Facts about yourself!

[RelentlessOblivion]

I struggle to initiate conversation with people I don't know. The advantage I have is my guide dog. He's a great conversation starter.

[Iceni]

She's done protests and posts tons of social justice-related articles. So a lot of it isn't controversial amongst the kind of people you find on a university campus, yeah--it's usually to do with women's issues or POC issues or other things. There's a fair amount of disagreement that pops up, though, and she's very vocal in shutting down ignorant comments. She's sort of become everyone's straight-talking hero. In general, though, there's a lot of respect around here for people who can articulate their views clearly and logically, even if people disagree with them.

That's what I'm talking about. It's easy to be a straight-talker when everyone around you supports what you're saying. As an example of how people tend to respond to my views, I might as well also use an example from this very forum. I asked a fairly simple and straightforward question: why is pedophilia morally wrong? I was amazed at how completely incapable everyone was of explaining why. Some people even accused me of supporting pedophilia, merely because I asked them to explain themselves. I eventually figured out (on my own) that it had to do with age of consent and the idea that anyone below the age of consent cannot give consent and is therefore considered to be a rape victim in the event of sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. The other problem is that these arguments can be won with sheer confidence even if I do cite evidence - they can subdue evidence by throwing in a couple worthless comments about subjectivity and language and conflicting opinions in academia. All the other person needs to do is act like I'm an idiot and they'll win because the audience already sides with them.

[Syuurin]

As someone who likes to play the devil's advocate, I know where you're coming from. To add to that discussion, age of consent laws get a little weird. Pedophilia in the strictest sense has only to do with individuals who are prepubescent, which is why many states have laws like those in Texas--individuals in the range of age 14 to 17 can have sexual relations with people at most two years removed from their age, as long as the other person's age also falls within that range. So a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old, for example, could legally have sex. Where it gets kind of silly, of course, is the fact that an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old having sex is illegal, because the 18-year-old is technically an "adult", while the 17-year-old is a "minor". Honestly, the "within two years" thing should always be able to be applied upward, so someone who turns 18 before his/her SO isn't suddenly engaging in illegal activity...

[BlutAusNerd]

That's what I'm talking about. It's easy to be a straight-talker when everyone around you supports what you're saying. As an example of how people tend to respond to my views, I might as well also use an example from this very forum. I asked a fairly simple and straightforward question: why is pedophilia morally wrong? I was amazed at how completely incapable everyone was of explaining why. Some people even accused me of supporting pedophilia, merely because I asked them to explain themselves. I eventually figured out that it had to do with age of consent and the idea that anyone below the age of consent cannot give consent and is therefore considered to be a rape victim in the event of sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. Not that anyone on the forum explained that to me. For what it's worth I think this was before FA joined. The other problem is that these arguments can be won with sheer confidence even if I do cite evidence - they can subdue evidence by throwing in a couple worthless comments about subjectivity and language and conflicting opinions in academia. All the other person needs to do is act like I'm an idiot and they'll win because the audience already sides with them.

I remember that, what a shitstorm. My argument was that the line has shifted as cultures have, as women became women at their first menstruation in older cultures and were ready to marry. However, there is still a great deal of naivete regarding sex at that age, and while some could make the growth necessary (no pun intended) to rise to the occasion (god dammit), some were simply not there yet. Most people can handle sex prior to 18, physically and psychologically speaking, but you can't measure readiness, and drawing a line in the sand at age 18 helps keep predators at bay. It's not always right, and some judges and prosecutors don't seem to use their brains (an 18 year old with a 17 year old is always wrong, but one year later it's perfectly legal? Come on...), but there has to be a line somewhere. Like Iceni, I'm no advocate for pedophilia, but I lost my virginity at 14 (with another 14 year old) and feel that I was ready physically and psychologically, but maybe not emotionally at the time. In regards to you lot being shy, I call bullshit. This topic of "shyness" has made a bunch of chatty Kathy's out of you, I came back and saw tons of long posts on fairly quick succession, faster than any other thread on the board. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[Syuurin]

