Bush is a crook.

I'm more concerned about Bush's being a bigot than his being a crook. As a bi-sexual woman in a serious relationship with another woman, I am offended and disgusted by Bush's ignorance (as well as the ignorance of all the bigots who agree with him).

Marriage is a matter of law, a contract. It hasn't been a matter of religion or tradition in a very long time. Banning gay marriage like he wants to goes against everything the Constitution stands for. The United States is the laughing stock of the world partly because of these antiquated social stances; it doesn't help that there are so many stupid people out there who actually agree with that nonsense.

Sorry about the tangent, folks, this is just a really sore subject for me (obviously). I'm sick of being persecuted by the country for my sexual orientation. It's morally wrong and makes me have a disliking for this country (despite being employed by it).

As for the topic, I'm sure he is a crook. The guy is the worst President of all time.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by a lurker

What this thread needed more of was lesbians!

Actually, I'm bi-sexual. Still, I am in a serious "lesbian" relationship if the distinction means that much to you. That has no bearing on the fact of the matter, though, which is that Bush is a bigot.

Originally Posted by Skexis

Pretty much. I think in our age, when red tape is at its peak (I mean, we can really only get more laws, you know?) we'd expect a president to want to navigate it rather than circumvent it. The fact that Bush is not puts people on edge, because it reminds them how tenuous the idea of a democracy is.

It's more than simply a preconception the public has about what the president should do; it's also a window into his character. That he doesn't feel as if he has to answer to anyone is not a good sign, you know?

I hear you there. Not a good sign is an understatement. His inability to get through a single speech without mincing several words is a pretty bad sign too, wouldn't you say?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Watts

I'll use the worse recent historical example I can. Adolf Hitler was trying to build a utopia. To take that evolutionary step up for mankind. Mein Kampf if you've read it, make's this painfully clear. Jews, mentally ill, and other "sub-humans" were just holding the human race back on it's next evolutionary step to the "master race". Yet people do not judge Hitler by his intentions. We judge him by the genocide that was brought about by his utopian thinking.
His actions and the overall outcome mattered more then his intentions.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Um, I think I should point out that your example was really bad. Seriously. Adolf Hitler was a bonafide sociopath with delusions of grandeur. He based everything he did on his own bias, with absolutely no facts supporting him whatsoever. His intention was not just to create a utopia, his intention was to wipe out anything that didn't fall into his master plan so as to create a utopia for a race he hand-picked himself.

His intentions were just as bad as his actions.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Yeah, I think we are already dwelling heavily into Minority Report territory. Take all these Dateline (IIRC) stories where they do those sting operations to catch internet predators. I work in law enforcement, and even I can't figure out how any of the charges stick.

These news people are only pretending to be underage and luring these "predators" to their houses in order to get them arrested based on what they "thought" they were going there to do. In fact, from the reports I've seen, there were never any children used in these sting operations. Now I may not be a typical police officer, and that stuff may be way outside my field of expertise, but I would almost think this constitutes not only entrapment, but also punishing someone for a crime they "thought" about committing.

Since when did we punish people based on thoughts and intentions? Since when were thoughts and intentions crimes? I know it's important to protect children and all, but this is ridiculous and overboard. Heck, I had a friend who, when she was underage, actually used grown men to satisfy her sexual desires, and she turned out perfectly fine (no pregnancies, no STDs); she was smart and actually put a lot of forethought into intentionally reeling in older men, and she knew exactly what she was doing. Even today, I'd have to consider her the predator over the older men she had sex with! Not all young girls are so innocent. Of course, bottom line is I think it's unjustified to punish someone based on what they think about doing as opposed to what they actually do.

I don't see how it constitutes a legal sting, basically. Like with a normal sting, the cops use a real teenager to, say, buy a pack of cigarettes. Until the transaction is complete, no crime has been committed and no action can be taken. I would think that, in order for these Dateline stings to be legal, not only would they need an actual child on the computer to lure the predators over, but the child would have to be present and the predator would have to actually try to solicit sex out of the child.

