|
On October 07 2012 10:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 10:10 heliusx wrote:On October 07 2012 10:02 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2012 09:47 Quintum_ wrote:On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote:
Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners. And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok. Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it. On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote:
correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance. The top part of the post was in response to Quintum_, so unless you're also Quintum_, you can ignore it and respond to the second part of the post.
I only responded to the second part. I didn't want to quote half of your post. My point still stands unless you're willing to go back and read my last few posts and actually respond to MY views and opinions you're wasting both our time.
|
When I read the gigantic post I thought the point of this thread would be to make fun of it but I guess it wasn't? LOL
it's really stupid. and im too lazy to explain why that post is so stupid maybe I will do so later.
|
On October 07 2012 10:16 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 10:13 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2012 10:10 heliusx wrote:On October 07 2012 10:02 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2012 09:47 Quintum_ wrote:On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote:
Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners. And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok. Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it. On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote:
correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance. The top part of the post was in response to Quintum_, so unless you're also Quintum_, you can ignore it and respond to the second part of the post. I only responded to the second part. I didn't want to quote half of your post. My point still stands unless you're willing to go back and read my last few posts and actually respond to MY views and opinions you're wasting both our time.
I've read your posts. I'm not telepathic, that's why I'm still asking questions. You are conflating the issue by equating an "adult" (which you have yet to define) having sex with a "child" (which you have yet to define) as necessarily being a case of the adult taking advantage of the child.
Although that's a position you're allowed to have, when asked for justification as to why it's necessarily the case that when an adult has sex with a child, the child is taken advantage of, you reason something like this: Having sex with children is abuse. Oh heliusx, why is it abuse? Because you're having sex with them!
Or maybe you'd like to define a child specifically as someone who is only capable of being abused in a sexual relationship? In that case, we still have no definition (that isn't circular, anyways) of what an adult is that actually teaches us anything - like for instance, exactly what laws to make.
You bring up the age of consent and R&J laws in your area. Notice that they're different from the laws in other areas. My assumption is since these laws are different, some of them might be more correct than the others. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? If you can't, I'd like you to elaborate on why the elder person must universally be taking advantage of the younger. Otherwise, why is it categorized as statutory rape instead of taken in as a case of abuse depending on the circumstances? If you can imagine such a situation, can you for once clarify exactly what laws you'd write?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 07 2012 10:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 10:16 heliusx wrote:On October 07 2012 10:13 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2012 10:10 heliusx wrote:On October 07 2012 10:02 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2012 09:47 Quintum_ wrote:On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote:
Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners. And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok. Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it. On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote:
correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance. The top part of the post was in response to Quintum_, so unless you're also Quintum_, you can ignore it and respond to the second part of the post. I only responded to the second part. I didn't want to quote half of your post. My point still stands unless you're willing to go back and read my last few posts and actually respond to MY views and opinions you're wasting both our time. I've read your posts. I'm not telepathic, that's why I'm still asking questions. You are conflating the issue by equating an "adult" (which you have yet to define) having sex with a "child" (which you have yet to define) as necessarily being a case of the adult taking advantage of the child. Although that's a position you're allowed to have, when asked for justification as to why it's necessarily the case that when an adult has sex with a child, the child is taken advantage of, you reason something like this: Having sex with children is abuse. Oh heliusx, why is it abuse? Because you're having sex with them! Or maybe you'd like to define a child specifically as someone who is only capable of being abused in a sexual relationship? In that case, we still have no definition (that isn't circular, anyways) of what an adult is that actually teaches us anything - like for instance, exactly what laws to make. You bring up the age of consent and R&J laws in your area. Notice that they're different from the laws in other areas. My assumption is since these laws are different, some of them might be more correct than the others. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? If you can't, I'd like you to elaborate on why the elder person must universally be taking advantage of the younger. Otherwise, why is it categorized as statutory rape instead of taken in as a case of abuse depending on the circumstances? If you can imagine such a situation, can you for once clarify exactly what laws you'd write?
