Railey2 said: 149597871 said: A specialist can easily identify cases of manipulation unless the criminal is some sort of genius and the child is a perfect actor. Not denying that the possibility exists, but I find it hard to believe that "thousands" of kids with perfect acting abilities would end up being "fed" to thousands of pedophiles who also happen to be genius manipulators capable of tricking a professional, the authorities and the parents over an extended period and getting away with it. Besides, if the person is such a great manipulator he wouldn't really need to follow the law in the first place, wouldn't he? It's pretty clear that you're just imagining a fictional perfect system that's 100% capable of sorting out the children that are being abused vs. the children that aren't, using [specialists], which is really just a magic word that you use to stop thinking about how your system would actually work in practice. How does your system protect children that are being taken advantage of, who might seem mature (because they've been abused), but are actually suffering deep psychological dama which will be much more apparent years down the line? [Specialists]. This is a fake explanation that you are using to placate others, but you actually don't have a clue how these [Specialists] would manage to judge everyone accurately. They wouldn't. Psychology is still a deeply subjective field, and it will stay that way for a very long time. If you've ever been to a therapist, you'd know what I mean. "Specialists" are still human, and humans make mistakes. 12 - 14 year olds are really good at hiding abuse and playing out roles if they've been doing that for their entire life, they're not perfect actors but they'll be good enough. You don't need to be a genius manipulator either, any run-of-the-mill narcissist will do a good enough job to break a persons character so thoroughly that they won't even think about not complying anymore. If you think that it takes a genius manipulator to break a person and make them act their part, you actually have no life experience whatsoever. If a person like this sees the opportunity to make the system justify their abuse, they will absolutely take it. No, I completely acknowledged the fact that the system I'm proposing isn't perfect and that there might be cases of it being abused as well as the universal truth that people make mistakes. I've mentioned it more than 3 times in my previous posts already. However, as I said it is significantly less flawed than what we currently have. So in a nutshell, according to you we should "play it safe" and pretend to see no evil when it comes to the current system despite it being an absolute travesty of what the word "justice" stands for and the only excuse for that is apparently ultra-skeptical arguments that completely disregard several centuries of scientific progress and people's hard work with the words "everybody make mistakes"? This is totally fine with me, since everybody has an opinion but as I said if that's the case you should never let your kid get on the school bus because although the driver is probably someone with decades of experience he is still a human capable of making a mistake and traffic accidents and sometimes incidents are one of the main causes of death or serious injury among the population in the vast majority of first and second world countries. Railey2 said: 149597871 said: Nothing is stopping people from doing that in your system either.In fact, one could even argue that the child is far less protected in the current system because it's a lot easier to lie to your ignorant parents than it is to lie a professional or a team of professionals thus the brilliant acting often isn't required. Indeed it doesn't, but it does allow a legal way of doing what is now considered a crime which is the main point. From a criminals point of view this is both a potential gift and a potential curse. In the current system, sexual predators have no choice (assuming they've already decided to do a certain crime) but to break the law. However when it comes to sexual crimes, especially where children are involved many cases remain unreported and never make it to the authorities so usually it's all in the hands of the child's parents. That means that the average sexual predator have a very high success rate in committing those crimes which is one of the main reasons why there are so many of them around the globe. On the other hand, in the new system sexual offenders will have to choose between abusing the system and going against the law. However abusing the system will be much harder for them since it requires psychological evaluation plus the obvious background checks, etc. So let's resort to maths which as many people is my favorite subject There are 2 situations, situation X and situation Y. X being the current system and Y being the system I proposed. Which system will have higher success ratio for the criminal when it comes to committing a crime? X: There is only one way to commit the crime. Let's call it way A - breaking the law. The success ratio let's say 50%. and Y: There are two ways to commit the crime. The same way A with the same 50% success ratio and another one way B - trying to abuse the system, but it has let's say 10% chances of success. In which situation the criminal would have higher OVERALL success ratio, statistically speaking? Railey2 said: 149597871 said: Oh yeah, how did that psychological testing work out for the tens of thousands of genocided civilians in Vietnam? You would think that the specialists of the US military would have managed to keep psychopaths away from the military! Oh wait..As I already mentioned in my previous post psychological testing is often one of the key factors in far more essential things (at least in normal countries), including gun ownership laws, military, etc. Even astronauts undergo a psychological evaluation. These 5% are quite an exaggeration. If we can trust psychology with the fate of our country or the entire world I'm pretty sure it will be lot safer than that when it comes to trusting it with a lot less significant issues. And even if we ignore that, this is just such a shitty comparison. Militaries are needed, there's no real alternative. 