Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

lendarios_sl said:

/start
Minors CANT give consent, regardless of intoxication levels. You cant apply intoxication law with minors. Minors cant give consent, hence any law that uses the word consent do not apply to them.
/end
Repeat until understood.

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha! This fucker's still going, I can't believe it.

Are you saying that all sex between minors is rape?

Jesus Christ, man, how can you say "any law that uses the word consent do not (sic) apply to them", when you've seen CASE LAW that does EXACTLY THAT? It's not my opinion or even my educated guess, it's fucking CASE LAW. If you have a problem, take it up with the legal system. I don't have to defend CASE LAW to you just because you refuse to accept it as proof of THE LAW.

lendarios_sl said:

Did you just switched from: "i was wrong", to "i was only wrong for x days"? And then you complain about moving the goal post. Oh the irony1!!!11eleven

Click to expand...

I was wrong for X days. I was right for X days. It happens. Except that when I went from being wrong to being right, I didn't get a "That's not what you were saying before, chap." I didn't get a "Hey! You changed your position!" I didn't get a "Well, obviously! Why didn't you say that before?" I didn't get a "Aren't you moving the goal posts?" Any one of those reactions would have correctly acknowledged that a change had taken place and that I was now talking about actual law. I didn't get that.

What did I get? An equal amount of knee-jerk "Wrong!" statements plagued with ridicule and a flat-out refusal to acknowledge reality. If you think this is in my head, I refer you again tohere.

Thanks for playing.

lendarios_sl said:

Where tanoomba, where? you keep saying this like it was truth.. Where, show me a case non involving a minor where consent given under intoxication was render null by the court. Please link us again that case that got overturned in appeals.

Click to expand...

What do mean, "I" keep saying it like it's the truth? It's not "me" saying it, it's the law. We've seen that. Get over it.
Also, stop telling me to find cases where somebody is found guilty of very specific, notoriously difficult to prove things. I don't have to find somebody who was found guilty. I never had to. That was not, is not, and will never be a requirement for proving that a law exists. I found THE LAW.

lendarios_sl said:

The case law u linked did not find the guy guilty because the minor was intoxicated. It found the guy guilty because the minor was a minor, hence rendering consent moot.

Click to expand...

Then why was he charged with raping someone who was incapable of giving consent due to the influence of alcohol? Remember, the case law itself references that specific legal code, not me. Why was the alcohol mentioned at all? What would it matter if he was guilty of raping her anyway? For that matter, why wasn'tshecharged with rape since the guy she had sex with was underage?

You know, when I am accused of "Only responding to posts by stupid people", I think they're talking about you.

khalid_sl said:

If anything, I think you should use Dumar as an example of how you yourself can be driven to think unscientific things are scientific based on how much you want them to be true. If you need another example, I suggest solar roadways. Just because something would be cool or even "should be true", doesn't mean it is true or would work.

Click to expand...

This is actually a good point. As human beings, we do give in to our biases all the time. We see something we want to be true, and just the fact that we saw it reinforces our belief. When it comes to Dumar, he was making a lot of the same types of points Peter Joseph makes. These are topics that are difficult to look at in terms of "proof" because they involve things such as human nature and theoretical shifts in social constructs. However, youcangive some scientific credence to these ideas by basing your ideas on observable evidence, even if that evidence is but part of a multi-faceted issue. Dumar and Peter Joseph both do this. When Peter Joseph says humans are not naturally "greedy", he references cooperative hunter-gatherer societies where there was no competition and everyone had the same status. Now somebody who thinks Peter Joseph is a kook will not consider that evidence. And yes, the fact that I happen to like a lot of his ideas does make it so I'll give him more credit than I otherwise might. However, nobody can say "greed is part of human nature", both because we have examples of greed-free societies AND because we are unable to find proof that "greed" is built into the human psyche.

Which brings me back around to the recent topic on this thread. You might have a point when you say that my bias influences what I consider to be "proof". Why call me out on this, and not every single person who believes "boys will be boys, girls will be girls" based on their own bias that is not backed up by any scientific evidence whatsoever? Are invalid, non-scientific, "feels"-based arguments only worth criticizing if they come from me? Is this not just an example of your own bias?

EVERYBODY has their biases. Me, you, and the whole retard brigade. You know what gives us credibility? When we are able to look objectively at all the information presented, even if that means having to admit being wrong about something. Guess how many people here have ever done that? Come on, guess.

khalid_sl said:

My own personal example would be how I find Mist's views on college and other people's degrees so offensive that I can't take anything she says seriously, even if it might have some sort of scientific evidence behind it. The very fact she uses her own degree to give her legitimacy while attacking everyone else at her school with a degree, makes me unable to objectively read her posts. Hence why I have tried to step away from this thread.

Click to expand...

I find this to be the most offensive thing you have ever written. Not because you have a problem with Mist, but because you admit that you can't takeanythingshe says seriously because of it. I mean, that's almost exactly why nobody takes anything I say seriously, and at least you're open about it, but human beings are incredibly complex and capable of an infinite number of thoughts and opinions on any topic. Why deprive yourself of what could be great information because it comes from a source that has, at some point, given you information you didn't like? I mean shit, even FOX News is rightsometimes.

Mist thinks I'm retarded. She doesn't read any of my points and is oblivious to the fact that she sometimes makes the exact points I make, sometimes within a couple of posts! I don't take her scorn personally. I just greatly appreciate that we have a point of view that sees things differently from a bunch of close-minded internet jocks, and the fact that she makes some really, really great points is icing on the cake.

Ridas_sl said:

Thats the important part and thats what rustles my jimmies so greatly. I like to discuss a lot of things (mostly in RL, fuck discussing things in a secondary language) and have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I dont mind some of your view points and even sent you a pm once and asked to elaborate a specific argument even, but sometimes you are just an insufferable cunt and thats why you get all the hate.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Being an insufferable cunt doesn't automatically make me wrong, though, and my jimmies get rustled when people use their distaste of me personally to block out the logic behind literally anything I have to say.