Like I said, reeks of Minority Report.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PUG1911

I agree with you, except for this. I mean, punishments are greatly influenced by someone's intent during a crime. But only if a crime has actually taken place, easiest example is different degrees of murder/manslaughter. I know you know that, just in case another reader took you statement at face value.

It's cool, I understand, and yes I know what you're talking about. Heh wouldn't be very good at my job if I didn't. Anyway, yeah, my main point was punishing people for their intent when a crime hasn't actually been committed.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

I don't know much/anything about these stings, but from what I can gather they would/should be illegal in this country. It'd be fantastic if someone has a link as to how these work in the legal system.

If I had the time, I'd try to find out personally, but work usually leads me down a different path. So yeah, if someone could figure that out, it'd be swell.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

I mean, how often do people come *this* close to doing something they shouldn't, and then decide against it. How does one justify punishing them for being close enough to a criminal?

Exactly. Been there myself, heh. If I was arrested for every time I thought about breaking the law, I'd have life in prison by now.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

What this thread needs more of are lesbians with attention-seeking issues.

Originally Posted by a lurker

You are the dumbest nigger in Compton.

Yeah, I get the message, you're a bigot too, gotcha.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

That's the problem, these people doing the stings aren't children. Yes, actual underage teens should be used, and the crime is committed when the suspect propositions the teen for sex, plain and simple. If there are no actual children involved, there is no crime.

Well, that's what the laws say, at least.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devo

The "in person" stings they typically use dwarves or people who "look" young. Are you saying we should subject children to talking with pedophiles just to catch them?

Uh, yeah. Duh. Just like when the police do those cigarette busts on stores that sell to minors.

They have to use actual minors, not just people who look like minors.

Originally Posted by Devo

The fact of the matter is the predator thinks it's a child, and is commiting the act as if the person typing to them IS a child. That's grounds enough for an arrest.

Therein lies the problem, and brings us back to the point I was making. You're arresting people based on what they think. That's not supposed to be how the legal system works, and I would never ever do that on the job myself, regardless of what the "law" might say about it.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Devo

There is nothing Minority Report about it, there is no think crime, they are not entrapping the criminal. He commits the crime based on what he knows, whether what he knows is the truth, is not the issue. He knows it's a child, he commits a crime by propositioning the child, he should be punished. Whether or not the child is "real" is not a problem.

Well I'm glad I don't work with people who think like you! It is thought crime because it's not based on truth! No child, no crime!

The only reason it isn't entrapment is because the police aren't the ones doing the trapping. They go online, pretending to be underage, and actually go about luring these people into traps. While I'm sure some of these creeps deserve to go to prison, I can't say for sure that all of them do, especially given my own experience in the matter with my friend I spoke of earlier.

Better to let a hundred guilty go free than to put away even one innocent . . . Who's to say that they would have ever propositioned a child if they weren't tempted to do so? The fact that it would have been entrapment if the police had done it themselves should be reason enough for concern.

Besides, whether you agree with me or not (and I htink while most of America would agree with you, most of the world would probably agree with me), that's no excuse for a lurker spouting off his bigotry at me and his insults and such.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Given the fact that these stings have been used for years, are still being used, and that the arrests made haven't been overturned, it stands to reason that the courts say otherwise.

I know that. The system has flaws, that's obvious. I still refuse to go after people based on thought, especially since I'm against most "age of consent" laws to begin with. (That's a big deal to me, I think the age of consent is far too high in most places, and I believe that based on experience.)

Still no excuse for a lurker to hurl flames at me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I'm gonna answer your points in reverse here.

Originally Posted by Devo

If you keep using that logic NO STINGS at all would be admissable because the person doing the STING isn't in actuality what they're pretending to be.