Most people can handle sex prior to 18' date=' physically and psychologically speaking, but you can't measure readiness, and drawing a line in the sand at age 18 helps keep predators at bay. It's not always right, and some judges and prosecutors don't seem to use their brains (an 18 year old with a 17 year old is always wrong, but one year later it's perfectly legal? Come on...), but there has to be a line somewhere. Like Iceni, I'm no advocate for pedophilia, but I lost my virginity at 14 (with another 14 year old) and feel that I was ready physically and psychologically, but maybe not emotionally at the time.[/quote'] Yup, which is why I think the "two years" rule should work for an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old or a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old. I mean, the idea behind the internet is that talking like this helps overcome the shyness one would otherwise feel if talking to people in-person...

[Iceni]

I remember that, what a shitstorm. My argument was that the line has shifted as cultures have, as women became women at their first menstruation in older cultures and were ready to marry. However, there is still a great deal of naivete regarding sex at that age, and while some could make the growth necessary (no pun intended) to rise to the occasion (god dammit), some were simply not there yet. Most people can handle sex prior to 18, physically and psychologically speaking, but you can't measure readiness, and drawing a line in the sand at age 18 helps keep predators at bay. It's not always right, and some judges and prosecutors don't seem to use their brains (an 18 year old with a 17 year old is always wrong, but one year later it's perfectly legal? Come on...), but there has to be a line somewhere. Like Iceni, I'm no advocate for pedophilia, but I lost my virginity at 14 (with another 14 year old) and feel that I was ready physically and psychologically, but maybe not emotionally at the time. In regards to you lot being shy, I call bullshit. This topic of "shyness" has made a bunch of chatty Kathy's out of you, I came back and saw tons of long posts on fairly quick succession, faster than any other thread on the board.

I couldn't remember what you said in all that, I must have forgotten your post but now that you mention it that does jog my memory. There was that one case in India of a bunch of minors gang-raping an adult, that was a million different kinds of horrifying. Well, I think a lot of people have been saying that it's easier to open up with complete strangers since you've got much less chance of performing a faux pas.

[mindy6158]

I remember that, what a shitstorm. My argument was that the line has shifted as cultures have, as women became women at their first menstruation in older cultures and were ready to marry. However, there is still a great deal of naivete regarding sex at that age, and while some could make the growth necessary (no pun intended) to rise to the occasion (god dammit), some were simply not there yet. Most people can handle sex prior to 18, physically and psychologically speaking, but you can't measure readiness, and drawing a line in the sand at age 18 helps keep predators at bay. It's not always right, and some judges and prosecutors don't seem to use their brains (an 18 year old with a 17 year old is always wrong, but one year later it's perfectly legal? Come on...), but there has to be a line somewhere. Like Iceni, I'm no advocate for pedophilia, but I lost my virginity at 14 (with another 14 year old) and feel that I was ready physically and psychologically, but maybe not emotionally at the time. In regards to you lot being shy, I call bullshit. This topic of "shyness" has made a bunch of chatty Kathy's out of you, I came back and saw tons of long posts on fairly quick succession, faster than any other thread on the board. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Speaking on the internet not having to face people is no problem with shy people I think. It is the going out into the world and nearly being forced to initiate with complete strangers (especially if you have nothing in common with them whatsoever) that sucks.....bad.

[mindy6158]

*initiate conversations...

[mindy6158]

I actually just went to this huge festival here today, and I got a few things from it. Many reasons today is the prime reason I do not go out, almost ever, and the only times I do really is to eat, walk my dog, and occasional shows and what not (usually around people that do not annoy me to hell). I am really hoping that my social work degree teaches me to ONLY observe my clients to hell=)

[RelentlessOblivion]

Ultimately I think it's a confidence issue. It's much easier to communicate with people you don't know in the impersonal fashion of an internet encounter. Face to face communication can be more challenging for those who aren't confident or comfortable in social situations.

[mindy6158]

Ultimately I think it's a confidence issue. It's much easier to communicate with people you don't know in the impersonal fashion of an internet encounter. Face to face communication can be more challenging for those who aren't confident or comfortable in social situations.

