Those sexually predatory 12 year old girls!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth,

The following posts contain direct personal attacks on another member.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 8#p1482128
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 3#p1482123
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7#p1482107

This is a warning that any similar posts will result in an immediate 24h suspension of your account.

I await with bated breath your identical censure of Gawdzilla for his personal attacks.

Please report them and we will look into them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Butthurt is a fatal illness now?

[Collector1337]

females of all ages are not sexual sirens created to prey on vulnerable men,

Strawman.

Men are not unable to resist any sexual urge of any kind ever. They are better than that.

Strawman #2.

[Seth]

Seth,

The following posts contain direct personal attacks on another member.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 8#p1482128
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 3#p1482123
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7#p1482107

This is a warning that any similar posts will result in an immediate 24h suspension of your account.

I await with bated breath your identical censure of Gawdzilla for his personal attacks.

Please report them and we will look into them.

Consider them reported. You know exactly which posts I'm talking about. Just look at the quotes I provide in my explicit replies to Zilla. You're smart enough to figure out the rest. I think.

Or are you going to play silly power games?

[Seth]

Ok I'm on my phone and its not ideal for splitting posts to answer. But never fear I will get back to this. Just as a teaser - females of all ages are not sexual sirens created to prey on vulnerable men, except in the bible or the Koran. Men are not unable to resist any sexual urge of any kind ever. They are better than that.
Ill be back

Thanks fishie, I'll wait. Take your time to hone your argument if you would. It's more interesting that way.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth,

The following posts contain direct personal attacks on another member.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 8#p1482128
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 3#p1482123
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7#p1482107

This is a warning that any similar posts will result in an immediate 24h suspension of your account.

I await with bated breath your identical censure of Gawdzilla for his personal attacks.

Please report them and we will look into them.

Consider them reported. You know exactly which posts I'm talking about. Just look at the quotes I provide in my explicit replies to Zilla. You're smart enough to figure out the rest. I think.

Or are you going to play silly power games?

Not at all. The posts you were warned for in this thread were not in response to personal attacks. The other could be considered such. I will raise it in the staff forum for discussion.

At the end of the day though, it was you that succumbed to goading and started hurling assholes around. You need to watch that temper of yours. You like to boast about how you are playing everyone here and asking the difficult questions - but you bite at any bait that is offered when you are having a bad day.

[Collector1337]

Consider them reported. You know exactly which posts I'm talking about. Just look at the quotes I provide in my explicit replies to Zilla. You're smart enough to figure out the rest. I think.

Or are you going to play silly power games?

Not at all. The posts you were warned for in this thread were not in response to personal attacks. The other could be considered such. I will raise it in the staff forum for discussion.

At the end of the day though, it was you that succumbed to goading and started hurling assholes around. You need to watch that temper of yours. You like to boast about how you are playing everyone here and asking the difficult questions - but you bite at any bait that is offered when you are having a bad day.

This is the thing though. Being snide, and calling someone a pedophile in so many words is actually worse. The only response they should get or deserve is an insult right back. At least Seth has the decency to just give a simple "go fuck yourself" instead of the sneaky snide shit.

[Seth]

Seth,

The following posts contain direct personal attacks on another member.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 8#p1482128
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 3#p1482123
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7#p1482107

This is a warning that any similar posts will result in an immediate 24h suspension of your account.

I await with bated breath your identical censure of Gawdzilla for his personal attacks.

Please report them and we will look into them.

Consider them reported. You know exactly which posts I'm talking about. Just look at the quotes I provide in my explicit replies to Zilla. You're smart enough to figure out the rest. I think.

Or are you going to play silly power games?

Not at all. The posts you were warned for in this thread were not in response to personal attacks. The other could be considered such. I will raise it in the staff forum for discussion.

At the end of the day though, it was you that succumbed to goading and started hurling assholes around. You need to watch that temper of yours. You like to boast about how you are playing everyone here and asking the difficult questions - but you bite at any bait that is offered when you are having a bad day.

Wrong, bucko. I don't know about you but I take grave umbrage at being called a pedophile. If Zilla had the balls to say it to my face, his face would look a bit different right now. There is absolutely NO excuse whatsoever for his behavior and you know it. He immediately attacked the person not the argument, and you know it. He said vile and untrue things, and you know it. He was being deliberately provocative and if anybody "trolls" around here it's Zilla. He never has anything substantive to contribute to the discussion, and you know it.

Since neither you nor anyone else saw fit to shut him down when he started, I took things into my own hands, and will always do so when you mods sit on your thumbs when somebody deliberately insults me, and you know it.

You like to play at being objective, but you're not. You don't like me and neither do most mods and so you blatantly and pointedly ignore all manner of personal attacks aimed at me on a routine and usual basis, just like they did at RatSkep, and you know it.

So don't get all high and mighty with me, because I can see your feet of clay quite clearly.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Get off your high horse, Seth. I actually do like you. When you're not pissing me off that is. Zilla's posts are under discussion. I strongly advise you not to take things into your own hands any more if you don't fancy a holiday from Ratz.

[Seth]

Get off your high horse, Seth. I actually do like you. When you're not pissing me off that is. Zilla's posts are under discussion. I strongly advise you not to take things into your own hands any more if you don't fancy a holiday from Ratz.

