|
On October 16 2012 23:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 23:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2012 23:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 16 2012 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2012 23:19 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 16 2012 23:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2012 23:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 16 2012 22:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2012 22:36 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 16 2012 22:26 Geo.Rion wrote:
Ok, being out of line and all that is true, and rammification and PR campaign, OK, but JESUS christ people, are you kidding me?
Some of you are actually upset because of he RAPED a girl? I know in legal terms he did (if he wasnt just bullshitting) but have some common sense ffs, 14 year old girls are pretty much grown ups, at least as much as a 19 year old boy is, No, they're really not. What the fuck. Yes they are. I have known couples of 19 or 20 / 15 that were working just fine. I even had a college friend who married his girlfriend who was 15 when they started. Don't tell me the few months make all the difference. 14 is not 12. At 14, most teenagers have a sexual life, have known love and are fairly emancipated of their parents. A lot of people around me have had their first sexual relations at age 14. I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but if I was a betting man, I'd put money on the fact that the majority of 14-year-old teenagers (lets just take teenagers in western developed countries to eliminate cultural differences) do NOT have a sexual life yet. Furthermore, it's laughable to claim that most 14-year-olds have known love. Most young adults haven't even known love, let alone someone who is only 14. Teenage angst and rebellion should not be confused with autonomy. The vast, vast majority of 14-year-olds still need their parents for pretty much anything, and if they were faced with a real problem calling for true independence, they'd run to their parents in a heartbeat. Finally, 14-year-olds are still woefully immature. Of course you can come along with random anecdotal evidence saying that you've met immature young adults or you've met young couples with 6+ years separating them and they've worked, but this doesn't change the fact that a 19-year-old has gone through a LOT more in life when compared to a 14-year-old, on average. And? You need to have had the same amount of experience in life to have sex with someone? I guess my father should go in jail for marrying a 20 years old woman when he was 32. Now on absolute age: I had my first girlfriend at 15, I was very much in love and we had sex. Like half of people around me. You can play on words saying we didn't really know what love is or whatever. That's your opinion about love. Maybe it was not the deep love with which you found a family and make a whole life together. Don't care, agree, that's not what we are talking about. If there are countries were the average of the first intercourse is 15, you can bet a huge amount of young people then have it at 14 or younger. You're missing the point.... by a lot. There is no issue between 20 and 32 year old people having sex, there is no issue between 15 year olds having sex with 15 year olds. There is a problem with people saying 19 year olds having sex with 14 year olds is fine and acceptable. If it's fine for two 15 years old to have sex together, it's fine for a 19 and a 15, or a 14 to have sex together too. Some people are more mature at 14 than at 19. I had a 15 years old girlfriend when I was 17 who was more mature than me by a mile. No, it's not. This is why statutory rape laws exist. Obviously there's a lot of debate room between a 16 and 18-year-old, but a 5 year difference between someone who has just started high school and someone who should be in at least their 2nd year in college is a pretty clear line; an adult can easily take advantage of a young teen and coerce them into having sex. This is the reason that statutory rape laws exist. I can swear you that if you go in court in France because a 19 years old boy had sex with a 14 years old girl, they'll fucking laugh at you. The idea is that this 56 years old teacher with authority doesn't abuse his 14 years old students. These laws are not made to prevent teenagers having sex together. And 5 years difference is extremely common. Of course the point isn't to stop teenagers from having sex. The point is to stop an adult from taking advantage of and coercing a teenager, and in many cases, a 19-year-old can be considered an adult. Legal age is of course something to be determined by a specific country, so go France if you want your young adult men to be having sex with little girls. This is still beside the point; not only did Stephano say that he abused a girl, but he said he abused a 14-year-old girl, which makes the remarks that much more inflammatory.
Ok,
19 years old = real man
14 years old = little girl.
I have an other version:
19 and 14 years old: teenagers.
And Stephano was bragging to his friends, unless I really missed something.