12 year olds getting psychologically certified sex-permits are not needed. I don't even know where you wanted to go with this leap of logic, but it's not working. The certificate is needed in cases where one of the participants is below the "age of consent" because else their partner risk their life being ruined and a significantly long prison time. Besides what has happened in Vietnam can't be really blamed on psychologists not doing their job. Railey2 said: 149597871 said: I'm not even gonna try to guess what point you're trying to make with that circumcision analogy, but you're not making much sense there.But just for the sake of the argument let's assume that indeed nothing is 100% accurate that there will inevitably be a mistake at some point. I hate saying this but several boys each year are dying in the United States alone as a result of the circumcision procedure going wrong. Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics and a few other defenders of the practice are still claiming that the potential health benefits outweigh the risk. It is a very rational approach that has been and is currently used in various different fields in our society. Else you would never allow your kids to leave home because there is a risk that something bad may happen to them outside despite obviously knowing that it will be a lot more beneficial for them than keeping them locked in their rooms all-day. But unlike circumcision, this one has actual benefits. Circumcision is shitty, yes. Therefore... what? What are you trying to say here? We always take risks when letting our kids outside, therefore we should just say fuck it and let them get sex-permits so they can possibly get abused by fully grown adults? Huh? The moral of the story is that in many things we consider normal or parts of our everyday life there is a risk, but if the potential benefits greatly outweigh this risk (which isn't even close to being true specifically when it comes to circumcision) then people will keep defending it. So before coming to me and telling me that something is impractical because there is a risk, you should consider the amount of risk being disregarded when it comes to various things in our life that are considered perfectly normal. Besides, as I said if the criminal is smart enough he wouldn't even try to get the permit as it would be far easier for them to just break the law just like they are doing right now. You should basically hope they are irrational enough to try to abuse the system as, as I already proved, it would be far less successful than going against the law. @Kosmonaut I already said about the mental health aspect which of course would require a testing similar to the one for gun ownership, etc. The reason it can't be exactly the same is because gun ownership psychological assessments are meant for adults in the first place. The gender transitioning is a bit different though, it doesn't really require the same psychological evaluation. It's main goal is determining whether you really want to transition, the severity of gender dysphoria symptoms and the your ability to make rational or to be even more accurate - reasonable decisions. Of course since being depressed or having an even more serious mental disorder may greatly affect you rational thinking, needless to say having such symptoms would be quite worrying regardless of what the assessment is about. In some cases it might not be sufficient but it is still a vital part of every evaluation. Pubescent teens are usually sexually mature. Sexual maturity more about the body rather than the mind. The level of maturity that I mentioned is different from "sexual maturity" and is supposed to include more than just the sexual aspects, although for obvious reasons at the moment neither I nor even people more knowledgeable than me can clearly answer your question about what exactly the evaluation is going to consist. It should focus on assessing your ability to make decisions, whether you realize the possible consequences for certain actions and your overall mental capacity. @IEatAnimeAss Technically your mind won't be fully developed at least until you are around the age of 25 yet there are people who have not just had sex but are already parents by the time they reach that age. I've already addressed the pregnancy risk in my second post. There isn't any real evidence that the act of a having sexual experience itself before the age of 18 is traumatizing, especially if we are talking about people slightly below that age. Unless it of course we are talking about non-consensual sex. The chances of a 5-year-old passing the psychological evaluation that I proposed are non-existent. |
149597871Nov 21, 2019 10:21 PM