Meh. We'll see what happens. Perhaps you'll surprise me.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Get off your high horse, Seth. I actually do like you. When you're not pissing me off that is. Zilla's posts are under discussion. I strongly advise you not to take things into your own hands any more if you don't fancy a holiday from Ratz.

Meh. We'll see what happens. Perhaps you'll surprise me.

Zilla has probably been reminded and warned more often than you have! He has also been suspended on occasion - even back when he was on the staff here. Most of the time for doing exactly what you just did - reacting to somebody's baiting with name calling and "fuck you"s.

[Warren Dew]

This is the kind of scum I'm talking about.

Go fuck yourself you mindless asshole.

Just because I challenge your perceptions and biases doesn't mean I subscribe to molesting children. It's a question, that's all.

You can't answer the fucking question, can you? You never can. All you do is sling insults as if it's obvious that you're correct about everything.

This is a valid philosophical discussion about sexual politics and law and I'd like you to JUSTIFY, using reasoned argument, why statutory rape laws should exist for boys and girls who are actual sexually mature men and women. Evidently you cannot justify such laws because you are only capable of resorting to insults and ad hom.

Which makes you an ignoramus.

Because Seth dear, there is a power inequality in play. Bodies can have sex either willingly or unwillingly. That's just bodies. But when you are talking about 12 year old girls and older mature men there is a definate lack of power on the 12 year olds side.13 year olds are not as mature and not as worldly as 30 or 40 year olds. 12 year olds may want to do any number of things that are not age appropriate. That's why we adults are required to behave like adults and protect them. They are children. We are adults.
The barrow you are pushing is full of icky.

If you read Lolita, you may notice that Humbert was the bottom in the power game all the time ... I suspect that this translates irl more often than the PC brigade will admit.

Indeed the prosecutor and judge seemed to think this was one of those cases.

[mistermack]

Why don't people stick to the subject?
This thread isn't about changing the law on the age of consent. You have to have an age limit, and you have to fix it somewhere. I suspect it will be lowered before long though. Sixteen in the UK is silly, considering all of the consenting sex that is happening before that age.

But the thread is about the politically correct outrage caused by a prosecutor, and a judge, acknowledging the facts of a case. Not about changing the law on consent.

It's about how you legally handle a unique situation after it has happened.
They tried the case and they know what's gone on.

But all of the outrage is from people who didn't, and don't. They seem to work on the principle that anyone under the age of sixteen CAN'T act in a predatory manner, and MUST be the considered the victim in all circumstances.
That is absolute bollocks, and just show that they have led a sheltered life, and have never met a predatory thirteen year old girl. They seem to have rose-tinted specs, and think that all girls are sweet innocents.

That's why we have properly trained judges and prosecutors, as these two are. They know about real life, and it's not all Disney.
The people squealing about the term predatory really don't have a clue about real life. and are clearly not fit people to be let loose around the law.

[fishie]

My opinion is no more important than yours in the wider stream of things. And no, Muslims are not the only ones who practice this. There are other cultures who marry their girl children off to old men. If you wish to defend this practice, that is your right. Just don't get all sooky when you are called on it. It's a revolting exploitation of GIRL children.

Why? What about the cultures (like India) that arrange marriages of boys and girls four and five years old?

We're not defending the practice, we're eliciting a reasoned argument from you as to why the practice is morally objectionable.

If the subject is to be carefully explored and knowledge is to be gained and imparted, then it's necessary for someone to argue the unpopular side of the argument, otherwise you end up with RatSkep all over again, where speaking an unpopular opinion is reviled and gets you banned because the microcephalic pseudo-intellects there don't actually have any reasoning skills, they just like to pretend they do.

This is where you and nearly everyone else fails in the rhetoric and debate department. You falsely assume that just because someone defends an unpopular, or unpalatable position that it must represent their true beliefs. That's just small-mindedness, ignorance and willful evasion of the debate.

Think what you like about the ARGUMENT, but respond in a logically consistent and well-reasoned manner TO THE ARGUMENT rather than at the individual who is defending it, because without that person there is no debate and we all just sit around jerking each other off.

That's not what I value in this forum or any other.

I want you to THINK about the subject and formulate a good argument that supports your position, not just resort to "that's the way it should be" pandering to popular opinion.

Make up your mind Seth. Are we discussing the dynamics of a sexual relationship between a 12-13 year old girl and a much older mature man or are we discussing arranged marriages between two young children of the same age which involve no sexual relationship, keeping in mind that these betrothals happen in early child hood and are used to bond families, and are not consummated at the time of betrothal.
And Seth honey you can want me to do all sorts of stuff regarding the discussion, but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen, especially not when you seem to expect a higher standard than your are willing to show. You cannot make the types of statements you have, in the manner you have, about the presumed behavior of young girls, and their deliberate entrapment if poor hard done by middle aged men, and then cry devils advocate. Far to late to play that card sweetie. Far too late.

[mistermack]

My opinion is no more important than yours in the wider stream of things. And no, Muslims are not the only ones who practice this. There are other cultures who marry their girl children off to old men. If you wish to defend this practice, that is your right. Just don't get all sooky when you are called on it. It's a revolting exploitation of GIRL children.

That IS a blatant straw man.
You're trying to confuse a situation where the girl is given no chance to consent or dissent, with a situation where the girl is the predatory instigator of sex.
A situation where the girls have no freedom at all, to a situation where the girl has enjoyed far too much freedom.

They couldn't be more different.