A 31 year old teacher married woman with children has been arrested for having sex with 4 teen age boys. Over the past 4 years there have been over 50 such cases of female teachers engaging in sex with under age boys that were also students. In some cases as young as 13.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/03/ex-teacher-mom-had-sex-with-4-special-education-students-cops-say.html
I ask:
Is this an epidemic?
Do the teachers think its okay?
Are they unaware of how much there life will suck if convicted and forced to register as a sex offender?
Does society as a whole think its not much of a crime if the boys just got lucky?
Why are woman preying on boys much younger?
It cuts both ways. Our just graduated woman English teacher, when we were Sophomores ... Ms Plessinger ... we all wanted to date her.
But no, a teacher has to be held to a higher standard than students.
These cases are always interesting because of the stereotype reversal involved. But it does happen, and I'm betting a surprising number never get reported.
QuoteDoes society as a whole think its not much of a crime if the boys just got lucky?
I think this is a large part of it, yes.
I honestly don't know where I fall on that spectrum, either. I personally don't find it overly weird for a high school boy to have sex with a sexy 20-something year old woman, but if the roles were reversed... actually, I still don't know how weird I would find it. But either way, it simply isn't appropriate.
I am too old and jealous to be objective about a 15-16 year old boy getting to fuck a hot teacher. Yeah...I am sure they are damaged.
Women can be predators, just like men can. It'll play out differently, but it's still a crime, and still an abuse of their power as teachers.
I'm curious if this is being reported more or is actually on the increase. Outside of school in most states having sex with a minor is statutory rape. In school its a matter of trust, a teacher has greater authority and can use that to unduly persuade minors.
The question is why are woman risking their livelihood and possible jail time to have a sexual relationship with under age boys? Is it a control thing? Does a woman feel very superior when she can have a young man under her thumb so to speak?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 05, 2017, 11:30:41 AM
I'm curious if this is being reported more or is actually on the increase. Outside of school in most states having sex with a minor is statutory rape. In school its a matter of trust, a teacher has greater authority and can use that to unduly persuade minors.
The question is why are woman risking their livelihood and possible jail time to have a sexual relationship with under age boys? Is it a control thing? Does a woman feel very superior when she can have a young man under her thumb so to speak?
Can't speak for women. But I think people in general, in the West, are becoming anarchist. So counsel with your emotions, not your thoughts ... and do whatever feels good. That isn't a mature position. Figure out what is right, and do that. And if you like to do what is wrong, or don't like doing what is right, then you are in need of counseling, not liberation.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 05, 2017, 11:30:41 AM
I'm curious if this is being reported more or is actually on the increase. Outside of school in most states having sex with a minor is statutory rape. In school its a matter of trust, a teacher has greater authority and can use that to unduly persuade minors.
The question is why are woman risking their livelihood and possible jail time to have a sexual relationship with under age boys? Is it a control thing? Does a woman feel very superior when she can have a young man under her thumb so to speak?
Why would a male teacher do The same to a student? Some people are attracted to or even fall in love with someone they shouldn't. The answer, i think, is in many cases psychological. But that doesn't mean you'll find a sensible explanation in many cases. I would like it that we knew why pedophiles are The way they are. So we can help them stop being that. But I don't think there will ever be 'one definite' answer to that question. Just be glad you can't fathom The attraction.
Certainly a 17 year old girl is a wonder to behold ... almost all of them are. It is biology. But you have to have self discipline, or society will have to provide the discipline for you. For me, when I see a young woman, I see a potential daughter or grand-daughter ... in another life. Don't stare, and don't touch!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 05, 2017, 11:30:41 AM
The question is why are woman risking their livelihood and possible jail time to have a sexual relationship with under age boys? Is it a control thing? Does a woman feel very superior when she can have a young man under her thumb so to speak?
I think it's more complicated than that. At least there are a wide range of causes. People, including women, sometimes use incredibly poor judgment and do serious harm to themselves. Throw sex into the mix, and the frequency of poor judgment goes up.
QuoteCertainly a 17 year old girl is a wonder to behold...
