10000 for 1 that the judge doesn't either. On the best cases, they will care about you for a moment.
If you want to be a sheep and depend on laws, be my guest. No wonder people grow weak without any sense of self-respect and responsability. There's always some law to control your life. If you follow the rules you wont have to be responsable for it, since there was nothing wrong about it. Nazi soldiers were followers too, you know, and they were also people with dreams and convictions, not much diferent from you or me, yet people only seem to blame hittler and not the blindness that surrounded the followers. When a soldier pulls a trigger, it was he and only he responsable for it. No laws, no judges. A simple responsability most people can't take because they close their eyes and follow the mass.

Ethics itself has nothing to do with case-by-case decisions
Holy crap, how did I let this pass before? .... Ethics is a set of moral values. Morals is basicaly a set of things you will do and things you wont do. How can it not have something to do with case-by-case?! You get something to do, you analize it and consider if you should do it or not. As much as it can be an attempt to generalize what is considered 'right' and what's considered 'wrong' you know as better as I do that you analize each case before you do it. Unless you really really don't think about it. Then i don't know why are we talking to eachother.

There are several of us with objective ethical systems that have nothing to do with the moral stance of society.
All of us actualy. Society is made of people and as such, each have their own ideals and dreams. Even when some are compatible they are never equal. If they were equal, people wouldn't have create parties and condidates, there would be only a single representation of what we want.



What makes me incredible mad about this is that those people still claim it's unethical [and therefore wrong] to have a relationship with a minor. They point out what can go bad and wrong about it. Meanwhile, I'm in a relationship with a minor. Nothing has gone bad, nothing has gone wrong and I have never, not even a single time, taken advantage of her. All my interests are towards her happyness and well being. I know her interests are the same towards me. And we have been together like that for over 2 years. That, alone, is enough to make any statement certain people gave turn into void.
Thank you.

"Meanwhile, I'm in a relationship with a minor. Nothing has gone bad, nothing has gone wrong and I have never, not even a single time, taken advantage of her. All my interests are towards her happyness and well being. I know her interests are the same towards me."

LOL, that sounds alot like, "How was I supposed to know she was only 13. She looked at least 15..." :-)

LOL, that sounds alot like, "How was I supposed to know she was only 13. She looked at least 15..." :-)
ROFL :) Well, she did! :P

Nah, just kidding. I knew her age.

[On Life]
Yes, unless the mentioned boy is a dumbship with entrails for brains. I knew it when I was 10 and I know it now.

Garbage. There isn't a single 15-year-old out there who really knows what Life is like, except for the few runaways and addicts and other broken kids.

Meanwhile, I'm in a relationship with a minor. Nothing has gone bad, nothing has gone wrong --

You don't know that. You don't know what her life would have been without you -that is, however, unknowable so it doesn't matter.

-- and I have never, not even a single time, taken advantage of her.

Consciously. Growing up one learns all sort of manipulation that's done subconsciously.

All my interests are towards her happyness and well being.

A cynic would say all your interests are towards your happiness since her happiness presumably causes you to be happy.

.

Garbage. There isn't a single 15-year-old out there who really knows what Life is like, except for the few runaways and addicts and other broken kids.

The whole quote:
A 15 y/o male can also look you straight in the face and tell you that his gf could get pregnant if they have sex. But do you think he really *understands* what that entails?

I'm sorry if you feel to know the craps of life you must be like a broken kid. Any teenager knows what are the consequences of making a girl pregnant unless the mentionded teenager is a dumb*CENSORED*.

A small correction, if by *understands* he meant 'have the wisdom' then no. Not even grown ups really do, unless they have taken care of childs before with full responsability and even so lots of them don't acquire the needed wisdom.

You don't know that. You don't know what her life would have been without you -that is, however, unknowable so it doesn't matter.
And so does the comment :p ... I do know nothing has gone bad nor wrong. Unless you want to add alternative outcomes and dimensions to everything, then you can never truly point a fact about anything at all.

Consciously. Growing up one learns all sort of manipulation that's done subconsciously.
I'm sorry, but I know better than that. Actualy, I'm not sorry, that was just an expresion.

A cynic would say all your interests are towards your happiness since her happiness presumably causes you to be happy.
The same cynic would say you only posted that to nag. :)

You're opposed to rules, yet you ban all cyber sex. Now that's what I call.. sexual oppression, and gives indication to a frustrated world view.

If you can't bang your chick, nobody else can? I've always laughed at this practice, and it's one of those rules that made me type down 'quit' when reading up on a mud's rules.


>>Consciously. Growing up one learns all sort of manipulation that's done subconsciously.
>I'm sorry, but I know better than that. Actualy, I'm not sorry, that was just an expresion.

I must agree with muir, it's just another butt-plug. Strong views about right and wrong are the typical example of a manipulative personality. Quite a few people here suffer from it, though I'm quite sure a couple are capable of dealing with children without using force or deception.

The main example of subconscious manipulation would be those parents telling their kids that god exists, while they are old enough to realise that do not know that for sure. The child isn't old enough to determine that. Hence manipulative behavior is started.

Ofcourse, sex between kids ages 12-15 is legal where I live. And a sexual relationship between a 60 years old and a 16 years old would legal. Doesn't mean it would be considered right, but it could still be a healtier relationship than a pretty 18 years old boy that beats up your daughter.

Here's what I'm seeing.


Older crowd(read, more experienced).

older people can take advantage of younger people.


Younger crowd(read, less experienced).

Young kids are *smart*, they don't need experience(in a nutshell)



It amazes me how younger people always seem to think they rediscovered intelligent thinking, open mindedness, independant thought, and the whole bit, and that they, somehow, are special in this(note that this is a sign of egotism, mostly associated with youth).

My recommendation is to simply drop the discussion. It'll probably be years before they get to the point where they really *do* understand what we're talking about.

PS
The young in this country is *not* an oppressed minority.

PSS
Yui, you need to look up the meaning of strawman fallacy

(Comment added by Genteel on Wed Jul 7 8:38:11 2004)

One more thing.


Quite a few people here suffer from it, though I'm quite sure a couple are capable of dealing with children without using force or deception.

I don't know about you, but I don't want my children to be honest. Ethical, yes, but not honest. Honest people are the ones that are always walked on. I'd rather my children be successful.

>I don't know about you, but I don't want my children to be honest. Ethical, yes, but not honest. Honest people are the ones that are always walked on. I'd rather my children be successful.

Beat them, lie to them, put them under stress, force them to fit whatever the norm is, and hate anything that doesn't fit it.

You'll get a tough kid, ready for this tough world.

> My recommendation is to simply drop the discussion.

A wise recommendation indeed since you're fond of pushing out extremely poor arguments without sound reason backing them up.

> PS
> The young in this country is *not* an oppressed minority.

This is false. They are an oppressed minority, without a shadow of a doubt. The question is whether or not this is a good thing.

> PSS
> Yui, you need to look up the meaning of strawman fallacy

You're clueless. I argued against no position that you did not present. You, on the other hand, posited about the presidency which is clearly outside the realm of my argument. If you're familiar with the meaning of the strawman fallacy, you should then reacquaint yourself with basic reading comprehension skills.