Use a real child during the internet stings. It ain't rocket science. You aren't (usually) exposing them to anything they don't already know (for the most part). Why? A lot of teenagers have sex, that's why.

So why not use actual children? As soon as the suspect propositions for sex, it's time for the bust.

Originally Posted by Devo

I've already explained it's obviously not thought-crime when they're clearly messaging the "child" and acting as if the "child" exists. Just because it's not in actuality a minor, doesn't mean the predator will act differently based on his perceptions. The predator is still under the assumption what he's talking to is a child. If these stings mean less predators online, they're doing their job.

Like I said, I don't like the current age of consent laws to begin with. While I never had sex with anyone older when I was underage, I did lose my virginity at 16, and I have no regrets whatsoever. Sexually speaking, I've turned out fine, and I would venture to guess that most kids do. If a kid knows what he or she is doing when having sex with another minor, I don't see why it's so different if the partner is older. Makes no sense to me. As I said, my friend was the "predator" when she propositioned and seduced older guys; quite often she knew what she was doing more than the older men did! I know because I was there from the time we were 16, and she was very intelligent. She was just a free spirit, that's all.

Making blanket laws to "protect" groups of people that don't always need protecting just doesn't sit well with me.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Stings wherein female police officers are used to lure johns are highly publicised; I'd be shocked if the news stories haven't penetrated your thick nignog skull. If they were illegal, wouldn't they have been challenged by now?

If you knew anything about the law, you'd know that these things have been challenged based on the circumstances. If the female officer is asked directly if she is a police officer, she has to answer honestly or else the evidence is inadmissable. In addition to that, she can't be the one to make the proposition, the suspect does. If these two thigns aren't followed, it constitutes entrapment.

Originally Posted by russ

Last time I watched one of those Dateline/60 Minutes/whatever shows regarding their sting operation to catch predators, like three out of four of the guys who showed up at the "meeting" were convicted sex offenders. Maybe anyone who is against these stings should THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.

Like I said, I'm sure some of them deserve it, but these sex offenders should have never gotten out of prison to begin with! The exact crime, however, would also matter, and since you rarely get that specific information on these news programs, it's hard telling whether they're in one group or the other.

Originally Posted by a lurker

The solution is that you love child porn.

Listen, asshole, I've had just about enough of your mouth and your offensive behavior. I'm gonna warn you to cease your bullshit right now.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Devo

You're one sick and twisted individual you know that? If you seriously think a child should be subjected to such filth, you should lock yourself up and do us all a favor.

Filth? Like I said, I turned out fine, and so do most kids. I'm not talking about using 11-year-olds here! I'm talking about using older teens that are at least 15 or 16 and are already sexually active!

Originally Posted by Devo

So you're using yourself as an example of why consent laws are unncessary, yeah that makes sense, one individual totally should set the example for all laws.

You honestly think I'm the only one? At my high school, I think a majority of students were active by 16 or 17. Can't give you exact data or anything, but from being there, I can say it's a safe bet.

Originally Posted by Devo

And you're using your sex hungry slut of a friend as an example of why the stings are subjective.

Are you kidding me?

No, I'm serious. It shows that the "child" isn't always a victim. I would think that makes a big difference.

Originally Posted by a lurker

You want to expose children to child molestors.

Do you understand ethics?

"Children" that are 15 or 16 that are already sexually active aren't being "exposed" to anything.

Originally Posted by a lurker

(article)

Okay, so I was wrong about the specifics of entrapment. Sue me. I already said long ago that I'm not a police officer, just that I work in law enforcement. Contrary to popular belief, we don't all know everything about everything (that and I've only been doing my job for about a year). My area of work has nothing to do with busting hookers or arresting child molestors.

The point I made earlier, if you bothered to even read the posts, was that I disagreed with arresting people based on what they thought they were doing, when based upon lies in and of themselves. That and, even though you were right about "asking the cop", you still haven't managed to dispute what I said about the action having to actually be a crime. I don't see how propositioning an adault pretending to be a minor could be a crime, and if it is, it's a "thought-based" crime.