The only opinion I put forward is that a 14 year old is not mature enough to understand the realities of having a sexual relationship with an adult. The only reason I brought up the laws is because someone was skirting actual debate by saying things like "BUT IF 17 + 18 SEX =JAIL OMGOMGOMG".
Obviously different people mature at different rates and that is why the law is what it is. It covers what the majority of people in that area feel is the generally accepted range. Of course you know all this because you read my previous posts so I'm not exactly sure why I'm bothering to repeat myself again.
Since you insist I answer that question I will though. Is a 20yo and 17yo wrong? Not necessarily but it could be in some situations. But you know what I do believe is wrong? A 18+ having a sexual relationship with a 14year old. I am not exactly a researcher on this subject so I'm not qualified to make such a cut off but if I did they sure as hell would not allow adults to have sex with a 14 year old. And on that note I should retire from this thread for today because I am become a bit buzzed. 
|
On October 07 2012 11:00 heliusx wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 07 2012 10:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 10:16 heliusx wrote:On October 07 2012 10:13 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2012 10:10 heliusx wrote:On October 07 2012 10:02 oBlade wrote:On October 07 2012 09:47 Quintum_ wrote:On October 07 2012 09:27 Spawkuring wrote:
Pretty much everybody looks back on their youth and thinks about how stupid they acted. Doesn't mean I advocate prohibiting them from doing something unless they're 100% developed. In all honesty, 16 year olds aren't fully developed to drive, but we still let them because they gotta get experience sometime. Sex in general is safer when kids are educated about it sooner rather than later, and I'd much rather fix sex-related problems with education rather than creating situations where 18 year olds get jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old partners. And there is often Romeo and Juliet type laws to protect those in situations like you stated. I am shocked that some people think an older man or women targeting 14 year olds is ok. Nobody said that was okay. You are devaluing 22 pages of discourse by reducing the opposition to a one line strawman. And being shocked doesn't make you more correct. People are explaining that if two people want to do things to each others' bodies in private, you ought to be able to demonstrate why you're making it illegal. The elderly are at risk for sexual assault because they have weaker bodies. That doesn't mean we've had to pass laws that turn sex with the elderly into statutory rape. It's already illegal to abuse people, so I expect that covers it. On October 07 2012 09:57 heliusx wrote:
correct, im my current area it seems 18 with 16 is allowed and so is 19 with 17. A sort of 2 year law we can call it. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? Regardless of my opinion I honestly do not see whats your point. If you want to "debate" one line facts I posted go right ahead but I've posted a few long rants that convey my thoughts and reasoning for my opinions. You can ignore them but don't expect me to respond any further to pointless back and forth with no substance. The top part of the post was in response to Quintum_, so unless you're also Quintum_, you can ignore it and respond to the second part of the post. I only responded to the second part. I didn't want to quote half of your post. My point still stands unless you're willing to go back and read my last few posts and actually respond to MY views and opinions you're wasting both our time. I've read your posts. I'm not telepathic, that's why I'm still asking questions. You are conflating the issue by equating an "adult" (which you have yet to define) having sex with a "child" (which you have yet to define) as necessarily being a case of the adult taking advantage of the child. Although that's a position you're allowed to have, when asked for justification as to why it's necessarily the case that when an adult has sex with a child, the child is taken advantage of, you reason something like this: Having sex with children is abuse. Oh heliusx, why is it abuse? Because you're having sex with them! Or maybe you'd like to define a child specifically as someone who is only capable of being abused in a sexual relationship? In that case, we still have no definition (that isn't circular, anyways) of what an adult is that actually teaches us anything - like for instance, exactly what laws to make. You bring up the age of consent and R&J laws in your area. Notice that they're different from the laws in other areas. My assumption is since these laws are different, some of them might be more correct than the others. Can you not imagine a 20 year old and a 17 year old having sex in a situation where the 17 year old isn't being taken advantage of? If you can't, I'd like you to elaborate on why the elder person must universally be taking advantage of the younger. Otherwise, why is it categorized as statutory rape instead of taken in as a case of abuse depending on the circumstances? If you can imagine such a situation, can you for once clarify exactly what laws you'd write? The only opinion I put forward is that a 14 year old is not mature enough to understand the realities of having a sexual relationship with an adult. The only reason I brought up the laws is because someone was skirting actual debate by saying things like "BUT IF 17 + 18 SEX =JAIL OMGOMGOMG". Obviously different people mature at different rates and that is why the law is what it is. It covers what the majority of people in that area feel is the generally accepted range. Of course you know all this because you read my previous posts so I'm not exactly sure why I'm bothering to repeat myself again. Since you insist I answer that question I will though. Is a 20yo and 17yo wrong? Not necessarily but it could be in some situations. But you know what I do believe is wrong? A 18+ having a sexual relationship with a 14year old. I am not exactly a researcher on this subject so I'm not qualified to make such a cut off but if I did they sure as hell would not allow adults to have sex with a 14 year old. And on that note I should retire from this thread for today because I am become a bit buzzed.
