Goodbye cruel world

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok....example time. There's a boy and a girl. The boy is 18 and 5 minutes old. The girl is 17 and 55 minutes old. They were born both on the same day only 10 minutes apart. On our birthday (oh, say February 14th), when she's still 17 and 55 minutes old, I get very drunk and do what Chony did to her. 5 minutes later, she turns 18, and is a legal adult. But since I did the groping when she was under 18 by law...am I a child molester? Am I a creep child molester that should serve a sentence in jail? By these laws I should. That is the craziest thing I ever read. And to that, I say lol, omg, r0-fucking-0fles. (sarcasm-end)
 
Jun 8, 2004
3,816
0
0
Otaking said:
Ok....example time. There's a boy and a girl. The boy is 18 and 5 minutes old. The girl is 17 and 55 minutes old. They were born both on the same day only 10 minutes apart. On our birthday (oh, say February 14th), when she's still 17 and 55 minutes old, I get very drunk and do what Chony did to her. 5 minutes later, she turns 18, and is a legal adult. But since I did the groping when she was under 18 by law...am I a child molester? Am I a creep child molester that should serve a sentence in jail? By these laws I should. That is the craziest thing I ever read. And to that, I say lol, omg, r0-fucking-0fles. (sarcasm-end)
Do your math over again.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,798
0
0
*applauds Solomon, fakes a swing at eggplant*


Seriously, if what actually was alleged in the thread is exactly what went down, you (Chony) should shake yourself. You fucked up groping his sister, but when you're fucked up (you know, like he was..I'm sure he's never done anything he regretted while he was trashed /sarcasm) sometimes shit happens. You owe her an apology, but beyond that you SHOULD NOT stand for this bullshit that her brother is trying to perpetrate upon you.

Stand up for yourself. If its you against a bunch of mofo's I wouldn't recommend playing Stevie Seagal because you'll probably just get rolled and thats no fun. But if it's you vs him, WHOOP THAT FUCKERS ASS!! You don't have to be a skilled fighter to get busy. Just remember to bend your knees, keep your elbows up and throw focused punches from within your body (ie don't throw haymakers unless he's already dazed etc, maintaining balance is key if you don't wanna go to the ground). If you've got the height and presumably reach advantage, don't be afraid to close the distance a little and bow him to the face.

Make sure he knows that you're sorry about what happened with his sister but that it was a drunken mistake and that you're not gonna stand him threatening you. If you fuck him up, pick him up off the ground and tell him no hard feelings, but dont count on him being your friend ever again (most guys have no class nowadays).

But don't just lay down like a bitch and let this guy turn your whole clique against you. You don't have to be John Wayne, but stand up for yourself. This guy sounds like some wannabe hardass (you said he'd been in fights before) just looking for a sruff for the fuck of it. Fuck that. Whoop his ass.
 
Jun 8, 2004
3,816
0
0
ManDudeChild said:
If the best you can do is avoid his hypothetical question with a jab at his mathmatical slip up ... well i'd just quit while you were ahead. But that's just me.
I could have just owned his error-ridden post, but I gave him a chance to fix his mistakes. So ok

Ok....example time. There's a boy and a girl. The boy is 18 and 5 minutes old. The girl is 17 and 55 minutes old. They were born both on the same day only 10 minutes apart. On our birthday (oh, say February 14th), when she's still 17 and 55 minutes old, I get very drunk and do what Chony did to her. 5 minutes later, she turns 18, and is a legal adult. But since I did the groping when she was under 18 by law...am I a child molester? Am I a creep child molester that should serve a sentence in jail? By these laws I should. That is the craziest thing I ever read. And to that, I say lol, omg, r0-fucking-0fles. (sarcasm-end)
1. No, they were born about 1 year apart, not 10 minutes.
2. On February 14th, she's going to be 17 and 60 minutes old and still a minor.
3. Yes you are still a child molester because you are an adult and she's still a minor.
4. A math challenged creep
 
eggplant said:
Do your math over again.
I just now see the problem with my math. I am le tired.

Girl should = 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 55 minutes old.
Boy should = 18 years, 0 days, 0 hours, and 0 minutes old.

Assuming there still are 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day, and 365 days in a year, she is five minutes younger.(YES, I changed the age difference to fix my math...sue me...or not, as you'll probably find some law to get me life in prison for it)

Boy was born at midnight on February 14th. Therefore he should turn 18 at 12am on February 14th. Girl was born 5 minutes later at 12:05. Therefore, when boy turns 18, she is 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, and 55 minutes old. They were BOTH born on the same day. The boy and girl are celebrating the birthday. Boy gets horribly drunk, and at 12am, when he turns 18 he gropes the girl, whom is 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, and 55 minutes old, still under 18. She turns 18 5 minutes after the groping happens. Is this still considered child molestation?

There, I THINK I fixed my math. If I still screwed up, please tell me how, cause like I said, I'm tired and math isn't my strong suit.

*edit*

I just noticed eggplant's 'ownage' post. Noting the dates, he posted that probably seconds before I finished writing my fix....so we corrected each other at the same time.
 