| @149597871 You're a sexual predator and you started to take control over a child, slowly but surely. Say this child is poor, from a very bad background and the parents don't really give a fuck, which is often the case. She's 12, often hanging out with you and your buddies, because that makes her feel grown up etc. etc. She is probably more grown up than her peers because she went through some abuse at home and hangs out with adults, but you know, she's still 12. Now you're ready to go, you're so in love with each other (of course), and you take it a step further and bring her to the specialist for the sex permit- you haven't started utterly destroying her yet, she's just starting to be dependent from you, so the psychologist just sees her as a slightly more mature child that you haven't been emotionally manipulating (yet), which is true. There's no age of consent anymore, so she passes the evaluation, she's in a right state of mind at the moment and you do treat her better than her parents treat her. Now she has the permit, and she's in your grasp. What comes next is obvious and it's not pretty so I'm not gonna spell it out, but fast forward a bit. You've been doing things to her that she doesn't agree with at all, but she feels like she can't seek help because look at the permit, it's not illegal right? If she wants to speak up doesn't that mean that the permit will be revoked? Doesn't it mean that she won't have adult-status anymore? You tell her that too, every time she has doubts. How does the permit system help her now? Lastly, what was really the risk for the predator in this situation? He didn't do anything illegal because he didn't have sexual contact before she got the permit, and if she wants her permit revoked she will find that she can't, because ofc he's gonna put a lot of pressure on her to not do that (which is easy cause he's an adult and she's a child). Even if she gets the permit revoked, "oh well". She's had a change of mind, he can probably avoid prosecution as long as he backs off after the permit is gone. After all, she did pass the psychological exam, right? Not his fault that the system failed, if anyone is getting sued it's the psychologist. Will the system side with her? There are many fucked up people in this world, and this system allows for a method of sexual predation that has a legal basis, isn't very risky and most importantly, allows for one of the most heinous types of control over the victim: System-sanctioned control. It's the stuff of nightmares. I get that you're naive as fuck, you've just proved it again when you said that the chance of success for sexual predators is 50% (more like 80% or more), so it's forgivable for you to not think of these things. But please stay away from politics when it's clear that you have no life experience whatsoever. It's like some random fucker from MAL talking about quantum mechanics, an absolute trainwreck. There's this concept called Chestertons Fence. If you see a Fence and you can't see a use for it, that's not your cue to take it down. It's your cue to think very hard about why it's there. The age of consent is the fence. Your homework is to think very long and hard about why it exists. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
Railey2 said: You've been doing things to her that she doesn't agree with at all, but she feels like she can't seek help because look at the permit, it's not illegal right? If she wants to speak up doesn't that mean that the permit will be revoked? Doesn't it mean that she won't have adult-status anymore? You tell her that too, every time she has doubts. How does the permit system help her now? No, that's not a rape permit. Non-consensual sex is still illegal. I get it thought, as I said many sex crimes remain unreported which as I previously explained in my math game is the same in both systems in terms of chance of success for the criminal. Lastly, what was really the risk for the predator in this situation? He didn't do anything illegal Yes, he did. You just said he raped her. After all, she did pass the psychological exam, right? Not his fault that the system failed, if anyone is getting sued it's the psychologist. Will the system side with her? No, the psychological exam was about whether she is capable of being rational and mature enough to give her consent, not about taking away her basic human rights. In the aforesaid system the predator would still be treated as a rapist. There are many fucked up people in this world, and this system allows for a method of sexual predation that has a legal basis, isn't very risky and most importantly, allows for one of the most heinous types of control over the victim: System-sanctioned control. It's the stuff of nightmares. Well, if we disregard my argument from the previous posts that suggests that the system is statistically safer as well as all the benefits of such system and embrace irrationality simply because our emotions prevent us from thinking logically - yes. I get that you're naive as fuck, you've just proved it again when you said that the chance of success for sexual predators is 50% (more like 80% or more) "let's say" is used when you are giving an example, it was to prove a logical point and it wouldn't have mattered much if it was 99 and 1 instead of 50 and 10. It's like some random fucker from MAL talking about quantum mechanics, an absolute trainwreck. Could it be that you are confident in your knowledge and understanding of quantum physics? |
| @149597871 ok you're legit super naive. If you still can't see it after I've given you such a detailed rundown, there's no helping you. Good luck buddy, please never vote. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| My main reason for opposing high AOC laws is because I really wanted to get fucked by an older girl when I was 15/16. I wanted to be one of those students who got seduced by their teacher. Man, I still disagree with them but 15/16 year old me absolutely despised the AOC laws. People always act as if problems only result from having a sexual debut too early but I've yet to see any problems result from having sex too early in life. I have, however, seen a plethora of problems result from having a sexual debut that is too late in life. I don't know if people just don't remember it or if they don't care, but the sexual frustration you feel as a teenager is extremely intense. It's unbelievable to me that we expect teenagers to endure 4-6 years of sexual frustration before we finally give them the green light. Naturally teenagers rebel but many can't seduce their peers even if they want to. Not having your sexual debut in time causes a person to develop major anxiety, problems connecting with peers, stunted maturity, and even depression. The thing is though. "Too late" is much earlier than people think. 