Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:15 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 245 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Ohio
Hey, Buffalo, I'm a Buddhist. Fuck you, and fuck Santorum too.

_________________
Good writing is clear writing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13138
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
FalseDichotomy wrote:
Hey, Buffalo, I'm a Buddhist. Fuck you, and fuck Santorum too.

I didn't know the people of Buffalo read this thread. :o

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Ohio
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
FalseDichotomy wrote:
Hey, Buffalo, I'm a Buddhist. Fuck you, and fuck Santorum too.

I didn't know the people of Buffalo read this thread. :o

:mrgreen:

_________________
Good writing is clear writing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19491
Location: Somewhere in time
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
This is a rough thread for buffalo and I'm surprised that he took on a topic that is so senitive with many people and I applaud him for doing so. Not because I have any issue with the law or how is has been applied to Roy, but once something is illegal, it becomes many times more difficult to talk about at all without seeming to be a criminal advocating the illegal practise. Anyone who sees the argument as invalid just has to turn up the hype and the person loses quick and easy. Just to add 2 cents to the argument, age laws of consent have been widely varied and often non-existent in various places over time. It is definately not a consensus argument as is the case with murder where it has nearly always and everywhere been illegal. If I were to try to come up with a rationale for why any given age should be required for consent, I'd have a very difficult time trying to pinpoint it. Older than 12? Sure. Younger than 22? Of course. What age in between there though is difficult to make an argument for. What is the criteria?
Do you ask Mick Jagger?



Your right about this age border and how it has moved overtime depending on what society and in what era we are looking at. Does an 18 year old that sleeps with a 16 year old deserve to be a registered sex offender, I say absolutely not, have people in their 20's had sex with teenagers, it happened often in the 60's and the 70's. has someone slept with a 14 year old or possibly younger thinking that person was older, it happens some youngsters look very mature, check ID's. In most cases a 12, 13, or 14 year old is obviously not of the age of consent. When someone is in their late 30's, 40's, 50's, and in Roy’s case 60's...there is a huge yuk factor attached to this behavior, at this point you are a Pedophile. There is no longer that grey area of “am I to old for this person” as there is with 20 year olds. There is no longer the Rock Star who has young girls throwing themselves at you and in the heat of the moment you have slept with a very mature looking 16 year old. There is no consenting of any type that is taking place. There is an old man who is molesting a child under 14 years of age while at a family members home, who has been caught doing this at least twice before that we know of and we know as in many things, that the crime is usually committed far more than one gets caught. I’m sorry there is no justification for this behavior, he is no where near the grey area, he left that zip code a long time ago….yuk factor to the extreme…

:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:33 am
Posts: 3526
Perfectly stated, Plook. Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3036
Location: Between the Badges
Ya had to go n agree with him brainpang, drag. Cuz, while Plook is welcome to his opinion, I think it sidesteps the bulk of my content. His reading is sort of an Everyday Justification to the topic, whereas in my analysis, I'm looking for more of a definitional view of the topic. "Yuk Factor" doesn't really help much and the fact that there are actual May-December relationships, it is at best non-entirely-useful and at worst insulting to those who partake (on the legal side of young-old relationships, not under age of consent).
I'm not petitioning for a lowering of consent limit, but I am looking for more of a definition for numeric age choice than "Yuk".
The best I can come up with is citizenship. If we want to arbitrarily link consent to the age when a child is no longer bound to the parent, I understand that from a politically convenient point of view, but biologically, it is still arbitrary. Many females would be both physically and intellectually responsible enough to consent to sex for a long time before then. Is there an age that isn't arbitrary?

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Ohio
18 seems fair. If you're mature enough to vote and go to war, you're mature enough to take part in a biological process that could possibly make you responsible for another living being or could possibly leave you with a terminal disease.