Oh, and your offensive language is really starting to piss me off, you arrogant piece of shit.

How ya doing, buddy?

Well when those convicted sex offenders could be 26-year-olds who got caught with 16-year-olds, then yeah, I'll defend them. I don't think it's right to make that a crime. Now a 40-year-old with a 10-year-old, that is a crime.

As for encouraging or discouraging sex, it's not that I think teens should be encouraged to have lots of sex, I just don't see any reason to discourage it, and I'm certainly against criminalizing it when we're talking about the 15-17 range.

As for your stats, here you go:

http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/uplo...Fact-Sheet.pdf

So it turns out that the number is actually 47% (just short of a majority) as of 2003, but when I entered high school in 1995, it was a majority. 47% is still pretty damn close to a majority, though, don't you think? This at least proves my point that there are plenty of sexually active teenagers.

I don't see any reason to discourage sexual activity. Instead, I think a bigger effort should be made to encourage safe sex.

Originally Posted by russ

HELLO, it isn't like these stings are catching fine, upstanding good Americans. They're catching people who are INTERESTED IN SLEEPING WITH MINORS. If they go to a meeting setup by law enforcement, then that tells me with 100% certainty that given the opportunity, they would meet with an actual minor. I'm sorry but could you please go back to ffshrine.

Like I said, I disagree with the age of consent laws. In fact, stats disagree with each other! States range from 15 all the way up to 18 for the age of consent; in addition, some states give different ages to boys and girls, and different ages to heterosexual relations and homosexual relations!

So you may see people interested in sleeping with minors, but there's a big difference between wanting to sleep with a 16-year-old minor versus wanting to sleep with a 10-year-old minor.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Except pedophiles. Additionally, what about children that are younger than that? Children cannot legally consent to these sorts of things, so they need permission slips from their parents. If no parents in the area are willing to allow their children to do this - how do you even advertise a need for this? - do you want the police to go without? What happens if the pedo in question wants to strike back against the child?

You haven't thought this out very far past your friend.

Just ask local parents or whatever. The identity of the child in question need never be revealed, so backlash is a moot point.

Originally Posted by a lurker

But I thought you knew about law. I guess I showed you.

Like all law enforcement, I know certain laws better than others. Specifically, those I deal with daily I tend to know better than those that are outside my jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by a lurker

You can be arrested for attempted murder. This is attempted statutory rape, among other things. Tell me the difference.

Gladly. You can't be arrested for "thinking" you want to murder someone, nor can you be arrested for "killing" a fictional character that doesn't exist. Just the same, how can you be punished for planning to have sex with a child that doesn't exist?

Honestly, I'd like to know the exact ages that are being portrayed. If we're talking 10-13, then fine, I would just drop it, but the thing is, the law in many states consider even 16 (and sometimes 17) to be too young, and I have a big problem with that.

Originally Posted by a lurker

You honestly believe sixteen year olds, frequently enough to be worth changing laws over, know more than 26 year olds.

What sort of bizarro world do you live in lady?

It's called the real world. Not that they know more, just that they know just as much.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a lurker

The rest of us are arguing that it is right, just and proper for pedophiles who proposition children on the internet are busted in hilarious Candid Camera-type scenarios, and you are getting defensive because you touched a peener when you were sixteen. These are different things. That you can't understand this is your problem.

No, I get defensive because I have heard of cases where a guy of 19 or 20 gets sent to prison for a decade for having sex with his girlfriend of 17! It happens, and it isn't right.

Originally Posted by Devo

No reason to discourage sexuality for minors? How about STDs, pregnancy, rape. Are you assuming minors should be exposed to this because a lot of them are anyway? What a shit reason. Lots of kids drink too, let's lower the alcohol age. And the smoking age.