You're acting awfully "defensive" there
But overall I think the larger issue that regardless of whether it's the healthiest situation or not, a lot of people are hesitant to to label every single instance of an above 18 person having sex with an under 18 as rape, abuse, taking advantage, or whatever. Unfortunately the law is a black and white solution to a gray problem, which is why we end up hearing cases of "17 + 18 SEX=JAIL OMGOMGOMG".
|
Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
|
On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote:
Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds?
Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free.
Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
|
On October 07 2012 12:08 Ciryandor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote:
Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds? Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free. Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so.
When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one.
Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18.
|
On October 07 2012 12:08 Ciryandor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote:
Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds? Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free. Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity.
lmao, people defends him because he's stephano, what about if it would be Destiny, or Naniwa, or some other player, he would be in the jail already lol, sad community.
|
On October 07 2012 12:26 UNeeK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 12:08 Ciryandor wrote:On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote:
Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds? Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free. Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity. I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so. When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one. Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18.
He could have posted that he assassinated JFK, that doesn't mean EG should fire him for being a murderer. The issue you're trying to get into isn't really related to the subjects at hand. Suffice it to say people had strong arguments to defend orb, IdrA (who always got brought into the discussion), and Destiny, so it actually shouldn't surprise you that there are people defending Stephano because he said some words on the internet (same situation everyone else was in).
|
On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote:
I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post.
Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
On October 07 2012 12:26 UNeeK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 12:08 Ciryandor wrote:On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote:
Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds? Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free. Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity. I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so. When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one. Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18.
Difference is that Orb was not a major asset, they really put nothing into him and losing him was completely acceptable. You;re equating the value of Jaedong to bitbybit. A company can take a financial hit if the asset is worth it, basic business.
Also we don't know and can never know (unless said girl comes forth) in what context he meant "abused". I've heard people, especially since I live in the international building on my campus refer in odd ways when it comes to english with dancing/grinding/flirting etc. "abused" could have mean't he was grinding on some girl really hard, could have meant he had sex with a 14 year old, could have meant he punched her in the face. The point is we have absolutely no context so equating "abused 14yo" with racial slurs is already treading a line because he can simply say "that's not what I meant" while "you fucking nigger grrrrr" is pretty hard to take in any other context than frustration.
Also you're acting a bit haste for something so vague, burn the witch at the stake on an instance?
|
Everyone knows reddit owners are all FBI informers and those sub reddits are just a huge honey pot.
|
On October 07 2012 12:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote:
I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post. Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful. Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 12:26 UNeeK wrote:On October 07 2012 12:08 Ciryandor wrote:On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote:
Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds? Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free. Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity. I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so. When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one. Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18. Difference is that Orb was not a major asset, they really put nothing into him and losing him was completely acceptable. You;re equating the value of Jaedong to bitbybit. A company can take a financial hit if the asset is worth it, basic business. Also we don't know and can never know (unless said girl comes forth) in what context he meant "abused". I've heard people, especially since I live in the international building on my campus refer in odd ways when it comes to english with dancing/grinding/flirting etc. "abused" could have mean't he was grinding on some girl really hard, could have meant he had sex with a 14 year old, could have meant he punched her in the face. The point is we have absolutely no context so equating "abused 14yo" with racial slurs is already treading a line because he can simply say "that's not what I meant" while "you fucking nigger grrrrr" is pretty hard to take in any other context than frustration. Also you're acting a bit haste for something so vague, burn the witch at the stake on an instance?
so it's okay to admit to abusing a child, but not okay to say nigger out of anger? makes total sense. Are you helping Romney out with his campaign as well?
