videogamer
Banned
Fresh Prince said:
When you are 18 here, you are considered an adult.
Otaking: duh obviously. 18 is the magic age. And I caught your mistake almost right away. i delayed my "ownage" post until mandudechild complained
Goodbye cruel world
- Thread starter Chony
- Start date
- Status
When you are 18 here, you are considered an adult.
Otaking: duh obviously. 18 is the magic age. And I caught your mistake almost right away. i delayed my "ownage" post until mandudechild complained
Fresh Prince
Banned
But where does Chony live?
Chony,
Something tells me that you've gotten so much advice that you've just stopped listening and will do what you decided long ago. But you've said it yourself. You are going to get rocked.
To all the people telling him outright to stand up for himself, before going over alternatives:
WHY? What the fuck good would it do. The guy that he's going to fight is 50 lbs heavier and experienced. Chony is "frail" and inexperienced. Getting his ass beat isn't noble or intelligent -- just humiliating.. and painful.
Chony,
So many people have suggested that you speak to the sister. DO THAT. Like people have said, explain to her that you were drunk out of your mind and made a mistake. Don't plead with her, but just give your side and maybe she'll convince her brother to fuck off. Otherwise, I would speak to him bluntly:
"This is retarded. I was drunk and groped your sister. I wouldn't do it sober. There's no "lesson" to be learned here. I fucked up and regret that. Go ahead and kick my ass if you actually think it'll do any good."
Why does that seem so simple in my mind? That it is the obvious thing to say and MAY do some good? If the guy is THAT irrational that he still has to kick your ass, so be it. Take Ned's fighting tips and we'll wish you the best.
PS. Any friend that has heard your side and still sides with the brother is no friend of yours. But ask yourself, honestly: if another friend of yours was in your position, would you side with him... or with the dumbass crowd? Probably the dumbass crowd.
Something tells me that you've gotten so much advice that you've just stopped listening and will do what you decided long ago. But you've said it yourself. You are going to get rocked.
To all the people telling him outright to stand up for himself, before going over alternatives:
WHY? What the fuck good would it do. The guy that he's going to fight is 50 lbs heavier and experienced. Chony is "frail" and inexperienced. Getting his ass beat isn't noble or intelligent -- just humiliating.. and painful.
Chony,
So many people have suggested that you speak to the sister. DO THAT. Like people have said, explain to her that you were drunk out of your mind and made a mistake. Don't plead with her, but just give your side and maybe she'll convince her brother to fuck off. Otherwise, I would speak to him bluntly:
"This is retarded. I was drunk and groped your sister. I wouldn't do it sober. There's no "lesson" to be learned here. I fucked up and regret that. Go ahead and kick my ass if you actually think it'll do any good."
Why does that seem so simple in my mind? That it is the obvious thing to say and MAY do some good? If the guy is THAT irrational that he still has to kick your ass, so be it. Take Ned's fighting tips and we'll wish you the best.
PS. Any friend that has heard your side and still sides with the brother is no friend of yours. But ask yourself, honestly: if another friend of yours was in your position, would you side with him... or with the dumbass crowd? Probably the dumbass crowd.
videogamer
Banned
Fresh Prince said:
Apparently in Washington State, USA.
http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?p=372662#post372662
Also: he has talked about costco and quizno's
Etiolate: thanks, but not quite accurate
BobbyRobby
Member
eggplant, do you think people who helped black slaves escape their masters should have been punished in the 1800s?
When unjust laws are passed, it should be your duty as an American to rise up and speak out against them, not timidly follow each and every one like a sheep.
When unjust laws are passed, it should be your duty as an American to rise up and speak out against them, not timidly follow each and every one like a sheep.
ConfusingJazz
Member
eggplant, shut up you holier then thou prick. Go yell at stoners about how they are helping terroists or something.
videogamer
Banned
BobbyRobby said:
What's wrong with sexual harassment and child molestation laws?
Fresh Prince
Banned
eggplant said:
Okay then according to the law you're right (assuming what you said before was in relation to Washington State). However I doubt (from my limited knowledge of American Law) that a prosecutor would charge him on those offences(child molestation) in front of a jury(if it were in front of a jury).
They would most likely try to get him on a lesser charge but at least guarantee a conviction. That is only likely if the girl agrees to make some complaint on him- which seems unlikely according to what Chony said.