Don't forget to register to fuck :wink:

_________________
Good writing is clear writing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19491
Location: Somewhere in time
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Ya had to go n agree with him brainpang, drag. Cuz, while Plook is welcome to his opinion, I think it sidesteps the bulk of my content. His reading is sort of an Everyday Justification to the topic, whereas in my analysis, I'm looking for more of a definitional view of the topic. "Yuk Factor" doesn't really help much and the fact that there are actual May-December relationships, it is at best non-entirely-useful and at worst insulting to those who partake (on the legal side of young-old relationships, not under age of consent).
I'm not petitioning for a lowering of consent limit, but I am looking for more of a definition for numeric age choice than "Yuk".
The best I can come up with is citizenship. If we want to arbitrarily link consent to the age when a child is no longer bound to the parent, I understand that from a politically convenient point of view, but biologically, it is still arbitrary. Many females would be both physically and intellectually responsible enough to consent to sex for a long time before then. Is there an age that isn't arbitrary?



I apologize if I was obtuse by using the “Yuk”, may I expand on the various age differences. 18 is the legal age of consent, if you are in the US of A I would always keep this in mind since a registered sex offender is pretty much screwed for life, check ID's.

As to age differences I know couples who have gone down this road, I think the difference is much more subtle up to 10 years. When you get above say 15 years you have the couple becoming very disjointed in looks and health, the rich and movie stars can pull this off since they have money to do tune up’s. The regular folks end up with one person looking old and feeling old and their partner is still young and wants to have fun, they drift apart. You get into these 20 + years difference and this stage hits sooner and I gets sort of sad.

You get into these 30+ year differences and it just comes down to Yuk. I know Hugh Heffner’s shtick is young Playmates, but it has just gotten yuky and anyone with that kind of difference has to know it looks that way. But if you can pull it off as far as I’m concerned two consenting adults’ have fun, who gives a shit what others think.

Anyone trying to develop relationships with High School kids that is not very close to that age is asking for trouble, leave these young people who are not fully cooked alone to become mature adults without some old fuck messing them up.


:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3036
Location: Between the Badges
Plook, you seem like an OK guy, but I think we speak different languages. I'm talking theory of government, you're talking application on the dating scene. No offense meant, I just think we're not talking about the same thing.
BTW, good call on going to see Tributosaurus. I used to work with Matt Spiegel years ago, both at Sporting News Radio and at live shows when he was in a funk band called "Brother Brother" that he was in with... his brother.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:03 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3479
Some good debate, but I thought Roy was blatantly scrogging young gals for fun and the idea that he was busted for a loving relationship is in correct.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13138
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Plook, you seem like an OK guy, but I think we speak different languages. I'm talking theory of government, you're talking application on the dating scene. No offense meant, I just think we're not talking about the same thing.
BTW, good call on going to see Tributosaurus. I used to work with Matt Spiegel years ago, both at Sporting News Radio and at live shows when he was in a funk band called "Brother Brother" that he was in with... his brother.

We've been getting,on the news cycle,around here the story of a 41 year old with an 18year old.They do play up the "yuk" factor but in the end,I would say she's of the age of consent,love is hard to find and she also has plenty of livin' left to do,should she change her mind in a couple of years.We wouldn't be talking about this if it was an 18 year old man with a cougar,would we? The judicial age to me should be 16 for both sexes.I'd like to think our young people who go off to war at 18,at least had a couple of good years getting laid and growing up.Rather than getting killed before you've had the chance to experience some love life! Thats a tough one to pin down Arkay,as when I was under 25 I would get laid before asking for ID.One time I asked her last name.Turns out the Sherriffs favorite niece was under me!(actually on top) That and I worked with her Dad! Shit was I scared.Apparently I wasn't the only one and there where no diseases that a shot of anti-bodies wouldn't cure.That was back then and nobody got hurt or had to get shots.But that 3 months to 16 and acts/looks 20 is some scary stuff! They could of put me away for awhile.So I say 16.Thats where it's at in California law anyway.That and most all young women of that age have a drivers license.So no ID,no me! That could be one way to go for the youngsters of today.

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:33 am
Posts: 3526
This is a tough topic to write on 'cause no matter what one sez it is such an emotional issue that it can easily be read wrong. That's why I wasn't bothered by YUK, really. I myself didn't want to compose a paragraph on the subject so I was relieved to see it done by another.