STDs and pregnancy happen just as much after 18 as it does before. As for alcohol, I am in favor of lowering the age to probably 18 if not 16; if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to drink. I do believe in life sentences for drinking and driving, though.

As for smoking, I don't like that at any age, and second-hand smoke is a killer, so I love seeing cities that ban smoking in public. That's a much better use of resources.

Originally Posted by Devo

Let's lower the consent age and encourage this behavior of adults going for younger and younger teens! Have at it pedos! Go ahead manipulate 16 year olds into giving you blow jobs, just for you!

Are you retarded?

Now you need to post statistics. Who's to say the older one is manipulating the younger one in all these cases? Or even most of them?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

What does that have to do with predator-trolling on the internet?

Because it all boils down to statutory rape.

Originally Posted by Devo

And yet this has nothing to do with online pedophiles, also if a guy knows his girlfriend's parents have a hate boner for him, he should wait until she hits 18.

Why should they have to wait, if they both want it? Better to change the law to something a little more practical and logical.



I'm not saying we should let 30-year-olds mess around with 13-year-olds, I'm saying we need to be more practical and logical in lawmaking. It all boils down to the ridiculous statutory rape laws, which vary from state to state even (which in and of itself is wrong in my opinion, as someone used to one age of consent could be arrested for not knowing the age of consent upon moving, and most normal people wouldn't). My problem is with blanket laws that will hit the 30/13 difference as hard as it will hit the 21/17 difference. How do we know the subjects of these stings are in the former group and not the latter?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Devo

For someone who's supposedly involved in the law I'd think you'd know the difference between pedophilia (which is typically forced rape) and statutory rape.

Sadly, this also varies from state to state. Again, a problem in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Devo

Oh I don't know, because waiting doesn't make him a criminal.

Having sex with her shouldn't make him a criminal in the first place! Why enforce ridiculous laws instead of making the laws better?

Originally Posted by a lurker

You are the dumbest nigger in South Africa.

I tried but you kept being so dumb.

I'm done "discussing" things with you. Back the fuck off, asshole!

Originally Posted by russ

Yes but a 22 year old woman is a whole lot more prepared, both mentally and physically, to handle pregnancy, motherhood, and all of the responsibilities associated with this than a 15 year old. You can dispute this all you want, but you will be wasting your time, because it will be illogical.

Nope, I don't dispute that at all. I just think it's irrelevent. A rich person is more prepared to handle pregnancy than a poor person, too; should only the rich be allowed to have sex? Of course not! This is why I advocate safe sex.

EDIT: Why is it I'm being attacked and flamed for having the opinion that, basically, our society needs to be more open about sexuality?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by a lurker

You feel that sixteen years old is a fine time for children to be allowed to do whatever they want to do.

Thankfully, most of America still agrees with me on that.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Furthermore, you feel that planning and being in the process of executing a crime is mere thought crime.

No, I feel thinking you're doing one thing while actually doing another, and getting arrested for it, is thought crime.

Originally Posted by russ

Oh right, the readily available methods of having safe sex have 100% success rates, yeah I forgot.

There are no guarantees in life. That's no excuse to make sex illegal until 18 (as is the case in some states).

Originally Posted by a lurker

Also, you seem to think that you can argue whether a person comitted a crime or not, not based on any real law, but because you like the action and/or the person.

Do you have ADD or something? I said from the beginning that I'm against these laws because I feel they are punishing thought. That and I question the legality of the stings. Oh, and I'm morally against some aspects of these laws.

What you claim I've been doing and what I've been doing are two very different things.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I had a big post typed up to retaliate against a lurker, but I've decided to be the mature one here and not let it get out of control. Still, after that most recent post, I can't just walk away either.

It appears that a lurker has done a good job of skewing my words to make me look bad. That ends right now. I'm not against preventing rape. I know how horrible rape is. This debate isn't about forcible rape, though.