16 is already a little too late. It's not a big deal but it's a little late. 17 absolutely is too late though. If someone has not had their sexual debut by 17, it is very likely that they will have some issues with relationships. And dear god if they actually wait until they are 18 they are in major trouble. I have yet to meet a person that was an 18+ virgin that didn't have serious difficulties forming relationships. All of the ones I've met have a possibly permanent anxiety problem and problems relating to how comfortable they are with sex. For some younger guys. They have no confidence and need an older woman who's comfortable making that first move to start their sexual debut. After being with an older woman, they can date their peers with more self-confidence and comfort regarding sex. But how the hell is an older woman supposed to feel comfortable seducing 15/16 year old guys if the law treats them like a pedophile monster when they do? |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| I say totally unpopular opinions. I'm too goody goody. |
 |
petran79 said: Don't you mean rather "unethical"? Here is one: All those who encourage immigrations are fine as long as the bad apples are held in "warehouse" countries for convenience. No. Unpopular is unethical. Illegal opinions are ones that believe illegal things should be legal. |
 |
| I guess I've got a few illegal opinions. I think incestuous marriages should be legal for adults, I also think the death penalty should be abolished. I don't really support anything that's legal but controversial, except maybe universal healthcare. I'm against several things that are legal, like genital mutilation and abortion. I think tobacco should probably also be more heavily regulated. |
Wicker_Senpai93 said: I guess I've got a few illegal opinions. --- I also think the death penalty should be abolished. That's not how an "illegal opinion" works. It's only an "illegal opinion" if you support something that's NOT legal right now. |
|
Railey2 said: @149597871 ok you're legit super naive. If you still can't see it after I've given you such a detailed rundown, there's no helping you. Good luck buddy, please never vote. Solely age based consent laws don't cleanly help prevent sexual exploitation and rape as you claim but rather also encourages it because once someone hits an arbitrary age they are legally ready even if they aren't mentally ready or otherwise not fully willing so long as they are consenting hesitantly and this leaves them up for being legally tricked (so long as it doesnt defy rape by deception laws if existent), pressured and manipulated into sex or otherwise sexually exploited. Also because laws just based on age don't even care if a minor was exploited by another minor to the point charges aren't even pressed unless it's a large age gap involving a small child or physical violence or coercion was used. According to studies most rapists start while in their teens themselves. So these laws don't do everything for people over or under the age very well. This is why some countries do not rely solely on age. |
traedDec 19, 2019 6:05 AM
| No opinion can be illegal. But my unpopular opinion is that abortion is murder and parents should not allow their young children to decide/change their biological sex. |
 |
| I have more unpopular opinions though I do believe in emulation of games and presservation of movies, music, and other media. |
 |
dinesj21 said: No opinion can be illegal. But my unpopular opinion is that abortion is murder and parents should not allow their young children to decide/change their biological sex. Even in places where abortion was illegal it was not charged as murder it was just abortion and had it's own law. |
traed said: It should be charged as murder and it's a shame that it isn't. So only if the child is wanted decides whether or not its considered abortion or not. If the mother wants the child but someone kills her, the one who killed them is charged with double homicide. dinesj21 said: No opinion can be illegal. But my unpopular opinion is that abortion is murder and parents should not allow their young children to decide/change their biological sex. Even in places where abortion was illegal it was not charged as murder it was just abortion and had it's own law. |
|
dinesj21 said: traed said: It should be charged as murder and it's a shame that it isn't. So only if the child is wanted decides whether or not its considered abortion or not. If the mother wants the child but someone kills her, the one who killed them is charged with double homicide. Even in places where abortion was illegal it was not charged as murder it was just abortion and had it's own law. Then killing livestock for food should be charged as murder too if you were consistent considering they aren't evolved same as a full grown adult much as a foetus is not fully developed and humans too are animals. Sometimes yes it's a double homicide but sometimes it's own term. Also you don't have to murder a pregnant woman, it's a crime to cause an aborted pregnancy in someone that doesn't want it . |
traed said: Comparing killing an animal to killing a human child is pretty bold.dinesj21 said: It should be charged as murder and it's a shame that it isn't. So only if the child is wanted decides whether or not its considered abortion or not. If the mother wants the child but someone kills her, the one who killed them is charged with double homicide. Then killing livestock for food should be charged as murder too if you were consistent considering they aren't evolved same as a full grown adult much as a foetus is not fully developed and humans too are animals. Sometimes yes it's a double homicide but sometimes it's own term. Also you don't have to murder a pregnant woman, it's a crime to cause an aborted pregnancy in someone that doesn't want it . |