Look now I'm going to patronise you for a sec. The world isn't black and white, to me what Chony did was wrong. Although if you were a judge you could by law charge him with child molestation. However the circumstances in the case prove that this was done was in an intoxicated state and was unintentional but needs some sort 'punishment'(there's a better word but I cannot find it) so that he will not do it again. Chony is not a child molestor.
BobbyRobby
Member
eggplant said:
Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that a 18 year old kid could be charged with child molestation and be sent to jail for groping a 17 year old. Or maybe the fact that I could get charged with sexual harrassment for telling a dirty joke in an office environment. The latter really bothers me. If my employer chooses to fire me, that's totally up to him, but by passing laws against freedom of speech you only oppress people. And if women are supposedly so weak that they can't hear a few words without feeling sexually threatened, they really aren't fit to interact with people at all.
If I was a woman, I'd be outraged.
videogamer
Banned
BobbyRobby said:
Sexual harassment laws can be used against women too. They are there to protect against threatening people like creepy people who put innocents into uncomfortable positions that they might not otherwise have a way out of (besides quitting).
Etiolate: no need to go into details
videogamer
Banned
etiolate said:
I do have a strong sense of right and wrong on some issues, but not so on others. "Moral" is not a term that I deserve yet.
videogamer
Banned
etiolate said:
I'm not a lawyer, but iirc laws have only gotten stricter on child molesters. If anything, the OP would probably get in trouble more easily.
Etiolate, eggplant isn't a moral man. You'd have to observe him relatively closely to determine whether or not he is... what he *is* is a smarmy semi fact filled prick. He may be playing devil's advocate or he may actually believe the things he's saying.
A moral person is a person that concerns themselves with goodness, not on the basis of laws, but more based on internally and popular accepted notions of goodness. A moral person can't be moral without examining, often the ideas of good and evil that exist in the world.
As for eggplant, laws are one thing yes. Certainly in the case of the woman who filed a complaint, she was legally justified to do so, but morally, took something, not even directed at her, something that was just normal interaction between friends and use it to bring the law in to punish a guy that didn't deserve the punishment, under the intent of the law. You could argue that it's a law that is supposed to protect people, but in that example pointed out, it was completely abused, instead of adhering to the principles of harmony that laws should on a high level, create, it was used to disrupt the peace, creating alot of trouble for the guy (and I imagine no small amount of hassle for the woman that filed the complaint).
Laws are generally pretty rigid by nature, so that they're not easily circumvented (but often are regardless), but their primary effect isn't to actually administer justice, but to set boundaries for which society can operate (it's much easier and resource efficient to create the boundaries and make people aware of them then it is to enforce them afterall); that the law can be applied, does not mean that it should always be applied (such as when the situation is understandable or reasonably resolvable between the aggrived parties). A moral person would understand this and use the law in such a fashion as to aid this idea (of creating a harmony within the boundaries, without straying too far out of them).
A moral person is a person that concerns themselves with goodness, not on the basis of laws, but more based on internally and popular accepted notions of goodness. A moral person can't be moral without examining, often the ideas of good and evil that exist in the world.
As for eggplant, laws are one thing yes. Certainly in the case of the woman who filed a complaint, she was legally justified to do so, but morally, took something, not even directed at her, something that was just normal interaction between friends and use it to bring the law in to punish a guy that didn't deserve the punishment, under the intent of the law. You could argue that it's a law that is supposed to protect people, but in that example pointed out, it was completely abused, instead of adhering to the principles of harmony that laws should on a high level, create, it was used to disrupt the peace, creating alot of trouble for the guy (and I imagine no small amount of hassle for the woman that filed the complaint).
Laws are generally pretty rigid by nature, so that they're not easily circumvented (but often are regardless), but their primary effect isn't to actually administer justice, but to set boundaries for which society can operate (it's much easier and resource efficient to create the boundaries and make people aware of them then it is to enforce them afterall); that the law can be applied, does not mean that it should always be applied (such as when the situation is understandable or reasonably resolvable between the aggrived parties). A moral person would understand this and use the law in such a fashion as to aid this idea (of creating a harmony within the boundaries, without straying too far out of them).
