LAWYERING MEGATHREAD [contains massive amounts of :intigo:]

Morel Nova · **Posted:** Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:06 pm

Minigin wrote:

lets say we do just completely drop the underage double rape, and go with all children above 13 can have sex with each other, where do we stand on pornographic material depicting 14-15 yos? assuming it was made by the two kids and not some business man seeking to abuse them to turn a profit.

nothing wrong with it tbh. also see japan

Minigin · **Posted:** Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:27 pm

m88888888888888888888

btw im not saying sexually they cant be attractive... but irkn we are inherently more vulnerable at younger ages. sure its an arbitrary line to draw. but one does have to be set up somewhere...

Morel Nova · **Posted:** Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:31 pm

Minigin wrote:

m88888888888888888888

btw im not saying sexually they cant be attractive... but irkn we are inherently more vulnerable at younger ages. sure its an arbitrary line to draw. but one does have to be set up somewhere...

its something that parents should be responsible for. see my earlier post about sterilizing dumb ppl

Minigin · **Posted:** Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:34 pm

but we dont let parents decide what their standard of care is.

i think i might be more asking would it be acceptable that parents let their kids do shit like that at all.

Nrom · **Posted:** Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:49 pm

chunky can you stop rekindling the flame in minigins virgin heart. I had done a pretty good job at crushing his retardness and you coming out here and stringing him along with promises of more discussion when in fact we both know he's basically rain man gone virgin and retard, doesnt help.

Get your own toy you faggot fuck.

Chunky Milk · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:23 am

Ottersmacker wrote:

m8 just go and have fun with some girls and embrace their feminine nature, your instincts will guide you i promise. and when you feel that YES THIS IS WHAT I WANT and nature takes over, before you know it - something fucking weird happens. a lot of your resistance on this topic will have disappeared.

After 3 hours of arguing with Minigin, also with my girlfriend also semi-raging while sitting on my bed. (yeah I made her sit through it while I was supposed to be making dinner lol) we worked out there is literally no changing Minigin's mind so we decided to leave it.

Ottersmacker wrote:

// what i first thought was just a misunderstanding may indeed be a crusade fueled by a wasted childhood

Otters referring to Minigin here. This is the same feeling my girlfriend and I got too. We agreed that Minigins view seemed to have had more to do with underlying issues & views of sex on minigins behalf than anything else. Still not sure how he can say having sex at 15 is inherently different than at 18 but w/e. Either way we both felt his views would change when he actually experienced sex and saw first hand it's not the emotionally harmful thing he's been taught.

Minigin you keep suggesting all our views are formed by what society thinks now, you ever thought what society thinks now is based upon societies experience of sex? (This is rhetorical & something for you to think about m8) Anyway Take Otters advice imo

Chunky Milk · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:08 am

William DeMeo wrote:

Chunky Milk wrote:

It's not to say that sex is inherently harmful though. It's just to say that given these sorts of situations the CHANCE of it harming someone is so much higher that the law is here is prepared to step in to avoid it.

It's not an off chance. The VAST MAJORITY of cases involving an adult are of a nature that involves great manipulation of power and abuse. The power imbalances are almost always far too great.

Your use of the word "CHANCE" and "VAST MAJORITY" implies that this is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE which means that you are INEVITABLY putting INNOCENT PEOPLE in jail. You can argue for statuatory rape and age limits but the argument you're using is retarded Chunky.

bolded and capsed the important parts.

William, notice how this is a 'lawyering' thread m8er? Stop being retarded, seriously. That's the way laws work.
Examples you can understand:

1) Why are there speeding fines? To stop people from speeding, because when you speed you increase the CHANCE of having a car accident.

2)Why are there laws against throwing a knife into the air at a park? To stop people throwing knives in parks, because when you throw a knife in a park there is a CHANCE it could hit someone.

William, I bolded the important parts for you. In both instances you'll get fined even if there was no one around and no danger to anyone, whatsoever. So if you have a problem with how law is made, take it up with your local representative m8.