Ew. No. Girls under 20 (26 here) look like little kids, and that's not generally what gets me in the mood...
Quote from: Shiranu on August 05, 2017, 07:29:15 PM
Ew. No. Girls under 20 (26 here) look like little kids, and that's not generally what gets me in the mood...
Wonder, not attraction. Synonyms are your friends. Female models are 17 year olds, made up to look a little older.
"Epidemic"? 50/330,000,000?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 06, 2017, 02:44:15 AM
"Epidemic"? 50/330,000,000?
Minors or either gender should be protected from sexual predation. A gradual learning process among peers is best.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 03:56:51 AM
Minors or either gender should be protected from sexual predation. A gradual learning process among peers is best.
Didn't say otherwise.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 06, 2017, 02:44:15 AM
"Epidemic"? 50/330,000,000?
Snowflake standard ... 1 event is 1,000,000 too many. But they are innumerate, not innumerable.
I can't say enough about the first "petting party" I was invited to. Really learned a lot. Two girl scouts decided I (a boy scout in the same church - of all places for me to be) was the right guy to invite. Wow, boobies!!!
Looking back 50+ years, it was real exciting. Like being the nerd guy in Robot Chicken... Yes, I did grow up eventually. But at 14, that was great then.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 11:11:49 AM
I can't say enough about the first "petting party" I was invited to. Looking back 50+ years, it was real exciting. Like being the nerd guy in Robot Chicken... Yes, I did grow up eventually. But at 14, that was great then.
Somewhere around the 8th grade, a friend had a New Years Eve party, and in addition to a couple of local girls, he invited a pair of attractive cousins or some kind of distant relatives, from out of town. One of my friends got one, and I ended up with the other sharing a recliner, where we made out for three hours. I tried to touch her breasts all the while, but she kept pushing my hand away. After midnight, the other guy and I were sharing the bathroom peeing, and we talked about our adventures. He said, "Man! That chick could really French kiss." I inquired, "What's a French Kiss?" And he told me it was touching tongues while kissing. Whoo hoo! I thought he must have gotten the hot one of the pair, but I will always remember that first make out. I was high for a couple of days.
It's all relative.
Young males are all testosterone ... that is why I keep my daughter in a convent ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2017, 12:38:56 PM
Young males are all testosterone...
Yeah, but all it was good for was getting frustrated.
Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2017, 12:43:22 PM
Yeah, but all it was good for was getting frustrated.
Depends on if you found a partner, a necessary complication. Playboy magazines for me, and she can't reject you.
Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2017, 12:34:10 PM
Somewhere around the 8th grade, a friend had a New Years Eve party, and in addition to a couple of local girls, he invited a pair of attractive cousins or some kind of distant relatives, from out of town. One of my friends got one, and I ended up with the other sharing a recliner, where we made out for three hours. I tried to touch her breasts all the while, but she kept pushing my hand away. After midnight, the other guy and I were sharing the bathroom peeing, and we talked about our adventures. He said, "Man! That chick could really French kiss." I inquired, "What's a French Kiss?" And he told me it was touching tongues while kissing. Whoo hoo! I thought he must have gotten the hot one of the pair, but I will always remember that first make out. I was high for a couple of days.
It's all relative.
I loved your mild censorship of my post, LOL! It's OK, I understand. ;)
"Boobies"! (Just had to bring that back)
But everyone goes through those awkward learning experiences. Well, if they are lucky. I won't go further unless the thread demands it.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 01:07:37 PM
I loved your mild censorship of my post, LOL! It's OK, I understand. ;)
"Boobies"! (Just had to bring that back)
But everyone goes through those awkward learning experiences. Well, if they are lucky. I won't go further unless the thread demands it.
You never know where these threads will lead. From predatory female teachers to making out with 13 year old hotties with boobies.
Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2017, 03:14:31 PM
You never know where these threads will lead. From predatory female teachers to making out with 13 year old hotties with boobies.
Yes. Indeed we should stick to esoteric and analytic subjects.
But "BOOBIES".
OK, I'm done... LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 03:22:13 PM
Yes. Indeed we should stick to esoteric and analytic subjects.
