Re: OK WTF
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have trouble believing that people can't separate pedophilia from marijuana use in terms of severity and detriment to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not pedophilia if she is 15 and has gone through puberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Does it change your opinion if I'm 20?

[/ QUOTE ]

and look 12?

Re: OK WTF
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. One is fifteen. The other, seventeen. One is eligible under the Half Your Age Plus Seven rubric. The other is not.

You see?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not his point, and you know it.

Given a random group of 100 girls, half 15 and half 17, could you identify their ages with 100% accuracy? I'm guessing not -- I'm guessing even 80% accuracy might be hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this matters.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that if you look at a 15 year old and your first thought that is that you'd like to bang her it isn't a bad thing. If you honestly couldn't piece that one together on your own then I'd really appreciate it if you threw your computer out a window to prevent you from ever posting on this site again. Thanks.

Re: OK WTF
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have trouble believing that people can't separate pedophilia from marijuana use in terms of severity and detriment to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not pedophilia if she is 15 and has gone through puberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Pedophilia is the act or fantasy (wanting) of having sexual relations with a child. A person is no longer a child if he or she has gone through puberty.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're kind of coming at it from the wrong angle. Pedophilia, medically speaking, pertains only to, specifically, prepubescent persons. However, from your statements you seem to be implying that you believe that the term "pedophilia" in and of itself is something wrong, and that if the definition were in fact pertaining to anyone under 18 that you would perhaps then have a problem with desire for <18 year olds.

GoT

Re: OK WTF
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. One is fifteen. The other, seventeen. One is eligible under the Half Your Age Plus Seven rubric. The other is not.

You see?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not his point, and you know it.

Given a random group of 100 girls, half 15 and half 17, could you identify their ages with 100% accuracy? I'm guessing not -- I'm guessing even 80% accuracy might be hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this matters.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that if you look at a 15 year old and your first thought that is that you'd like to bang her it isn't a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post was much more awesome before you fixed it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: OK WTF
 

I'm a little drunk.

Re: OK WTF
 

I didn't see the original thread, so I don't know what was said, I will, however give my opinion on some of the issues being discussed.

Pedophilia:
-I think of pedophilia as a sexual attraction to young children, ie pre-pubescent. Talking about a fully matured 15 year old is maybe borderline, but when it's on a forum populated by a large number of people in their young 20's, I'd say it's appropriate enough, especially considering the general nature of the content on oot.

Banning P.Dirty-
-I think locking this thread and PMing him asking him not to start a new one would have been good enough. If he didn't listen after he was asked, then maybe a ban would be in order.

Re: OK WTF
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have trouble believing that people can't separate pedophilia from marijuana use in terms of severity and detriment to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not pedophilia if she is 15 and has gone through puberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Pedophilia is the act or fantasy (wanting) of having sexual relations with a child. A person is no longer a child if he or she has gone through puberty.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're kind of coming at it from the wrong angle. Pedophilia, medically speaking, pertains only to, specifically, prepubescent persons. However, from your statements you seem to be implying that you believe that the term "pedophilia" in and of itself is something wrong, and that if the definition were in fact pertaining to anyone under 18 that you would perhaps then have a problem with desire for <18 year olds.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

The poster I originally replied to used the word "pedophilia" in referring to the original comments about the 15 year old in question. I was simply pointing out that it cannot be pedophilia if she has gone through puberty. I'm not implying anything at all about whether pedophilia is wrong.

Re: OK WTF
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have trouble believing that people can't separate pedophilia from marijuana use in terms of severity and detriment to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not pedophilia if she is 15 and has gone through puberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Pedophilia is the act or fantasy (wanting) of having sexual relations with a child. A person is no longer a child if he or she has gone through puberty.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're kind of coming at it from the wrong angle. Pedophilia, medically speaking, pertains only to, specifically, prepubescent persons. However, from your statements you seem to be implying that you believe that the term "pedophilia" in and of itself is something wrong, and that if the definition were in fact pertaining to anyone under 18 that you would perhaps then have a problem with desire for <18 year olds.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

The poster I originally replied to used the word "pedophilia" in referring to the original comments about the 15 year old in question. I was simply pointing out that it cannot be pedophilia if she has gone through puberty. I'm not implying anything at all about whether pedophilia is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gotcha. Your OP in Politics made me think otherwise, but I understand.

GoT

Re: OK WTF
 

I said the "marketing tool" argument could never be logically consistant, but I still think it's valid. There's going to be some things that will make an owner go "hmm... no, this is our name on the line" and a thread about a 15 year old girl probably does that moreso than say, PJN's posts.

Re: OK WTF
 

start your own website and talk about whatever you want

Re: OK WTF
 

[ QUOTE ]
I said the "marketing tool" argument could never be logically consistant, but I still think it's valid. There's going to be some things that will make an owner go "hmm... no, this is our name on the line" and a thread about a 15 year old girl probably does that moreso than say, PJN's posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably true. But if you take the forum in its entirety, I think such advertisers would probably be scared away anyway. I mean, threads on "how long was your first time," "what's your biggest log," comparing different vaporizors, and tons of discussion re: underage drinking, porn, etc...

You get my point. I just find the "marketing tool" thing silly. I do understand why a thread like this crosses a particular line, although I'd think things like the vaporizer discussion would too, since it's basically several users helping others to do something illegal.

Re: OK WTF
 

[ QUOTE ]
start your own website and talk about whatever you want

[/ QUOTE ]

grassontheinfield.org. Not a good idea to do this, however.

Re: OK WTF
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


New topic in the politics forum if anybody cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this discussion is better suited for OOT than the politics forum. You were just talking about desire and such. It doesn't have much of anything to do with politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your locking of the thread in politics was your first clear moderating mistake.

This is a political issue clearly, we have lots of controversial laws and policies regarding it (amber alerts, sexual predator registrations, different age limits in different states, etc.) Laws are passed all the time based on what people think are legitimate "desires" or not, that is part of the political discussion.

The type of response one gets from a thread is different when you post it in politics instead of OOT. You should not be making the decision that the politics forum regulars should not be discussing this political issue while OOT regulars should be.

Locking threads for personal attacks is one thing, locking threads due to it political content is another. Please do better next time (and you were doing so well for the past month too).