|
Orhunaa said: Kinda funny considering the US hasn't been a country with an actual national identity for the longest time now. Patriotism is just another word for "brand loyalty", and that's exactly what it is because the US is the Dutch East India Company's wet dream: A full-blown Megacorporation masquerading as a representative democracy and federal republic. You want something changed, just pay off a politician.You know what's funny? My nationalist uncle fucking hates me for planning to live abroad saying that the country won't improve if the bright minds go away. |
SawilagarDec 24, 2019 12:54 AM
| “Loddfafnir, listen to my counsel: You will fare well if you follow it, It will help you much if you heed it. If aware that another is wicked, say so: Make no truce or treaty with foes.” - Havamal 127 |
| Does anyone know how can i contact /report to a country intelligence agency or an international child protection agency? |
| I support the safe use of drugs and drug legalization, I do use Tor as way to promote safe drug use. |
| "I suffered all my life. No one ever truly loved me. No one ever truly cared about me. I only loved one thing in my whole life and that was Christina Menefee. But she was torn away from me. I tried to save myself with [student’s name], but she never cared for me. As it turns out, she made fun of me behind my back while we were together. And all throughout my life I was ridiculed. Always beaten, always hated. [...] I am malicious because I am miserable." "It was not a cry for attention, it was not a cry for help. It was a scream in sheer agony [...]" -Luke Woodham |
dinesj21 said: traed said: Comparing killing an animal to killing a human child is pretty bold.Then killing livestock for food should be charged as murder too if you were consistent considering they aren't evolved same as a full grown adult much as a foetus is not fully developed and humans too are animals. Sometimes yes it's a double homicide but sometimes it's own term. Also you don't have to murder a pregnant woman, it's a crime to cause an aborted pregnancy in someone that doesn't want it . Compairing early developed abortion of fetuses to murdering children is pretty bold. |
Maneki-Mew said: 149597871 said: It's just illogical to use the same standard for everyone since not everyone hits puberty at the exact same age. Taking into account their current mental state and level of maturity is also very important. In contrast whether the person is 211 months old or 216 months old doesn't really matter that much. Plus the age of consent is usually somewhere between 16-18 which in most cases is ridiculously high to begin with as the vast majority of people around that age are probably ready both physically and mentally to have sex and to be honest many of them probably have had at least a few sexual experiences by the time they reach that age. As for your question, with maybe a few extraordinary exceptions I think it would be rather disturbing. It is just that if it's going to be illegal it should be illegal because of the aforesaid reasons in my first paragraph rather than simply because of the fact that they haven't reached a certain age yet. No but you need a mean age, which could you justify by the average brain development at a certain age. That means that kids know what sex is and do feel a certain affection to kids of their age, but their ideas of these things and mental maturity are very different from adults. Also there are different types of maturity, even very smart kids, who are intellectually older than they are, are on an emotional level still their biological age. 14 is surely low enough. Everything lower than that opens every door for abuse. No, the "mean" age itself opens a door for abuse as well and the "emotional level" isn't always dictated solely by a person's biological age, I'm not even sure if it's the main factor although yes, most people cannot be very emotionally mature below a certain age - let's say 5 but I'm pretty sure you can think of a few individuals in their 30-40s in your life that are on a relatively low level for what's supposed to be a relatively high biological age for a human. Having a "mean" age for people's emotional level is absurd. Also not everybody even goes the same "emotional" path in their development but that's another topic. I've said that the assessment will also assess a person's level of maturity and not only their intelligence (I don't know where did you get that from to begin with, my words in the very post you are quoting are "Taking into account their current mental state and level of maturity is also very important." and I defended and explained what I mean by that multiple times already) Plus I already argued that it's relatively safer than the current system. If you want to argue about that, check the top comment (#51) on this page and address my points. |
149597871Dec 25, 2019 5:33 AM
traed said: I don't remember ever saying that. Lol. When did I say that in any of my previous comments? The fetus is an earlier stage of a newborn or toddler. They're all the same thing. dinesj21 said: Comparing killing an animal to killing a human child is pretty bold. Compairing early developed abortion of fetuses to murdering children is pretty bold. |
dinesj21Dec 24, 2019 10:08 PM
|
| piracy of information/knowledge/books that ought to be in the public domain. 500+ billion USD in taxes spent on R&D, paying off all these universities and grants. but in the end, they paywall you for hundreds or maybe even thousands of dollars for access? wau |