Yet, I don't understand what is going on here. Who says young folk can't have sex, with those in their age group? There's no law against that, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:14 am
Posts: 18668
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
brainpang wrote:
...Yet, I don't understand what is going on here. Who says young folk can't have sex, with those in their age group? There's no law against that, right?

I don't know about other countries, but, here in Canada, there is a "close-in-age exception," meaning 14- and 15-year-olds can have sex with someone who is less than five years older.

_________________
You're probably wondering why I'm here
(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:56 am
Posts: 125
Location: philly
I posted one joke and now I get bombarded with debating the reasonableness of this episode.

1) consensual sex with kids under 14 is NOT OK unless you are >= 2 years older

2) rape of anyone at any age is NOT OK

Please. Stop trying to defend someone whose music you enjoy. I love the music and theatrics but the fact remains, what he did is heinous. PERIOD.

Now I will go back to enjoying "Prelude To The Afternoon Of A Sexually Aroused Gas Mask"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3036
Location: Between the Badges
zackpassman wrote:
I posted one joke and now I get bombarded with debating the reasonableness of this episode.

1) consensual sex with kids under 14 is NOT OK unless you are >= 2 years older

2) rape of anyone at any age is NOT OK

Please. Stop trying to defend someone whose music you enjoy. I love the music and theatrics but the fact remains, what he did is heinous. PERIOD.

Now I will go back to enjoying "Prelude To The Afternoon Of A Sexually Aroused Gas Mask"

Maybe you should check your equation symbol?

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:56 am
Posts: 125
Location: philly
Unless you are less than or equal to two years older. Excuse me. Point should have been quite clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:45 am
Posts: 9347
Location: EINDHOVEN
zackpassman wrote:
Unless you are less than or equal to two years older. Excuse me. Point should have been quite clear.


Oh, those poor 14-y.o. Justin Bieber fans...

Seriously. When I was 12 I celeb-crushed on somebody who was 48 years my senior. He's dead now.
There will always be exceptions to the rule who will be punished by whoever set the standard.

_________________
Image
Join the PackardGoose forum! Send me a PM!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:56 am
Posts: 125
Location: philly
BBP wrote:
zackpassman wrote:
Unless you are less than or equal to two years older. Excuse me. Point should have been quite clear.


Oh, those poor 14-y.o. Justin Bieber fans...

Seriously. When I was 12 I celeb-crushed on somebody who was 48 years my senior. He's dead now.
There will always be exceptions to the rule who will be punished by whoever set the standard.


That doesn't mean the celeb that is being crushed on can't keep their shit together. If you're such a hot goddamned celebrity, fuck some other hot goddamned celebrity who is old enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19491
Location: Somewhere in time
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Plook, you seem like an OK guy, but I think we speak different languages. I'm talking theory of government, you're talking application on the dating scene. No offense meant, I just think we're not talking about the same thing.
BTW, good call on going to see Tributosaurus. I used to work with Matt Spiegel years ago, both at Sporting News Radio and at live shows when he was in a funk band called "Brother Brother" that he was in with... his brother.



All I know is I raised a bunch of Women and there is some sweet talkin scum out there that doesn't give a shit who's life gets ruin, as far as I am concerned consenting adults can do what that want even if it is Yuky, but let the kids find there way in there own age group. Are there exceptions, there always are, is what Roy did wrong, I said it before and I will say it again "Indefensable" a violent crime against a child. If it happened in my house the next crime committed would proably be a murder.

Arkay - I really enjoyed that Tributosaurus show I would really like to see them do XTC, I must publicly thank PIB again for taking me and all the really nice folks in Chicago and PIB's Bro that came to the show, really good and smart guy. It was fun!...


:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
Yesterday I made another attempt to listen to FZ:OZ. I got frustrated. It was NOT because of the death of Andre Lewis. And it was NOT because of Roy's recent development. It was because of Roy's bass playing. He is the the main disturbing factor (besides Nappy's tooting) on this recording. He is holding the group back. Not because he is a mexican, but because his bass playing really is NOT good here.