I'm against statutory rape laws. Stopping the guys that would go after actual kids (like young, up to like 13), I've got no problem with that. I just think there's a big gray area in the 15-18 range in some states that allows the law to put away normal people who may just happen to be breaking the law. I do think the legal age should be 15 or 16 nationwide (it already is 16 in many states), and that's a big part of my problem with these stings.

That and I'm heavily against luring based on false pretenses. It just seems dishonest to me, and I'm really big on honesty.

So to quote O'Reilly, "the spin stops here". People need to stop acting like I'm in favor of letting little kids loose with old men and start reading what I post in full. I'm against statutory rape and I'm against being dishonest to bust people. That is the bottom line of what I believe.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated. Talk about Bush suks, but this shit is absolutely objective, and no amount of niggerdom will change that.

Okay, fine by me. I won't say anything else about that in that case.

You did say something, though, that I feel the need to address, if anything to be informative . . .

Originally Posted by Bradylama

All rape is considered forced (otherwise it wouldn't be rape yuk durr).

This is not true, not by legal definition. This is something I do know, as I have dealt with people on both sides of the issue.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Statuotory rape is a default status that occurs when one of the parties is considered to be mentally incapable of providing consent.

Not quite. Statutory rape is when a person that is above the age of consent has sex with a person who is not above the age of consent. You can put in a search at Dogpile for "statutory rape", or just look at one of these links:

http://www.sexlaws.org/statrape.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmar...tutoryrape.htm

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

How many moderators have to tell you to drop the statutory rape subject?

He didn't say anything about the statutory rape subject. He said, and I quote: "Any further discussion about whether or not soliciting a perceived child is actually kid-diddling will not be tolerated." That's a different subject. The definition of statutory rape is something he just now brought up.

A better question is, why is it you're giving warning to me when I haven't even broken the rules, yet not given any warnings to a lurker despite his breaking several big rules continually in this thread? Rules are to be applied fairly across the board. Maybe I'd actually listen if you actually enforced the actual rules. I have yet to break any of the rules.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If an act of rape was consentual, then it wouldn't be rape.

As I said, that's not true. If a 19-year-old has consensual sex with his 17-year-old underage girlfriend (in states where the age of consent is 18), then it's still statutory rape. There was absolutely no force, but it's still statutory rape. Basically, there are two general categories of rape: forcible and statutory. Forcible rape is when you force or coerce or use threats to get sex from anyone, regardless of age; statutory rape is any consentual sex between an adult and a minor.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Go back to Africa you fucking Jiggaboo.

Okay, I've fucking had it. Now a "Moderator" is throwing racial slurs around? First off, you're as moronic as a lurker is because I'M NOT BLACK, which makes these racial slurs all the more retarded (but no less offensive). How did a racist bigot like you ever become a moderator anyway?

I would have shut up about this a long time ago if one of you guys had stepped in and stopped the attacks a lurker was throwing at me. If he doesn't have to follow the rules, then why should I? Sorry, I don't roll like that. Now Bradylama, I'm willing to drop this if you take back your attack and then actually enforce the rules as stated in the thread posted by Lord Styphon (which would mean warning a lurker and leaving me alone seeing as I haven't broken the rules). I simply refuse to get treated like shit just because I think differently and have a different lifestyle.

I will not tolerate the anti-homosexual comments or the racial slurs, not even from a moderator. I don't get intimidated so easily. I thought this was a place where friendly debate could occur, and I have been polite and nice throughout up until this point. Was I wrong? I will not play nice with racist bigots, regardless of how much power they have. Instead of hiding behind your power and joining the attacks, why don't you try participating in the discussion instead?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Dr. Uzuki

You have broken three, five, seven and eight.

EXCUSE ME?! Bush sucks, I know this, and I stated the reasoning why I think he sucked, and it's not my fault it went off on a tangent, so I didn't break 3. As for 5, I don't consider wanting equal protection under the rules to be ranting. For 7, I have never started any threads on gay marriage, and only mentioned it in a post because it had to do with what I thought about Bush (which made it on-topic); I was not trying to start some debate about it, and it hasn't been mentioned since! 8, I haven't broken, flat-out.