dinesj21 said: I don't remember ever saying that. Lol. The fetus is an earlier stage of a newborn or toddler. They're all the same thing. You called abortion murder and a foetus child multiple times and even doubled down on the same message you said you never said that ... you basically said abortion is same as murdering children. Mosr abortions dont take place anywhere near late term and especially not due date and the ones that do take place later are for medical reasons so it's not factually correct to say it's the same thing as murdering a newborn. |
| Its like asking me if I have opinions at all I have opinions OP. Illegal even where I'm from- I'm a minority booo hooo and I'm also biracial so no actual community loves me :'( i also look 12 so now I have to worry if all my suitor-predators are lolicons. But maybe I'll have to live with that??? 😤😤😤 :'( dass illegallll I'd give u percentages but I'm really bad at math and estimation But it's alright OP god will accept me into heaven no matter who I am and what I'm into |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Maneki-Mew said: 149597871 said: No, the "mean" age itself opens a door for abuse as well and the "emotional level" isn't always dictated solely by a person's biological age, I'm not even sure if it's the main factor although yes, most people cannot be very emotionally mature below a certain age - let's say 5 but I'm pretty sure you can think of a few individuals in their 30-40s in your life that are on a relatively low level for what's supposed to be a relatively high biological age for a human. Having a "mean" age for people's emotional level is absurd. Also not everybody even goes the same "emotional" path in their development but that's another topic. I've said that the assessment will also assess a person's level of maturity and not only their intelligence (I don't know where did you get that from to begin with, my words in the very post you are quoting are "Taking into account their current mental state and level of maturity is also very important." and I defended and explained what I mean by that multiple times already) Plus I already argued that it's relatively safer than the current system. If you want to argue about that, check the top comment (#51) on this page and address my points. No, we don't say 5, there is no single mature kid with 8, 9 or 10 either, you don't seem to know how this kind of brain development works and how kuds act. So, if a 10 yo says that they feel old enough to have sex, you let them have their way? And I don't mean that you don't know what they do with their classmates when you aren't there. That's normal for some kids that age to start to be curious about each other. I mean that's not even forbidden in any way 1. Who you want to sue, if they are both kids? 2. You might don't know about it and it's quite normal for some too. We speak about an age of protection against someone who is significantly older than the younger part. It's rather the opposite, if they tell you that they are attracted someone, who is older. Some kids, which were sexually abused beforehand, think this is normal and that they can buy affection and advantages with sexual acts, and if they act oversexualized a lot, you know something is wrong with them. I think your comments show that you don't know so much what you are speaking about, from a psychological perspective and that your arguments are theoretical amd based on your biases. Of course there are very immature people in the 30s, but there must be some kind restriction and at least they were gone through puberty and all. If they aren't from a clinical perspective mentally handicapped, their way of being immature is different from a kid's being immature. My argument is about the word of experts concluded after a psychological assessment rather than the word of the kid? Also sexual acts between minors are often illegal. Depends on the country/state of course. The psychological evaluation I'm talking about isn't based on personal opinions or the presence of attraction which you would've known if you bothered reading all my posts in this thread so far. Also you've completely ignored post #51 which isn't a good move if you really want to discuss the topic. |
149597871Dec 25, 2019 7:04 AM
| I don't really have morals and only consider things that could benefit myself. many of my thoughts are of illegal stuffs. |
 ☆☆☆ "There's a huge difference between one and infinity. However, compared to the difference between existence and non-existence, one and infinite are nearly the same. I am the child destined to become the best witch... no... The greatest Creator in the world...!" -Maria Ushiromiya ☆☆☆ |
| Illegal opinion - The age of what is considered child pornography should be the lower than the age of consent in a nation, so if a country has an AoC of 16, then a legal couple filming themselves having sex shouldn't be illegal. Unpopular opinion - Social credit scores would be great, as long as the whole criticizing the government lowers your score part is left out. |
ACasualViewerDec 28, 2019 5:33 PM
 |