:maverick:

William DeMeo · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:19 am

Chunky Milk wrote:

William DeMeo wrote:

Chunky Milk wrote:

It's not to say that sex is inherently harmful though. It's just to say that given these sorts of situations the CHANCE of it harming someone is so much higher that the law is here is prepared to step in to avoid it.

It's not an off chance. The VAST MAJORITY of cases involving an adult are of a nature that involves great manipulation of power and abuse. The power imbalances are almost always far too great.

Your use of the word "CHANCE" and "VAST MAJORITY" implies that this is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE which means that you are INEVITABLY putting INNOCENT PEOPLE in jail. You can argue for statuatory rape and age limits but the argument you're using is retarded Chunky.

bolded and capsed the important parts.

William, notice how this is a 'lawyering' thread m8er? Stop being retarded, seriously. That's the way laws work.
Examples you can understand:

1) Why are there speeding fines? To stop people from speeding, because when you speed you increase the CHANCE of having a car accident.

2)Why are there laws against throwing a knife into the air at a park? To stop people throwing knives in parks, because when you throw a knife in a park there is a CHANCE it could hit someone.

William, I bolded the important parts for you. In both instances you'll get fined even if there was no one around and no danger to anyone, whatsoever. So if you have a problem with how law is made, take it up with your local representative m8.

:maverick:

Yes, there are other laws that are poorly justified, that doesn't make your argument any less faulty. "That's just the way it is" is another poor argument, when did this become a discussion about "the way it is"? You and minigin have been going at it for pages with your personal opinions, discussing the way it should be with no concern for any existing law, so why the sudden change? Unless you believe it's ok to put innocent people in prison you need to improve your reasoning, even though "it's the way it is".

Chunky Milk · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:08 am

William DeMeo wrote:

Chunky Milk wrote:

William DeMeo wrote:

Chunky Milk wrote:

It's not to say that sex is inherently harmful though. It's just to say that given these sorts of situations the CHANCE of it harming someone is so much higher that the law is here is prepared to step in to avoid it.

It's not an off chance. The VAST MAJORITY of cases involving an adult are of a nature that involves great manipulation of power and abuse. The power imbalances are almost always far too great.

Your use of the word "CHANCE" and "VAST MAJORITY" implies that this is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE which means that you are INEVITABLY putting INNOCENT PEOPLE in jail. You can argue for statuatory rape and age limits but the argument you're using is retarded Chunky.

bolded and capsed the important parts.

William, notice how this is a 'lawyering' thread m8er? Stop being retarded, seriously. That's the way laws work.
Examples you can understand:

1) Why are there speeding fines? To stop people from speeding, because when you speed you increase the CHANCE of having a car accident.

2)Why are there laws against throwing a knife into the air at a park? To stop people throwing knives in parks, because when you throw a knife in a park there is a CHANCE it could hit someone.

William, I bolded the important parts for you. In both instances you'll get fined even if there was no one around and no danger to anyone, whatsoever. So if you have a problem with how law is made, take it up with your local representative m8.

:maverick:

Yes, there are other laws that are poorly justified, that doesn't make your argument any less faulty. "That's just the way it is" is another poor argument, when did this become a discussion about "the way it is"? You and minigin have been going at it for pages with your personal opinions, discussing the way it should be with no concern for any existing law, so why the sudden change? Unless you believe it's ok to put innocent people in prison you need to improve your reasoning, even though "it's the way it is".

dude, you're legitimately pretty dumb if you think preventative laws aren't justified.
A person shouldn't be running the risk of killing other people by speeding. As your speed increases the punishment increases because the dangerousness of your act causing death increases, I fail to see how this isn't justified. You shouldn't be doing an act that is likely to cause death... whether the effect eventuates or not is irrelevant.

I mean using your logic we shouldn't put people in jail for attempted murder, you know, because it's not like anyone actually died right... THEY ARE INNOCENT!

Minigin · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:03 am

i thought you did criminology.

most preventative laws have no effect on the percentage of those actions committed. the most obvious being murder.

ps. i wouldnt try argue with these guys william, if you point out anything they disagree with, they will just play the experience card despite that experience being one of the things that is tainting their opinions.

LAWYERING MEGATHREAD [contains massive amounts of :intigo:]

Who is online