Do you believe an age of sexual consent should exist? Watch

there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#141
Report 8 years ago
#141
(Original post by xmarilynx)
What I said hardly constitutes an ad hom attack, and in any case was only a response to yours.



Just because I couldn't be bothered to address all of your inarticulate and largely irrelevant points doesn't make my posts, or point of view, any less valid. Now, if you could stop *****ing about me over the internet (frankly behaviour I'd expect from someone who hadn't even made it into secondary school), that'd be grand :yy:

I also find it ironic that the basis of your argument is that there is no correlation between sex and maturity and thus whether someone is ready for sex should be determined by a test rather than their age, then you use age as an insult. Pretty much sums up how ill formed your whole argument is really.

Anyway, you're on the ignore list and I'm out of this thread :yy: Thanks for the rep OP
This post didn't make one jot of sense, especially the bolded part.

The basis of my argument isn't to do with sex and maturity, it's to do with measuring maturity by age as arbitrary and nonsensical...
0
reply
musicforsanity
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#142
Report 8 years ago
#142
(Original post by there's too much love)
On a separate note your post I quoted before was incredibly basic and didn't really make an argument or address anything new.
If you really did feel that strongly about it at the time when you originally posted I'm surprised you didn't write a post more in tune with the one I'm currently quoting.
-----
My arguments if you have read them aren't that there shouldn't be any boundaries, but the boundaries in place need to be changed.
-----
You seem to be addressing me as if I think that the age of consent shouldn't be replaced but taken out, that hasn't been my argument in this thread once.

It was a short answer. Here was me thinking this was a thread seeking public opinion. Pity I didn't realise it required a fully formed analysis to be laid out in each post.
Because your posts should be an example?!

I didn't say that. Perhaps you ought to read past the first line of my posts? I said lowered/abolished.

Why do they need to be changed? Really? You're arguments, which I have read, are arbitrary.

And to say that there is nothing wrong with paedophilia? Troll anyone?
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#143
Report 8 years ago
#143
(Original post by musicforsanity)
It was a short answer. Here was me thinking this was a thread seeking public opinion. Pity I didn't realise it required a fully formed analysis to be laid out in each post.
Because your posts should be an example?!

I didn't say that. Perhaps you ought to read past the first line of my posts? I said lowered/abolished.

Why do they need to be changed? Really? You're arguments, which I have read, are arbitrary.

And to say that there is nothing wrong with paedophilia? Troll anyone?
:facepalm2:

You think having internal thoughts and not necessarily expressing them is wrong in itself, tell me when you pass your GCSE's.
0
reply
musicforsanity
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#144
Report 8 years ago
#144
(Original post by there's too much love)
:facepalm2:

You think having internal thoughts and not necessarily expressing them is wrong in itself, tell me when you pass your GCSE's.
When did I say that?

That'll never happen because this is Scotland and I'm completing my undergrad. Gee, pay attention to previous posts there'stoomuchlove.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#145
Report 8 years ago
#145
(Original post by musicforsanity)
When did I say that?

That'll never happen because this is Scotland and I'm completing my undergrad. Gee, pay attention to previous posts there'stoomuchlove.
Tell me, who is hurt be a paedophile that doesn't act on their actions.
Do you know what the difference between a paedophile and child molester is?
**** me you're making me facepalm.
Oh and as you're denying you negged me, I thought this passage may help you work out how I know you negged me (I'm happy to put the quote of you denying it up, with the screen cap I have of my received rep, up on the thread, if it helps.
Spoiler:
Show

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/faq....bs#faq_subspec

The Student Room is free to use, but costs us money to run. To assist with covering the running costs of The Student Room, there is an optional system which allows you to subscribe to The Student Room, in exchange for special privileges. These include:

* No banner adverts - Enjoy an ad free TSR (NB. In instances where partners have provided content, subscribers will still see this content and its branding)
* Supersized Avatar - Have an avatar up to 100 x 100 pixels for a more spectacular presence
* Coloured username - Your username showing up in any fetching colour you choose
* Customisable user title - Alter your user title to something fun (titles that are misleading or impersonate the status of the official TSR staff will be removed)
* The subscribers' page layout - a small header and more space for forum browsing
* Access to subscriber only forums - Many members of international high society congregate here to share the secrets of their success, beauty and fortune
* Access to the shoutbox - a live chat feature just for subscribers
* Access to the Games Arcade - Over 100 games with high scores to beat
* Image posting in any forum
* More PM capacity - Enough private message space to shake a stick at (currently 10,000 messages)
* See invisible users - Can 'see' users who have chosen to be invisible while online
* See who left your reputation
* See the value of each reputation you have given and received
* See your entire reputation history (given and received), not just the last 10
* See your current reputation altering power
* See post deletion notices in most forums
* See who has you on their buddy or ignore lists
* See who has you as their referrer to the site
* Hide your reputation from others
* No batch PM sending restrictions
* Use of the PM 'tracking' feature
See that bolded bit?
:rolleyes:
idiot.
0
reply
musicforsanity
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#146
Report 8 years ago
#146
(Original post by there's too much love)
Tell me, who is hurt be a paedophile that doesn't act on their actions.
Do you know what the difference between a paedophile and child molester is?
A victimless crime is still a crime. And I think you'll find that child molesters do not (in the majority of cases) just begin one day molesting children. It's the equivalent of watching someone build a bomb and saying "Ach well, he's built a bomb but he's not using it to harm anyone right now. Carry on..."

And isn't the act of downloading and viewing pornographic images of minors a harmful one? What's right about it?

Do you know the difference? Some people are nothing more than naiive and will continue that way for the rest of their lives. There's nothing wrong with hope, with hoping there's a little good in people. But I see NOTHING good or right about paedophilia. And I see NOTHING good or right about defending it.

As for the rep. Hey, it was worth the mindscrew :rolleyes: and I'd do it again. I thought maybe a little rep, outside of your public bravado might engage your conscience but I realise now that's impossible for you.

You've also failed to answer my question, something you seem to do to many of the TSR users.


Now from the pattern of your previous posts I reckon your reply will try to degrade my view in some way, trying to make me feel inferior and stupid. You'll no doubt draw attention to my comparison between bombers and child molesters saying how absurd and ridiculous it is. Well, go right ahead. At least I know I have a sense of morality which, in my humble opinion, is a hell of a lot more than I can say for you. Try as you might, that's something you will never gain. And that's something I can say with great certainty makes us (and I speak for every one of us who has argued against you in this thread) superior to you.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#147
Report 8 years ago
#147
(Original post by musicforsanity)
A victimless crime is still a crime. And I think you'll find that child molesters do not (in the majority of cases) just begin one day molesting children. It's the equivalent of watching someone build a bomb and saying "Ach well, he's built a bomb but he's not using it to harm anyone right now. Carry on..."

And isn't the act of downloading and viewing pornographic images of minors a harmful one? What's right about it?

Do you know the difference? Some people are nothing more than naiive and will continue that way for the rest of their lives. There's nothing wrong with hope, with hoping there's a little good in people. But I see NOTHING good or right about paedophilia. And I see NOTHING good or right about defending it.

As for the rep. Hey, it was worth the mindscrew :rolleyes: and I'd do it again. I thought maybe a little rep, outside of your public bravado might engage your conscience but I realise now that's impossible for you.

You've also failed to answer my question, something you seem to do to many of the TSR users.


Now from the pattern of your previous posts I reckon your reply will try to degrade my view in some way, trying to make me feel inferior and stupid. You'll no doubt draw attention to my comparison between bombers and child molesters saying how absurd and ridiculous it is. Well, go right ahead. At least I know I have a sense of morality which, in my humble opinion, is a hell of a lot more than I can say for you. Try as you might, that's something you will never gain. And that's something I can say with great certainty makes us (and I speak for every one of us who has argued against you in this thread) superior to you.
Oh dear, you've not engaged in any of the topics I've laid out.

You don't seem to undersand the authoritatian idiocy that would necessarily occur if policy was made on the views you've put forward.
Furthermore you've tangled up what I've said with whatever is in your head, if anyone reads my posts, and your posts, they won't know what you're talking about, because you're turning this into a "I'm more clever than you" "I'm better than you" soap box thread.
You don't appear to understand how to read, or argue, and I highly suggest you go back in a year or two's time and read my posts properly and look at what's in them, instead of reading them with preconditions and coming out with stupid remarks, like in these quotes:

"A victimless crime is still a crime."
No baring on my points or what I said.
"It's the equivalent of watching someone build a bomb and saying "Ach well, he's built a bomb but he's not using it to harm anyone right now. Carry on..."
You seem to want to implement thought police, anyone who has certain thoughts should be arrested asap?:eek:
"But I see NOTHING good or right about paedophilia. And I see NOTHING good or right about defending it. "
That doesn't make it wrong. I see nothing good or right with being 'straight' but then, I don't think it's wrong to be 'straight' either (if we can even define our sexuality like that, it's a bit limited if we do though).