But "BOOBIES".
OK, I'm done... LOL!
Boobies that stick, are fakes.
I think I know why this is happening far more frequently....
Young teachers coming out of mostly liberal colleges aren't taught to be authoritarians or disciplinarians and least of all moralizers...that's old school. Today I suspect teachers are taught to be more like peers with their students rather than teachers. I'm guessing sexual banter is tolerated far more and teachers may even think its a teachable moment and if a teacher is told she's hot or if a student confesses to fantasizing about a teacher they're not going to draw a line in the sand and say that's unacceptable. So instead of being a teacher and an authority they become friends and even peers with their students. They like being thought of as a 'cool' teacher. I don't recall too many of them being remorseful (other than for being punished). They don't think they did anything really wrong...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 07, 2017, 10:35:25 PM
I think I know why this is happening far more frequently....
Young teachers coming out of mostly liberal colleges aren't taught to be authoritarians or disciplinarians and least of all moralizers..
Jesus--you are just such a stupid thinker on any subject you touch on, aren't you? Are you related to Pat Robertson? You are, aren't you.............................!!!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 07, 2017, 10:35:25 PM
I think I know why this is happening far more frequently....
You have the numbers to back that up? Not saying it's not happening more frequently, just saying you need the numbers before you have a valid reason to believe it is.
Only then start looking for a hypothesis as to
why it is.
QuoteSo instead of being a teacher and an authority they become friends and even peers with their students.
I can only speak from personal experience, but I learned far more in classes where i was treated like a human being than in classes where the info was beat into your head or you fail. There is certainly a line, and sex with your students is probably a few too many steps past that, but there is nothing wrong with teacher's acting like someone you can relate to rather than someone there to only drill information into your skull and nothing else.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 07, 2017, 10:35:25 PM
Today I suspect teachers are taught to be more like peers...
I'm guessing sexual banter is tolerated...
I don't recall too many of them being remorseful...
Suspecting... guessing... not recalling...
I'm suspecting you don't actually know what you are talking about,
Guessing you have no supporting facts.
And I can't recall you ever contributing anything useful.
QuoteOver the past 4 years there have been over 50 such cases of female teachers engaging in sex with under age boys that were also students.
So, 12.5 teachers, average, over the last four years. Out of 330,000,000 people.
"Far more frequently..."
Quote from: SGOS on August 08, 2017, 05:36:56 AM
Suspecting... guessing... not recalling...
I'm suspecting you don't actually know what you are talking about,
Guessing you have no supporting facts.
And I can't recall you ever contributing anything useful.
That makes you a moron for responding doesn't it?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 07, 2017, 10:43:20 PM
Jesus--you are just such a stupid thinker on any subject you touch on, aren't you? Are you related to Pat Robertson? You are, aren't you.............................!!!
I'm prepared to be amazed and in awe of your opinion why this is occurring do you have one?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 08, 2017, 01:17:02 AM
You have the numbers to back that up? Not saying it's not happening more frequently, just saying you need the numbers before you have a valid reason to believe it is.
Only then start looking for a hypothesis as to why it is.
If we are just becoming aware of what's been always going on its still shocking isn't it? My hypothesis is intuitive surmise but I haven't heard any better explanations...have you?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 07, 2017, 10:35:25 PM
I think I know why this is happening far more frequently....
Young teachers coming out of mostly liberal colleges aren't taught to be authoritarians or disciplinarians and least of all moralizers...that's old school. Today I suspect teachers are taught to be more like peers with their students rather than teachers. I'm guessing sexual banter is tolerated far more and teachers may even think its a teachable moment and if a teacher is told she's hot or if a student confesses to fantasizing about a teacher they're not going to draw a line in the sand and say that's unacceptable. So instead of being a teacher and an authority they become friends and even peers with their students. They like being thought of as a 'cool' teacher. I don't recall too many of them being remorseful (other than for being punished). They don't think they did anything really wrong...
You just can't give up of "liberal" can you? If you had a crush on female teacher, it had to be because she was "liberal"? Maybe she was just there every day and your FANTASIES were involved. That's actually normal. Don't be embarrassed about it.