|
On October 16 2012 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 23:33 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 16 2012 23:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2012 23:24 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 16 2012 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2012 23:19 Clarity_nl wrote:On October 16 2012 23:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2012 23:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 16 2012 22:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2012 22:36 Clarity_nl wrote:
[quote]
No, they're really not. What the fuck. Yes they are. I have known couples of 19 or 20 / 15 that were working just fine. I even had a college friend who married his girlfriend who was 15 when they started. Don't tell me the few months make all the difference. 14 is not 12. At 14, most teenagers have a sexual life, have known love and are fairly emancipated of their parents. A lot of people around me have had their first sexual relations at age 14. I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but if I was a betting man, I'd put money on the fact that the majority of 14-year-old teenagers (lets just take teenagers in western developed countries to eliminate cultural differences) do NOT have a sexual life yet. Furthermore, it's laughable to claim that most 14-year-olds have known love. Most young adults haven't even known love, let alone someone who is only 14. Teenage angst and rebellion should not be confused with autonomy. The vast, vast majority of 14-year-olds still need their parents for pretty much anything, and if they were faced with a real problem calling for true independence, they'd run to their parents in a heartbeat. Finally, 14-year-olds are still woefully immature. Of course you can come along with random anecdotal evidence saying that you've met immature young adults or you've met young couples with 6+ years separating them and they've worked, but this doesn't change the fact that a 19-year-old has gone through a LOT more in life when compared to a 14-year-old, on average. And? You need to have had the same amount of experience in life to have sex with someone? I guess my father should go in jail for marrying a 20 years old woman when he was 32. Now on absolute age: I had my first girlfriend at 15, I was very much in love and we had sex. Like half of people around me. You can play on words saying we didn't really know what love is or whatever. That's your opinion about love. Maybe it was not the deep love with which you found a family and make a whole life together. Don't care, agree, that's not what we are talking about. If there are countries were the average of the first intercourse is 15, you can bet a huge amount of young people then have it at 14 or younger. You're missing the point.... by a lot. There is no issue between 20 and 32 year old people having sex, there is no issue between 15 year olds having sex with 15 year olds. There is a problem with people saying 19 year olds having sex with 14 year olds is fine and acceptable. If it's fine for two 15 years old to have sex together, it's fine for a 19 and a 15, or a 14 to have sex together too. Some people are more mature at 14 than at 19. I had a 15 years old girlfriend when I was 17 who was more mature than me by a mile. "Some" being the keyword. Fine. I'm sure Stephano's chick was part of the "some". Otherwise, guess what, nothing would have happened. Yeah, I'm sure a 19 year old guy can only have sex with a 14 year old girl if she is mature and ready. That's the only way sex between a 19 year old and 14 year old would ever happen. I guess he could rape her, also. Do you think that happened? Being mature enough at 14 means being interested. I don't see how a 14 years old having consenting sex with another teen is not mature enough. And I'm out of here because we all are wasting our time.
I don't know what happened, probably not. But my point is it's fucking sketchy for a 19 year old to have sex with a 14 year old for this reason.
Rape can happen no matter what, the problem with young girls (and let's just assume that by young I mean 14 and below) is that they're easily coerced. At 14, your parent still makes every important decision for you, for a reason. If we gave all the 14 year olds the power to decide everything that happened in their lives at that point when they're pliable, they can be manipulated.
As already pointed out a million times before, there is a term for this, it's called statutory rape.
" In statutory rape, overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act."
For the US, most states either agree the age of consent is 16 or 17
|
Wait so orb makes some distasteful racial comments pre-dating his involvement with EG and is compeltely shit-canned, and Stephano makes some even more heinous comments concurrent with his involvement with EG and so far he only gets a slap on the wrist?
Where is Alex writing a big post about pedophilia and how it's no laughing matter even when comments are made in jest, like he did because of his prior involvement with AA studies.
The agenda here is palpable. Just ridiculous.
|
Oh hey, cool 40 pages later and people are still beating the dead horse! awesome, this community makes me so proud :')
|
On October 16 2012 23:59 seanisgrand wrote:
Wait so orb makes some distasteful racial comments pre-dating his involvement with EG and is compeltely shit-canned, and Stephano makes some even more heinous comments concurrent with his involvement with EG and he gets a slap on the wrist?
Where is Alex writing a big post about pedophilia and how it's no laughing matter even when comments are made in jest, like he did because of his prior involvement with AA studies.
The agenda here is palpable. Just ridiculous.
Companies value people differently and as such have different levels of tolerance for undesirable behavior. If they feel the value the person adds isn't worth the damage the poor behavior causes or otherwise believe taking a stance may improve their image, the person is more likely to be "shit-canned". This is a very basic and easy to understand concept, are you just this naive or is the agenda here palpable?
|
On October 16 2012 23:59 seanisgrand wrote:
Wait so orb makes some distasteful racial comments pre-dating his involvement with EG and is compeltely shit-canned, and Stephano makes some even more heinous comments concurrent with his involvement with EG and so far he only gets a slap on the wrist?
Where is Alex writing a big post about pedophilia and how it's no laughing matter even when comments are made in jest, like he did because of his prior involvement with AA studies.
The agenda here is palpable. Just ridiculous.