As for the 'child molestation' laws, I'm pretty sure alot of places have qualifiers for relationships between young people. It would be retarded to not recognize the fact that young people age, as well as groups of young people intermingling.
No one in their right mind would consider a 19 year old groping a 17 year old child molestation (sexual harassment, certainly).
Most places have a age of consent qualifier for young people; a 21 year old can maintain a full relationship with a 17.5 year old without getting into trouble (while the same would not be true for a 40 yr old) for example.
No one in their right mind would consider a 19 year old groping a 17 year old child molestation (sexual harassment, certainly).
Most places have a age of consent qualifier for young people; a 21 year old can maintain a full relationship with a 17.5 year old without getting into trouble (while the same would not be true for a 40 yr old) for example.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Zaptruder said:
Thanks for putting most of my thoughts into words. The ability of not sleeping has hampered my process to do this.
videogamer
Banned
Zaptruder said:
Can sexual harassment laws be used in the OP's situation. IIRC it's used somehow with coercion --- like the workplace or school.
Edit: I never claimed to be a moral person.
Also, I don't think the OP mentioned having a consent qualifier
ConfusingJazz
Member
eggplant said:
No, seeing that he wasn't making her workplace uncomfortable or saying "Let me touch you...or your ass is fired". There is little legal ramification that would probably result from this, seeing that all he did was cop a feel while being VERY inebriated. The only thing he really needs is a good slap in the face and a guilt trip, because he doesn't sound like a serial groper or something.
Man, you guys are turning this into some crazy morals vs. laws debate, when the solution is SO SIMPLE.
Chony -- show up to the fight buck naked and tell the guy if he wants to kick your ass, he has to do it while you're nude. And make sure there are witnesses. And then piss on him and/or grab his johnson. It's tough to act macho when someone is peeing on you or holding your meat.
Chony -- show up to the fight buck naked and tell the guy if he wants to kick your ass, he has to do it while you're nude. And make sure there are witnesses. And then piss on him and/or grab his johnson. It's tough to act macho when someone is peeing on you or holding your meat.
videogamer
Banned
ConfusingJazz said:
He touched a minor in an inappropriate location, which is why I think molestation is a better term. Again, you can't blame your problems on alcohol. He's responsible for his own actions.
ManDudeChild
Member
eggplant said:
You can stop repeating yourself anytime now. It's not going anywhere and, while technically correct, the difference in age surely is a factor ... but then I'd be repeating myself. How's about we get back on topic ok?
ConfusingJazz
Member
eggplant said:
You know what, fuck this. He has, at most, a 1% chance of going to trail, so I don't give a rats ass about this.
Chony, your friend is overreacting if he actually wants to pummel you. Try to parlance with the sister by saying you are very sorry for what you have done. Then hopefully save as much face as possible with your friend, and try to not let it become physical, and good idea in letting it simmer for a while, maybe he will get a bit of a cooler head.
ConfusingJazz
Member
mosaic said:
As the old saying goes "The best defense is a strong stream of piss"
Spiritreaver
Member
Lambtron said:
I feel the same way, I like your post. I too have a sister, and would probably get furious with anyone who tried to tuoch her in a way I deem unappropriate. Kick his ass? Maybe so, if I felt it just enough in my head. It's just how siblings are if they love each other. So, it's understandable, but then again I agree that it wouldn't be as bad if Chony just went and apoligized. Why isn't he trying to make up for himself and tried to apoligize to the guy about this? Or the sister? I dislike how so many people are quick to suggest fighting as the answer. I also dislike how this topic has turned into a discussion of morality, when it is quite far from the problem at hand. It's GA though, and to be expected.
Heh, and yes, he first post started out way to vague for even me to take seriously. This is why I gave my own little joke in there somewhere. But I'm glad to see he finally opened up about this.
Anyways, did anyone take into consideration the factor of time? There's a good chance this guy is going to blow off steam as well. Thus making an apology even more justified, even CHony is sincere and honest about this and actually tries his damned hardest to get across that he regrets his actions and won't let it happen again. Then I think that makes him the better man in this. If he doesn't accept your apology or his siter for that matter, then I suggest you avoid fighting if at all possible. Even if he confronts you.
I do believe moral is often on the basis of laws, laws are very moral. They are rules given and followed. Definition wise:
definitions found for moral
1. Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those
intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue
and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such
intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to
the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings
in relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so
far as they are properly subject to rules.