traed said: You are the most frustrating person to argue with because you always do the following things:Railey2 said: @149597871 ok you're legit super naive. If you still can't see it after I've given you such a detailed rundown, there's no helping you. Good luck buddy, please never vote. Solely age based consent laws don't cleanly help prevent sexual exploitation and rape as you claim but rather also encourages it because once someone hits an arbitrary age they are legally ready even if they aren't mentally ready or otherwise not fully willing so long as they are consenting hesitantly and this leaves them up for being legally tricked (so long as it doesnt defy rape by deception laws if existent), pressured and manipulated into sex or otherwise sexually exploited. Also because laws just based on age don't even care if a minor was exploited by another minor to the point charges aren't even pressed unless it's a large age gap involving a small child or physical violence or coercion was used. According to studies most rapists start while in their teens themselves. So these laws don't do everything for people over or under the age very well. This is why some countries do not rely solely on age. #1 Misrepresenting peoples points, usually by exaggerating them greatly (I didn't say that the age of consent ruling prevents rape cleanly. I'm merely saying that not having age of consent laws is worse, i.e. they sometimes prevent rape or at least make it harder to rape.) #2 Bringing up stuff that is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand #3 Talking about things that are related to the point but are also so blatantly obvious that they simply weren't mentioned, and then paint it as if whoever you're talking to hasn't thought of them already I don't know why you keep doing this, but it's so incredibly frustrating, you have no idea. I think you're the user that I least enjoy talking to on this forum, and I'm including all the nutcases. I'm so tempted to just block you and be done with it, I just wanna know if you're doing this on purpose or if you actually can't tell. #1 honestly pisses me off the most, but #2 and #3 are annoying as well, like in the post I quoted above where you go on and on about how age of consent laws don't protect everyone all the time. Of course they fucking don't, no single law can save everyone. Just look at your grand conclusion: "This is why some countries do not rely solely on age." Thanks, Cpt.Obvious. What the hell do you want people to respond to that? Goddamnit man, it's aggravating. I'm ready for another 20 day break from this shit. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| writing a whole 10 page paper on an anime forums page will not cure your depression. go see a therapist. i have an abnormal amount of illegal opinions and unpopular opinions |
Railey2 said: traed said: You are the most frustrating person to argue with because you always do the following things:Solely age based consent laws don't cleanly help prevent sexual exploitation and rape as you claim but rather also encourages it because once someone hits an arbitrary age they are legally ready even if they aren't mentally ready or otherwise not fully willing so long as they are consenting hesitantly and this leaves them up for being legally tricked (so long as it doesnt defy rape by deception laws if existent), pressured and manipulated into sex or otherwise sexually exploited. Also because laws just based on age don't even care if a minor was exploited by another minor to the point charges aren't even pressed unless it's a large age gap involving a small child or physical violence or coercion was used. According to studies most rapists start while in their teens themselves. So these laws don't do everything for people over or under the age very well. This is why some countries do not rely solely on age. #1 Misrepresenting peoples points, usually by exaggerating them greatly (I didn't say that the age of consent ruling prevents rape cleanly. I'm merely saying that not having age of consent laws is worse, i.e. they sometimes prevent rape or at least make it harder to rape.) #2 Bringing up stuff that is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand #3 Talking about things that are related to the point but are also so blatantly obvious that they simply weren't mentioned, and then paint it as if whoever you're talking to hasn't thought of them already I don't know why you keep doing this, but it's so incredibly frustrating, you have no idea. I think you're the user that I least enjoy talking to on this forum, and I'm including all the nutcases. I'm so tempted to just block you and be done with it, I just wanna know if you're doing this on purpose or if you actually can't tell. #1 honestly pisses me off the most, but #2 and #3 are annoying as well, like in the post I quoted above where you go on and on about how age of consent laws don't protect everyone all the time. Of course they fucking don't, no single law can save everyone. Just look at your grand conclusion. "This is why some countries do not rely solely on age." Thanks, Cpt.Obvious. What the hell do you want people to respond to that? Goddamnit man, it's aggravating. I'm ready for another 20 day break from this shit. 1. That's your own misinterpretation. I was suggesting you were treating it as if it's perfectly fine as is from the way you reacted to a proposed solution rejecting it with hostility and made a strawman argument then quiting when it was pointed out to you by the very person you were arguing with that you made a misrepresentation as your argument and them you acted like you were still right on your way out without even acknowledging it. That's why I even bothered reply because your approach. 2. I fail to see your topic of focus here as relevant 3. Sometimes the obvious has to be pointed out The argument of flaw in all law works for both arguments. Point is there always is room for improvement and just because something is different doesn't automatically make it worse and middle grounds can exist as well. |
traedDec 29, 2019 12:01 AM
traed said: Same old, same old. Remember that time you told me that I don't know anything solely because I'm Muslim? Oh, yeah, surely, no misinterpretation from your part, and pin-point relevancy of the topic at hand, and the obvious said! Now you want to legalise fucking little kids indirectly. Bravo.1. That's your own misinterpretation. 2. I fail to see your topic of focus here as relevant 3. Sometimes the obvious has to be pointed out |
| I can't quite understand illegal opinions. Is this like those "Nazis did nothing wrong" king of thing? I also don't comprehend unpopular opinion, because I don't think you would want to divide opinions base on their "popularity" because it comes of as a meme in my opinion. |