Orb meant what he said. He's a pathetic closet nerd who is worthless to eg. Stephano is worth something, doesn't have that nasty attitude, and was evidently joking. And get your facts straight he was racist during eg.
|
On October 17 2012 00:06 PvP wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 23:59 seanisgrand wrote:
Wait so orb makes some distasteful racial comments pre-dating his involvement with EG and is compeltely shit-canned, and Stephano makes some even more heinous comments concurrent with his involvement with EG and so far he only gets a slap on the wrist?
Where is Alex writing a big post about pedophilia and how it's no laughing matter even when comments are made in jest, like he did because of his prior involvement with AA studies.
The agenda here is palpable. Just ridiculous. Orb meant what he said. He's a pathetic closet nerd who is worthless to eg. Stephano is worth something, doesn't have that nasty attitude, and was evidently joking. And get your facts straight he was racist during eg.
a little biased are we, lol
|
On October 17 2012 00:03 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 23:59 seanisgrand wrote:
Wait so orb makes some distasteful racial comments pre-dating his involvement with EG and is compeltely shit-canned, and Stephano makes some even more heinous comments concurrent with his involvement with EG and he gets a slap on the wrist?
Where is Alex writing a big post about pedophilia and how it's no laughing matter even when comments are made in jest, like he did because of his prior involvement with AA studies.
The agenda here is palpable. Just ridiculous. Companies value people differently and as such have different levels of tolerance for undesirable behavior. This is a very basic and easy to understand concept, are you just this naive or is the agenda here palpable?
I'm not a naivete I assure you. The fact that the corporate value of the two people makes a difference to EG, and many corporations is obvious. That's why I said the agenda, at this stage, is clear. Did you not read what I wrote?
A company valuing a someone who jokes about pedophilia over someone who uses racist language is the sticking point in this circumstance. I don't know many companies that would differentiate racism/pedophile comments when made in jest. They both would violate corporate policy. It's not like there is a tier level once you hit a certain "offense" level.
|
If you are implying their agenda is attempting to do what is in the best interest of their company, yes you are correct. That is indeed their agenda and the agenda of every [successful] company.
|
On October 17 2012 00:03 eXePensai wrote:
Oh hey, cool 40 pages later and people are still beating the dead horse! awesome, this community makes me so proud :')
Nice comment, you contribute much more than the people "beating a dead horse"
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 13 2012 08:31 Iodem wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/csi6r.jpg)
First time seeing this myself.
I can't understand everyone that has called his statements a joke, like the guys on the GD studio show. He obv. fucked her, anything else is just damage control.
|
On October 17 2012 00:15 syllogism wrote:
If you are implying their agenda is attempting to do what is in the best interest of their company, yes you are correct. That is indeed their agenda and the agenda of every [successful] company.
I'm implying that the outcome after the outrage is not consistent, and thus hypocritical. Orb was not a money-maker for EG,so they can voice outrage to save sponsors and then drop him.
Relating this to Stephano, or even Idra's bigotry in the past, the outcome is entirely different.
The difference in value is clear for all of these examples, but for a business, the conduct requirements and punishments for everyone should be uniform.
|
On October 17 2012 00:20 seanisgrand wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 00:15 syllogism wrote:
If you are implying their agenda is attempting to do what is in the best interest of their company, yes you are correct. That is indeed their agenda and the agenda of every [successful] company. I'm implying that the outcome after the outrage is not consistent, and thus hypocritical. Orb was not a money-maker for EG,so they can voice outrage to save sponsors and then drop him. Relating this to Stephano, or even Idra's bigotry in the past, the outcome is entirely different. The difference in value is clear for all of these examples, but for a business, the conduct requirements and punishments for everyone should be uniform.
But that is "ordinary" business, that is never the case in "showbusiness".
|
On October 17 2012 00:22 Jiddra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 00:20 seanisgrand wrote:On October 17 2012 00:15 syllogism wrote:
If you are implying their agenda is attempting to do what is in the best interest of their company, yes you are correct. That is indeed their agenda and the agenda of every [successful] company. I'm implying that the outcome after the outrage is not consistent, and thus hypocritical. Orb was not a money-maker for EG,so they can voice outrage to save sponsors and then drop him. Relating this to Stephano, or even Idra's bigotry in the past, the outcome is entirely different. The difference in value is clear for all of these examples, but for a business, the conduct requirements and punishments for everyone should be uniform. But that is "ordinary" business, that is never the case in "showbusiness".