2. Conformed to accepted rules of right; acting in conformity
with such rules; virtuous; just; as, a moral man. Used
sometimes in distinction from religious; as, a moral
rather than a religious life.
Morals are values that we attribute to a system of beliefs that help the individual define right versus wrong, good versus bad.
So eggplant's system of beliefs seems linked to the law. Which was my point. His stance is that of the law's stance. Whether it is a personable ethical stance that he truly has valued and believes in or is it some joke on us or himself is the question.
etiolate said:
Eh... I think I see your point somewhat; but the point is that a moral person (as per popularly accepted idea of) would contribute positively to society and those around him, through his notable morals (and if he doesn't possess morals that are above what is normal to possess, then what is the point of noting them?). But in eggplants case, his morals, tho present have been skewed and are rigid in such a fashion that they're actually more like anti-morals; observation of law for the sake of law is retarded. I mean... it's like using screwdrivers to chisel out wood into the shape of another screw driver!
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
In my country we are allowed to bang sixteen year olds all we want.
On that basis, I say kill they guy for threatening you.
On that basis, I say kill they guy for threatening you.
Yes
"The law says so!" is a bit silly. Especially when you are not so sure of the law.
For example:
The age of consent in Washington State is 16, not 18.
The governing rules of the lowest degree of molestation is thus:
A person is guilty of child molestation in the third degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.
Seeing as she is 17, it can not be molestation.
"The law says so!" is a bit silly. Especially when you are not so sure of the law.
For example:
The age of consent in Washington State is 16, not 18.
The governing rules of the lowest degree of molestation is thus:
A person is guilty of child molestation in the third degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.
Seeing as she is 17, it can not be molestation.
ConfusingJazz
Member
etiolate said:
BigGreenMat
Member
Where did we ever learn that Chony groped her? All I heard was bad things and we assumed it wasn't sex and it was groping.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
:lol
You'd never survive a day in my shoes.
Grow a pair.
Man UP!
You'd never survive a day in my shoes.
Grow a pair.
Man UP!
MrPing1000
Member
i demand pics of puke, him, his sister, you before asskicking and you after asskicking.
PS kick him in the nuts and go from there
PS kick him in the nuts and go from there
videogamer
Banned
ManDudeChild said:
I can't believe so many of you guys believe in age discrimination. Somehow 2 years difference in age lets people get away with a hypothetical crime. I wonder if you guys would be so willing to defend him if he was a 50-year old fat bald man.
Etiolate: My view on laws: the laws can be changed, but what really matters is what you can do with the present laws.
OK fine, he got away this time. But other states might have been more strict about this matter and I did leave several sort-of disclaimers around.
lachesis
Member
Well, I just find funny, that you are calling the people who are going to hold you up when you are taking the beating of lifetime as your "Friends". Friends do not gang-bang you. If anyone does that, he's no friend of yours and you are better off finding better human beings who can accept one's fault and mistake.
If my sister was groped mistakenly by my friend, yes I'll get pissed. If I find that friend has not apologized to my sister, I'll probably warn him and lose him out of my life. But I wouldn't want to beat him up just for that. Violence doesn't do any good to anyone.
lachesis
If my sister was groped mistakenly by my friend, yes I'll get pissed. If I find that friend has not apologized to my sister, I'll probably warn him and lose him out of my life. But I wouldn't want to beat him up just for that. Violence doesn't do any good to anyone.
lachesis
please, about the law concerning underage girls -- it's only breaking the law if you're caught. 16 year olds and above are fair game as long as they understand their decision.
when i was 18, 15 happened to be the lowest i went.
now that i'm 21, 16/17 was the lowest. i don't search out for them, though.
just have fun, dude. that's what life is all about.
when i was 18, 15 happened to be the lowest i went.
now that i'm 21, 16/17 was the lowest. i don't search out for them, though.
just have fun, dude. that's what life is all about.
There is NO definete line between an adult and a minor in the eyes of the law. The age of 18 doesn't mean much. Exceptions are made all the time. Minors who commit crimes are often charged as adults. 18 year olds that are still in high school are not considered adults inside of the classroom. And minors can date "legal" adults (and have consensual sex) if the age differential is within an acceptable range.
FACTS.
FACTS.
- Status