Th.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:56 am
Posts: 125
Location: philly
Thinman wrote:
Yesterday I made another attempt to listen to FZ:OZ. I got frustrated. It was NOT because of the death of Andre Lewis. And it was NOT because of Roy's recent development. It was because of Roy's bass playing. He is the the main disturbing factor (besides Nappy's tooting) on this recording. He is holding the group back. Not because he is a mexican, but because his bass playing really is NOT good here.

Th.


His fingers were probably tired from fondling some Aussie 12-year-old


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:33 am
Posts: 132
Location: United Kingdom
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
I agree.Am I the only atheist here to agree or am I the only one to admit that I'm an atheist? I might be an agnostic....but you'd have to prove it to me! But I concur with Plook.I also think that this is not a learned action. It's hard wired or they would have the free choice to stop.They know it's wrong,but do it anyway.They know the scorn from society they will get.They do it anyway.They must know that they put their live's in jeopardy each time they repeat offend.But they do it anyway.A continuing misplaced sexual urge that you can't stop or controll.What do you do? Hopefully find the gene,fix the wiring,stop the urge somehow,even by casteration if necassary.But stop it.We could use some of those war dollars for research and prevention.That would be a start,a small start but a start none the less.
BV,the christain right since Reagan has takin' every chance it can get,to regulate/govern our bodies.Be it sex,abortion,or remaining a virgin untill you die in combat! I really don't believe that you would think by our sexual collective prudeness you mean pediphiles should be left alone.But as a native of San Francisco,I can see how the rest of the world views our sexual collective conciousness.We come off to the world as a bunch of "do what I say about sex and not as I do" kinda folks.Very Victorian sounding.
The sick thing is it's getting worse,not better.Stem cell research leads to abortions,don't ya know! :roll:


Thank you Captain.

Sending people like Roy to jail - as opposed to a psychiatric institution - is short-sighted. It's the government and the mainstream of society avoiding their own responsibilities - which is to investigate these perversions, and in doing so to acknowledge that they may have something to answer for in terms of the making of these perverts.

Sending a pedophile to jail, not to "Broadmoor" or the American equivalent, pretends that pedophilia - or any other kind of propensity to wildly destructive violent actions - is something that any adult could just choose to do, if they've been mentally led down the wrong path.

The truth - as every police psychologist will tell you - is that such violent tendencies are immovably set in place early in life, almost always before a person even reaches puberty. Perhaps partly by genetics, but definitely by circumstances.

90+% percent of pedophiles were themselves subjected to either sexual abuse as children, or some other kind of physical abuse (maybe a kind that's not recognized as abuse and instead is encouraged within the education and/or medical care sectors, hint hint?!)

When these experiences have warped their minds, they have a choice whether to act on their destructive impulses (and "act on" does not mean the same thing as "acknowledge/admit to", censors please note).

The trouble is, the stress induced by the effort of repressing those destructive impulses can eventually get too much to bear. And that's what happened to Roy - remember by the time his first offenses took place he wasn't so young anymore and had had enough time to get sick of fighting what was in his mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19491
Location: Somewhere in time
Dude your smoking crack, you sound like those idiots that think they can reform Gay's to straight...these guys are beyond help, by the time they act it, is like someone choosing to committ a murder, they have left their moral compass behind...and please do tell your hint hint, I gotten hear this crap...

:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:54 pm
Posts: 5280
Location: Birthplace of Grand Funk Railroad & Mr Don Preston
Image
...lock up your child abusers.

_________________
*********************************************************************

You just don't understand, You're from Kalamazoo.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13138
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Milton Bradley wrote:
Image
...lock up your child abusers.

I totally agree! But while we have some to study,why don't we find the cause? Whatever it takes to stop it! Castration by a drunken Micheal J. Fox with JP assisting,if neccesary.But stop it.I'm not talkin' coddle and head shrink,I'm talkin' poke and prod kinda study! Not zit on zee couch and tell me why you think you have ziz problem shit.More,hey so you like to do this? How's it feel when someone does the same thing to you? Enter the cattle prod.I ain't talkin no gentel therapy shit now.Gitmo style,just the facts,kinda,geSSZZZZZZZTalt. We need to find the root cause and kill it.
Roy's the one in the middle,right? Even that looks too comfy for him!

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 245 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group