Jul 1, 2004
3,019
0
0
Seriously if you are legally considered an adult(in this state/country) if
you're above 16- Cyan(and most of the board) is right
you're above 18- Eggplant is right

If you want to get into semantics and say:
That though a person is considered an adult when they are over 18, what Chony did still cannot be considered 'child molestation' since it doesn't conform to what you think- okay whatever.

If anything and the girl wanted to be malicious and drag him through the mud he could be charged with sexual assault- despite what her age is. Also being drunk is not a free pass. Sure you do stupid shit but drunk drivers get punished don't they?
 
Jun 8, 2004
3,816
0
0
Fresh Prince said:
Seriously if you are legally considered an adult(in this state/country) if
you're above 16- Cyan(and most of the board) is right
you're above 18- Eggplant is right

If you want to get into semantics and say:
That though a person is considered an adult when they are over 18, what Chony did still cannot be considered 'child molestation' since it doesn't conform to what you think- okay whatever.

If anything and the girl wanted to be malicious and drag him through the mud he could be charged with sexual assault- despite what her age is. Also being drunk is not a free pass. Sure you do stupid shit but drunk drivers get punished don't they?
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
 
Jun 7, 2004
42,463
0
0
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.
 
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.
 
Jun 8, 2004
3,816
0
0
BobbyRobby said:
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.
What's wrong with sexual harassment and child molestation laws?
 
Jul 1, 2004
3,019
0
0
eggplant 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
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.
 
eggplant said:
What's wrong with sexual harassment and child molestation laws?
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.
 
Jun 8, 2004
3,816
0
0
BobbyRobby 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.
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
 
Jun 8, 2004
15,194
0
0
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.
I am speaking as to how you get your sense of right and wrong. You are standing by the letter of the law when law is something that changes and increases quite a bit.
 
Jun 8, 2004
3,816
0
0
etiolate said:
I am speaking as to how you get your sense of right and wrong. You are standing by the letter of the law when law is something that changes and increases quite a bit.
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.
 
Jun 7, 2004
27,826
1
0
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).
 
Jun 7, 2004
27,826
1
0
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.
 
Jun 6, 2004
5,555
0
0
Zaptruder said:
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; that the law can be applied, does not mean that it should always be applied. 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).
awesome post. I agree!!
 
Jun 8, 2004
3,816
0
0
Zaptruder said:
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.
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
 
Jun 30, 2004
24,141
0
0
eggplant said:
Can sexual harassment laws be used in the OP's situation. IIRC it's used somehow with coercion --- like the workplace or school.
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.
 

mosaic

go eat paint
Jun 11, 2004
4,162
0
0
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.
 
Jun 8, 2004
3,816
0
0
ConfusingJazz 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.
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.
 
Jun 9, 2004
5,818
1
0
eggplant 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.
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?
 
Jun 30, 2004
24,141
0
0
eggplant 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.
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.
 
Jun 7, 2004
27,826
1
0
mosaic said:
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'd probably have to be drunk again to do that.

But if he did (show up naked for his ass kicking), that would be one hella story. Dunno about that pissing and johnson grabbing bit tho.
 
Jun 30, 2004
24,141
0
0
mosaic said:
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.
As the old saying goes "The best defense is a strong stream of piss"
 
Jun 7, 2004
10,935
0
0
32
Edmond, Oklahoma
Lambtron said:
Sigh. If the original post was something like "Hey, my friend is going to kick my ass, because I anally fisted his 12 year old sister" I could see you getting all preachy and saying "GO TO THE COPS! TURN YOURSELF IN!"

But getting drunk and grabbing breasts? The most punishment he should face is some angry remarks from the brother & sister, and maybe buying her some flowers, or something. I mean, if every 18 year old boy who grabbed a 17 year old's tits while intoxicated was in jail, how would we have high school football teams?

EDIT: If I had a kid sister and one of my friends grabbed her tits, I'd probablyget real pissed. Drunk or not. That's just sibling love, you know? I don't know if I'd kick his ass. That doesn't mean that I haven't done stupid shit when I'm drunk. It happens. He shouldn't go to jail. And he shouldn't get his head cracked open by some steakhead, either. He should be apologetic, and learn his lesson.
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.
 
Jun 8, 2004
15,194
0
0
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.
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.
 
Jun 7, 2004
27,826
1
0
etiolate said:
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.
What strong morals can be had without taking into account the other, major part of that description of morals?
 
Jun 8, 2004
15,194
0
0
What strong morals can be had without taking into account the other, major part of that description of morals?
The right and wrong part? Subject to social beings as in relation to each other? As in who says its right or wrong? That is the point.
 
Jun 7, 2004
27,826
1
0
etiolate said:
The right and wrong part? Subject to social beings as in relation to each other? As in who says its right or wrong? That is the point.
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!
 
Jun 8, 2004
15,194
0
0
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.
 
Jun 30, 2004
24,141
0
0
etiolate said:
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.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.