And yes, the bomb comparison doesn't make sense. A bomb is necessarily harmful and is designed to inflict damage. Having thoughts of a certain nature doesn't mean you're trying to create, or even are creating, something of a harmful nature.
0
reply
musicforsanity
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#148
Report 8 years ago
#148
(Original post by there's too much love)
Oh dear, you've not engaged in any of the topics I've laid out.

You don't seem to undersand the authoritatian idiocy that would necessarily occur if policy was made on the views you've put forward.
Furthermore you've tangled up what I've said with whatever is in your head, if anyone reads my posts, and your posts, they won't know what you're talking about, because you're turning this into a "I'm more clever than you" "I'm better than you" soap box thread.
You don't appear to understand how to read, or argue, and I highly suggest you go back in a year or two's time and read my posts properly and look at what's in them, instead of reading them with preconditions and coming out with stupid remarks, like in these quotes:

"A victimless crime is still a crime."
No baring on my points or what I said.
"It's the equivalent of watching someone build a bomb and saying "Ach well, he's built a bomb but he's not using it to harm anyone right now. Carry on..."
You seem to want to implement thought police, anyone who has certain thoughts should be arrested asap?:eek:
"But I see NOTHING good or right about paedophilia. And I see NOTHING good or right about defending it. "
That doesn't make it wrong. I see nothing good or right with being 'straight' but then, I don't think it's wrong to be 'straight' either (if we can even define our sexuality like that, it's a bit limited if we do though).

And yes, the bomb comparison doesn't make sense. A bomb is necessarily harmful and is designed to inflict damage. Having thoughts of a certain nature doesn't mean you're trying to create, or even are creating, something of a harmful nature.

I'm really not sure what to say at this stage. Trying to turn my insights around on me won't work because they're insights about you, not me. Honestly? I don't think anyone is any better than anyone else where they both care about those around them and good rather than bad. I haven't been, and am not attempting to make this a 'soap box' thread. You did that all by yourself.

A victimless crime is still a crime. If you can't understand how that relates to any of what you've said, well hell, there's less hope than I thought.

Why bring sexual preference into this? Anyone?

Thought police? Damn, if only I could take out every one of those evil little thoughts people have. I'd love to be able to protect every child in the world from that. A thought is much more dangerous than people care to acknowledge. You've failed once again to address anything I've said with anything more than an attempt at projecting your superiority complex (bred through true life inferiority one suspects). EDIT: I'd never be so arrogant to assume a politician bears a conscience and would therefore ever instigate any policy truly designed to protect and punish.

Oh, and you did exactly what I predicted you would:
(Original post by there's too much love)
You don't appear to understand how to read, or argue, and I highly suggest you go back in a year or two's time and read my posts properly and look at what's in them, instead of reading them with preconditions and coming out with stupid remarks, like in these quotes...
Don't take it personally if I don't reply past this point, I just honestly don't think there's much point in arguing with someone who has nothing to back up their claims and does not respond meaningfully.

Goodbye thread, it's been real.
0
reply
jedpea
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#149
Report 8 years ago
#149
(Original post by there's too much love)
You'rE grammEr, spelling, critical thinking skills, and ability to address issues the issues and points raised in previous posts and understand words are incredible.
Your ability to take a long time to say nothing constructive is incredible.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#150
Report 8 years ago
#150
(Original post by jedpea)
Your ability to take a long time to say nothing constructive is incredible.
AN ENTIRE SENTENCE!1!1oneone!eleven.

And I'd say it was more constructive than the post I quoted in my reply there.
0
reply
jedpea
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#151
Report 8 years ago
#151
(Original post by there's too much love)
AN ENTIRE SENTENCE!1!1oneone!eleven.

And I'd say it was more constructive than the post I quoted in my reply there.
You've still to say anything constructive. In an argument your suppose to reply to my points not rant about my aparent lack of intelligence and grammar.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (142)
45.81%
Pro-humanity (168)
54.19%

Watched Threads

View All