Haha true. Anyway, I'm interested to see how the matter is closed.
|
No it makes absolutely no sense for conduct requirements and punishments to be uniform. The only reason companies 'punish 'for behavior that they deem unacceptable is because said behavior can damage, for instance, company image. If the value the person adds to the company doesn't outweigh the damage, the person is more likely to be let go. Company rules, behavior guidelines or contract provisions aren't normative systems designed to be applied in a 'fair' (everyone treated equally, indeed the applicable clause in the contract doesn't even have to be the same) manner, but rather to protect the company. Indeed, this is preferable to what you propose because this way rather than more arbitrarily dictating how someone should behave they only limit behavior that can harm the company. We have other kinds of normative systems in place for uniform punishments.
|
On October 17 2012 00:40 syllogism wrote:
No it makes absolutely no sense for conduct requirements and punishments to be uniform. The only reason companies 'punish 'for behavior that they deem unacceptable is because said behavior can damage, for instance, company image. If the value the person adds to the company doesn't outweigh the damage, the person is more likely to be let go. Company rules, behavior guidelines or contract provisions aren't normative system designed to be applied in a fair manner, but rather to protect the company.
How do you reason that a company would be able to protect itself from lawsuits if they did not have a uniform behavior and punishment guidelines? More than likely, racism/pedophilia, comments or otherwise, are going to be considered on a certain level of offense meriting a specific punishment pattern.
Consider party A is fired at X company for saying X racist word. Party B is punished, but retains his job at the same company for X deviant sexual comment. If the two comments aren't outlined separately in corporate policy, with separate punishment escalations, and the two employees had the same conduct record prior to the offenses, X company opens themselves up for a lawsuit.
|
On October 17 2012 00:40 syllogism wrote:
No it makes absolutely no sense for conduct requirements and punishments to be uniform. The only reason companies 'punish 'for behavior that they deem unacceptable is because said behavior can damage, for instance, company image. If the value the person adds to the company doesn't outweigh the damage, the person is more likely to be let go. Company rules, behavior guidelines or contract provisions aren't normative systems designed to be applied in a 'fair' (everyone treated equally, indeed the applicable clause in the contract doesn't even have to be the same) manner, but rather to protect the company. Indeed, this is preferable to what you propose because this way rather than more arbitrarily dictating how someone should behave they only limit behavior that can harm the company. We have other kinds of normative systems in place for uniform punishments.
"oh yea Raidcall, didn't they sponsor that sc2 team with that rapist? Not buying stuff from them"
Extreme example but considering how big this has become you can bet there are people that now think like that and EG sponsors will take damage in sales, it's that easy.
|
Arbitrary discrimination is a different story, but as long as the behavior in question is severe enough that the contract or law allows terminating the contract, the company is free to do so. They aren't obligated to fire someone and not firing someone is not discrimination. If two people engage in similar contract breaching behavior and only one gets fired, the only thing the company has to show is that there was a reasonable explanation for firing one and not the others (ie in this case the value of the person to the company).
|
On October 16 2012 23:59 seanisgrand wrote:
Wait so orb makes some distasteful racial comments pre-dating his involvement with EG and is compeltely shit-canned, and Stephano makes some even more heinous comments concurrent with his involvement with EG and so far he only gets a slap on the wrist?
Where is Alex writing a big post about pedophilia and how it's no laughing matter even when comments are made in jest, like he did because of his prior involvement with AA studies.
The agenda here is palpable. Just ridiculous.
I don't know, I don't think the situations are similar at all and I disagree with how they handled the Orb situation and agree with how they handled this situation.
Orb was a caster, relatively up-and-coming, staying at their house and cashing in on a great opportunity. It sucks that he got nailed for something he did in the past, but in this industry, more than ever, you have to keep your PC face on all the time if you want job security. That's just the way it is. But there would have been little reason for Alex to stand behind a relatively minor caster (even if I did like his work) when it could damage his relationship with EG's sponsors.
Stephano, on the other hand, was a huge investment on their part and is arguably the best player on a struggling team. You have to keep him, but you also have to show that this kind of stuff won't be tolerated.
It may be an agenda, but it's a predictable one that I don't think is particularly unethical. He was suspended without pay, what more of a punishment do you want for a player who is in it for the money and the competition?
|
lol
They are both teenagers ffs.
If you are only 15,16,17, you think that those 5 years is a long time because it is 30% of your life but in reality, it is nothing.
And he is a kid himself...
Some laws are stupid that is why we can change them. Example:
Stephano can be called a pedophile for doing that but a 50 year old man can bang an 18 yr old girl as much as he wants and it is completely legal. Some laws are just dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