Also, if you notice in the chat, BlinG asks him "you fucked a 14yo?...." and he doesn't deny, he just says "14yo...", please - do tell me you're not gullible enough to believe he's telling his friend an "inside joke" about grinding on a 14yo, beating a 14yo at starcraft, or any other amazing dodge stephano fans are coming out with....
When you take on the position of a role model, you have to act like one. I believe innocent until proven guilty, so i'm not going to sit here and say he definitely had sex with a 14 year old girl, but irregardless he's suppose to be acting like a professional on a professional esports team....
I don't see how what orb did is nearly as bad as this.... he said something out of anger that is offensive, I hear offensive language all day at work - so what? If my coworker told me he abused a 14year old I don't think I would take it as lightly as if he said "fucking niggers didn't refill the water machine."
|
On October 07 2012 14:00 UNeeK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 12:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote:
I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post. Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful. On October 07 2012 12:26 UNeeK wrote:On October 07 2012 12:08 Ciryandor wrote:On October 07 2012 12:03 UNeeK wrote:
Why is everyone defending a 19 year old banging out a 14 year old? People flip the fuck out when Destiny or Orb says nigger, but it's totally okay to talk about fucking 14 year olds? Age of consent is different in different states and countries, if he lived somewhere where 14 is the age of consent, he's scot free. Also, a lot of the SRS people made private subreddits precisely so they could drum up publicity. It's trolls trolling ignorant people to a storm of negative publicity. I don't think you see my point here, people had orb fired for saying nigger - destiny has been effected as well, for use of FREE SPEECH, yet when something that is POSSIBLY criminal happens with Stephano, everyone tries to find ways to make it legal. I'm pretty sure saying "nigger" is legal, but we've seen players face some pretty harsh consequences from doing so. When a player signs a contract, they represent a team. They are professional athletes, and should act PROFESSIONAL. I don't see why we have two different standards being applied. Stephano is just as, if not more wrong than orb was when he lost his job with EG. Act like a kid, get treated like one. Irregardless, what country is Stephano in right now that makes 14 year olds legal? France is 15, the EG house is 18. Difference is that Orb was not a major asset, they really put nothing into him and losing him was completely acceptable. You;re equating the value of Jaedong to bitbybit. A company can take a financial hit if the asset is worth it, basic business. Also we don't know and can never know (unless said girl comes forth) in what context he meant "abused". I've heard people, especially since I live in the international building on my campus refer in odd ways when it comes to english with dancing/grinding/flirting etc. "abused" could have mean't he was grinding on some girl really hard, could have meant he had sex with a 14 year old, could have meant he punched her in the face. The point is we have absolutely no context so equating "abused 14yo" with racial slurs is already treading a line because he can simply say "that's not what I meant" while "you fucking nigger grrrrr" is pretty hard to take in any other context than frustration. Also you're acting a bit haste for something so vague, burn the witch at the stake on an instance? so it's okay to admit to abusing a child, but not okay to say nigger out of anger? makes total sense. Are you helping Romney out with his campaign as well? Also, if you notice in the chat, BlinG asks him "you fucked a 14yo?...." and he doesn't deny, he just says "14yo...", please - do tell me you're not gullible enough to believe he's telling his friend an "inside joke" about grinding on a 14yo, beating a 14yo at starcraft, or any other amazing dodge stephano fans are coming out with.... When you take on the position of a role model, you have to act like one. I believe innocent until proven guilty, so i'm not going to sit here and say he definitely had sex with a 14 year old girl, but irregardless he's suppose to be acting like a professional on a professional esports team.... I don't see how what orb did is nearly as bad as this.... he said something out of anger that is offensive, I hear offensive language all day at work - so what? If my coworker told me he abused a 14year old I don't think I would take it as lightly as if he said "fucking niggers didn't refill the water machine."