Yes and for me it is quite strange, I seem to do well around nice laid back metal lovers, heh. But other than that, I struggle.

[RelentlessOblivion]

The more I get to know people the easier it is to keep the conversation going.

[andukaru]

That's what I'm talking about. It's easy to be a straight-talker when everyone around you supports what you're saying. As an example of how people tend to respond to my views, I might as well also use an example from this very forum. I asked a fairly simple and straightforward question: why is pedophilia morally wrong? I was amazed at how completely incapable everyone was of explaining why. Some people even accused me of supporting pedophilia, merely because I asked them to explain themselves. I eventually figured out (on my own) that it had to do with age of consent and the idea that anyone below the age of consent cannot give consent and is therefore considered to be a rape victim in the event of sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. The other problem is that these arguments can be won with sheer confidence even if I do cite evidence - they can subdue evidence by throwing in a couple worthless comments about subjectivity and language and conflicting opinions in academia. All the other person needs to do is act like I'm an idiot and they'll win because the audience already sides with them.

I know what you mean. So many people have knee-jerk reactions to those kind of things and love to jump to conclusions. People can't seem to dissociate their emotional reactions from the topic at hand to have a genuine philosophical discussion. It's the same if you talk about murder, crime or prisoner's human rights. A lot of people only like to think about 'nice' things and they become very uncomfortable and defensive if you bring anything up they don't like and then they can display how truly ignorant and socially conditioned they are. They also tend to think that their views are the only valid ones (and like you said, usually they have the majority to back them up) so there's really just little to no point in continuing the discussion.

[RelentlessOblivion]

I haven't encountered much of this attitude. Perhaps it's because law naturally lends itself to the discussion of "edgy" subjects.

[andukaru]

Unfortunately that attitude is prevalent where I'm from and from what I've heard it is the same in the US.

[RelentlessOblivion]

I suspect it depends on who you're having the conversations with I suppose. I've had many fascinating discussions about a particular assualt case. Basically two consenting parties were engaged in some full-on BDSM (whatever floats your boat I suppose) and their neighbours complained to the police. The bloke was convicted of assault because no party can consent to another party causing them pain or injury for non-recreational or sporting purposes. Most of us agreed that sex is a recreational activity and that if both parties consented the police had no legal grounds to interfere. A couple did argue that it serves the community to punish people who would engage in this kind of harmful activity.

[Iceni]

And besides, edgy subjects are fun. Non-edgy subjects are the ones everyone knows too much about and it's just miserable trying to discuss them. Films come to mind for me.

[Syuurin]

I've never seen the Matrix and I don't really intend to. That's about as edgy as I get.

[Frostaudn]

I've never seen the Matrix and I don't really intend to. That's about as edgy as I get.

Never seen the Matrix, never seen Godfather, never seen Star Wars, never seen ehm...a lot

[RelentlessOblivion]

I haven't seen a lot of things. All of those movies fall into that category though they are also on the list of "things I have heard" . I promise my other blind jokes are almost funny.

[RelentlessOblivion]

And besides' date=' edgy subjects are fun. Non-edgy subjects are the ones everyone knows too much about and it's just miserable trying to discuss them. Films come to mind for me.[/quote'] I don't mind talking about material that isn't edgy. The discussion I mentioned before those was very entertaining. That couple would have been perfectly fine if they had just soundproofed their bedroom...or thir basement you know whatever works.

[Iceni]

I've never seen the Matrix and I don't really intend to. That's about as edgy as I get.

Nah, I wasn't talking about edgy films. I'm just saying that these film nerds and foodies ruin movies and munchies for me.

[RelentlessOblivion]

Nah' date=' I wasn't talking about edgy films. I'm just saying that these film nerds and foodies ruin movies and munchies for me.[/quote'] Well excuse me for not classifying Doritos as a food group

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

Another fact about me: Despite being a huge Pokemon fan, I have only seen the first movie going to watch all of them over the summer though

[Syuurin]

Nah' date=' I wasn't talking about edgy films. I'm just saying that these film nerds and foodies ruin movies and munchies for me.[/quote'] I didn't mean that the Matrix was edgy. Just joking that me not watching it is.