Originally Posted by Dr. Uzuki

Do you realize that the whole idea behind statutory rape is that people under a certain age are incapable of consent. Consensual statutory rape is an oxymoron. You are dumber than Jimmy Walker.

Read a law book. I know all about the damn rape laws, I've dealt with this shit plenty in my lifetime. Statutory rape is illegal consentual sex. I even provided links which showed this. Do I need to provide more links?

Here you go:

www.nphf.org/file_push.php?file_choice=45

Note the line that reads: "Juries sometimes do not accept statutory rape as a crime because it is consensual sex." On the right side of page 2 of that document. Am I the only one who can admit to being wrong around here (as I did about the "asking cops if they're cops" issue)?

Originally Posted by Dr. Uzuki

If you're finger pointing at lurker for have breaking rule 4, please make note of the phrase, "without provocation."

I never provoked him! I was polite throughout the entire thread and discussed things calmly and rationally. I never said anything remotely inflamatory toward him until he'd already provoked me multiple times over! So basically, either you didn't read the whole thread, or you're lying to cover each other! Please, show me where I started things and provoked him. I'd love to see this.

The first shot was fired in his post where he said "What this thread needed more of was lesbians!", followed by his post that read "What this thread needs more of are lesbians with attention-seeking issues. You are the dumbest nigger in Compton." Please, show me where I provoked him into saying these things. He's been attacking my sexual orientation and throwing racial slurs since back on page 2!

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by a lurker

You called me an asshole, and ignored pretty much everything I said that wasn't calling attention to your kinky hair.

My feelings were pretty hurt.

I called you an asshole after you had provoked me repeatedly over the course of like four posts.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Dr. Uzuki

You have provoked any intelligent person into verbally assaulting you by making outrageous suggestions, among them being that sexual predators can be the victims of their own attacks upon minors and that children should be put in harms way purposely by the authorities in order to catch pedophiles. Lurker particularly has reason to be upset because you have hijacked the thread she started.

I gave my opinion on the matter, and did so in a perfectly polite and reasonable manner. You have no place to say I provoked anyone just because of my beliefs. Hell, that defeats the entire purpose of debate!

Oh, and excuse me for not liking the idea of tricking people into thinking you're something you clearly aren't in order to catch criminals. I tend to take the direct approach myself when I deal with situations. Again, these are my opinions, my beliefs, and that's what discussion is all about.

Provoking entails attacking someone without just cause. If a lurker didn't want the subject to veer from "Bush is a crook" to "Bush sucks" (which is what your fellow mods have declared this topic to be), then instead of insulting me, she should have just ignored the comment and let it be, or politely ask to get back to her particular topic. She didn't do that. Instead, she responded by making personal attacks. How is that reasonable or justified in any way? Let's not forget that not a single moderator, or even admin Lord Styphon, made any attempt to go back to the "original" topic, and fully participated in the discussion.

Hell, I was going to take Lord Styphon's advice to just move on until a lurker posted yet more attacks directed toward me. Despite my having marked all of the offensive posts, no one said a word to her. The first actual warning, of any sort, came when Bradylama said not to talk about whether or not soliciting sex from a minor constitutes pedophilia, which I complied with. Still, he finished by posting partially incorrect information, and when I corrected it (and intended that to be the end of it), he comes back with, surprise surprise, verbal attacks of his own, despite my providing multiple links supporting what I said.

So am I just supposed to put up with such unprovoked attacks? Hell no, I refuse. When people attack me, I intend to respond. If people want me to shut up, they need to stop posting yet more attacks directed at me, plain and simple. All these racial slurs (ignorant in the incorrectness of them) and stabs at my lifestyle, I won't tolerate that kind of crap anymore.

How ya doing, buddy?