To be honest, I wouldn't take the nigger comment lightly at all. We're all missing context here. The message wasn't intended to be viewed by anyone other than bling, so one could safely assume that it was friendly banter. Stephano's 'oh shit' moment came when he realised how his message could be potentially interpreted by the masses. There's nothing in his word choice that actually confirms what bling asked him. You can say he alluded to it, but it's not solid evidence.
|
On October 07 2012 12:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote:
I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post. Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful.
What?
I see a bunch of people here practically defending pedophilia/ephebophilia/having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-minor/whatever the fuck else you want to call it and someone loses their cool because *newsflash* it's not fucking normal to defend something like that, and you say the ignorance is shameful?
I hope you're all defending Stephano by proxy because you love him so much, and that you're not a bunch of predators waiting to happen.
|
On October 07 2012 15:50 youngminii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 12:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote:
I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post. Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful. What? I see a bunch of people here practically defending pedophilia/ephebophilia/having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-minor/whatever the fuck else you want to call it and someone loses their cool because *newsflash* it's not fucking normal to defend something like that, and you say the ignorance is shameful? I hope you're all defending Stephano by proxy because you love him so much, and that you're not a bunch of predators waiting to happen.
Well, it's not very bright to call people who disagree with you teenagers, then to say the only reason they think the way they do is because they're teenagers, and further, that because they're teenagers with some opinion, the opinion must therefore be wrong.
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to children, ephebophilia is sexual attraction to teenagers. Having sex with a 14 year old is an action that may or may not have attraction attached to it. There has been almost no effort in this thread to demonstrate that having sex with a 14 year old is necessarily predatory behavior. And if you're in a tizzy about something Stephano said, despite the large population of internet lawyers here, there's nothing we can do about it.
|
|
|
On October 07 2012 15:50 youngminii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 12:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote:
I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post. Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful. What? I see a bunch of people here practically defending pedophilia/ephebophilia/having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-minor/whatever the fuck else you want to call it and someone loses their cool because *newsflash* it's not fucking normal to defend something like that, and you say the ignorance is shameful? I hope you're all defending Stephano by proxy because you love him so much, and that you're not a bunch of predators waiting to happen.
You're making ephebophilia sound like a bad thing when every man is genetically programmed to be attracted to adolescent girls. I'm not in favour of exploiting young girls, but you're simply warping things to fit your personal opinion and being highly irrational here.
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On October 07 2012 15:50 youngminii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 12:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 07 2012 08:44 iamho wrote:
I think I get it. Some people here are upset because they're 14-18 year olds and think I'm personally offending them. Here's the truth: you're not mature. Having a big vocabulary does not make you mature, having an opinion on politics does not make you mature, watching Carl Sagan videos on youtube does not make you mature. If this doesn't apply to you I apologize, but this damn well applies to the average Redditor, and probably has something to do with the fact that they think its okay to have sex with a 14 year old.
User was temp banned for this post. Glad this happened... Such ignorance is almost shameful. What? I see a bunch of people here practically defending pedophilia/ephebophilia/having-sex-with-a-14-year-old-minor/whatever the fuck else you want to call it and someone loses their cool because *newsflash* it's not fucking normal to defend something like that, and you say the ignorance is shameful? I hope you're all defending Stephano by proxy because you love him so much, and that you're not a bunch of predators waiting to happen.
No one is defending pedophilia here. But it's pretty normal to defend the rest of the things you've mentioned against the mainstream propaganda spreading ideas like "Having sex with anyone below 18 is fucking hideous predator behavior! Everyone doing that should be thrown in jail for life!".
|
What did they expect, there is always going to be a bunch of low life idiots who take joy into posting that shit, and even though I don't like it, it's the owner's fault for allowing it, and the users fault for putting it up there, and if other users do not support what is on that site, then they should either petition to get rid of it or just leave the site, leave all the legal shit to the government which will eventually take it down. Oh and I kind of think the owners are talking silly, there is a difference between freedom of speech and pictures of underage naked girls, but hell, let them ruin their own life.
Btw, even if any of you overaged "adults" were attracted to underage girls as young as 14, grow the hell up and realise what the hell is going through your head and control yourself, I'm 17 and even I know better not to do stupid shit with a CHILD!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