Yarub said: Same old, same old. Remember that time you told me that I don't know anything solely because I'm Muslim? Oh, yeah, surely, no misinterpretation from your part, and pin-point relevancy of the topic at hand, and the obvious said! Now you want to legalise fucking little kids indirectly. Bravo. So show me. I doubt I said that because it doesn't really sound like me and I would need context if I did. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. If I did say something like that it surely must be your own assumption or very context based. It surely wasn't solely because you're a Muslim but likely because of your stubbornness on something due to beliefs getting in the way of accepting some scientific facts or something like that. I either criticize or defend Islam and Muslims depending on context like I do with any big religion. Strawman and a personal attack.. way to go... I didn't take a hard stance but an open stance and was explaining some ways how people become victimized under the current system even at times without repercussion and that needs addressed. I never made such a suggestion as you suggest because that would be under your assumption that little kids would be capable of meeting requirements (a claim I never made ) or that you just didn't follow discussion so you don't know it was mentioned by another user who started that discussion that the AoC would be replaced with something else to serve the same purpose just in a different way (though this isn't to say I agree with everything said) and I had mentioned a combined system as another thing to consider. I am concerned for the wellbeing of people so I would not disregard listening to alternatives and adjustments of where current systems fall short in reducing harm to people because maybe solutions can be found either directly in what someone says or indirectly by getting new ideas not previously mentioned. |
| its so strange to see this talked about casually. like its so normalized for anime fans to embrace or revel in having 'illegal' opinions. honestly i feel like illegal is code for pedophilic shit. its too popular in the anime community and anime itself to ignore. im relatively new to this anime stuff but i don't think ill ever get used to underage girls and boys being sexualized so absentmindedly. |
  |
shirakawa_megumi said: Okay I wouldn't smash a 17 year old because that's not me. It's not legal where I live and it never was so that's my mindset. If i were raised in New York where the age of consent is 17 maybe i would feel differently. However, initially my post was directed towards older people (especially predatory men because I see this the most from them) sexualizing 'lolis' or obviously under-aged girls. Its so wild and disturbing. An immediate red flag.evetheplug said: its so strange to see this talked about casually. like its so normalized for anime fans to embrace or revel in having 'illegal' opinions. honestly i feel like illegal is code for pedophilic shit. its too popular in the anime community and anime itself to ignore. im relatively new to this anime stuff but i don't think ill ever get used to underage girls and boys being sexualized so absentmindedly. You are 19 and you wouldn't smash some 17 cute? I assume you are equaling anyone under 18 with pedophilia, which is wrong on it's own. |
|
shirakawa_megumi said: You people discussing aoc, I find it funny we go into direction, where people more and more display disapprovement to finding anyone below 18 attractive (and I'm not even talking very you, just 16-17), but clap their hands when 5 years old are put onto strong hormones because they already know their "gender identity". 16 year old boobs are not ready to be looked at, but 5 year old peepee is ready to be chop off. Weird world. That is as much gynocentrism as it is internalized misandry. The idea of the Daughter rejecting the Father for another male is either projected externally aggressively, ie, controlling or hazing of potential suitors. Or it is internalized and incites passive aggressive behaviors. It is a double standard that is accepted as it plays on this by reducing the number of peepee's in the competition bracket and protects Daughter's sacred boobs from male interlopers. |
 |
Peaceful_Critic said: evetheplug said: Oh, I thought you were talking about the actual hebephilia and pedophilia (not the fictional one) advocated right in this thread. You only meant "lolis", that isn't even that bad.Okay I wouldn't smash a 17 year old because that's not me. It's not legal where I live and it never was so that's my mindset. If i were raised in New York where the age of consent is 17 maybe i would feel differently. However, initially my post was directed towards older people (especially predatory men because I see this the most from them) sexualizing 'lolis' or obviously under-aged girls. Its so wild and disturbing. An immediate red flag. Obviously by disapproving in animated children being sexualized, I also disprove of actual children being sexualized. That's a no brainer... |
|
More topics from this board
» Do you like taking photographs/recording vids and uploading it online?DesuMaiden - 2 minutes ago |
0 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Tired of social relationshipsEmiliaHoarfrost - Sep 22 |
32 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
14 minutes ago |
|
» I believe in solipsism. Is that crazy?purple_rayn - Yesterday |
33 |
by CollectiveDismal
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» Why do people abandon their friends for relationships? ( 1 2 )Amityblight - Sep 20 |
57 |
by lalabella
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» How often do you go to the gym or workout in general?ZakuF_ - Yesterday |
16 |
by Icymatika
»»
1 hour ago |