But don't try to explain it away because she was a "liberal". LOL!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 09, 2017, 12:08:22 AM
If we are just becoming aware of what's been always going on its still shocking isn't it? My hypothesis is intuitive surmise but I haven't heard any better explanations...have you?
I think most of us have been aware that if you play with large enough numbers, this is bound to happen. Doesn't make it less bad, but not shocking. No.
In case you hadn't noticed: Some people are pedophiles. It sucks, but it's true. Your explanation is an attempt at explaining a phenomenon you don't show exists: a rise in the amount of pedophiles (in one profession and of one gender). There is nothing to hypothesize about until you show it. So why would any of us put forth an explanation of our own?
Either show there is a rise, or keep your accusing hypothesis to yourself.
Seriously, It would be like me trying to give an explanation as to why relatively more serial killers are white people without first showing you evidence to back up this nonsense claim.
There are pedo's out there. There are serial killers. But without proven disproportions, don't assume those disproportions exist and definitely don't think you can or should explain them.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 09, 2017, 12:08:22 AM
If we are just becoming aware of what's been always going on its still shocking isn't it? My hypothesis is intuitive surmise but I haven't heard any better explanations...have you?
I will give you one. Proportions of abnormal behavior are pretty steady in populations. But thanks to the Internet, an electronic megaphone of bad news (all news is bad) ... you hear more about people's poor judgement than we would in 1967.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 09, 2017, 02:11:59 AM
I think most of us have been aware that if you play with large enough numbers, this is bound to happen. Doesn't make it less bad, but not shocking. No.
In case you hadn't noticed: Some people are pedophiles. It sucks, but it's true. Your explanation is an attempt at explaining a phenomenon you don't show exists: a rise in the amount of pedophiles (in one profession and of one gender). There is nothing to hypothesize about until you show it. So why would any of us put forth an explanation of our own?
Either show there is a rise, or keep your accusing hypothesis to yourself.
Seriously, It would be like me trying to give an explanation as to why relatively more serial killers are white people without first showing you evidence to back up this nonsense claim.
There are pedo's out there. There are serial killers. But without proven disproportions, don't assume those disproportions exist and definitely don't think you can or should explain them.
Drew can't show a rise where none exists, but that won't stop him. It's ideological.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 09, 2017, 01:32:16 AM
You just can't give up on "liberal" can you?
Don't you people get it? Everything that's wrong is because of the liberals. IT'S THE FUCKING LIBERALS, GOD DAMIT!!! You people make me so mad, I just want to scream. OK,... I'm OK... I'm collecting myself here,... so let me explain. You people can't see that the liberals are causing society to suck, but I do. It's as plain on the nose on your face. You would have to Be BLinD not to SeE tHAT IT'S THE LIBERAL FUCKING LIBERALS. GHAAAAA!!!
I will take that as satire...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 09, 2017, 01:32:16 AM
You just can't give up of "liberal" can you? If you had a crush on female teacher, it had to be because she was "liberal"? Maybe she was just there every day and your FANTASIES were involved. That's actually normal. Don't be embarrassed about it.
But don't try to explain it away because she was a "liberal". LOL!
Colleges have become predominantly liberal, the teaching profession in particular to indoctrinate students. Moral relativism is a hallmark of liberal ideology. Gender itself is relative. The very notion there is real right or real wrong is challenged by liberalism.
Still waiting for anyone's better counter explanation.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 09, 2017, 07:48:16 PM
Colleges have become predominantly liberal, the teaching profession in particular to indoctrinate students. Moral relativism is a hallmark of liberal ideology. Gender itself is relative. The very notion there is real right or real wrong is challenged by liberalism.
Still waiting for anyone's better counter explanation.
Cultural Marxists ... not liberals. Nothing liberal about Marxists. But you are about 50 years too late. Did you sleep thru study hall?
Quote from: Baruch on August 09, 2017, 08:24:56 PM
Cultural Marxists ... not liberals. Nothing liberal about Marxists. But you are about 50 years too late. Did you sleep thru study hall?
I went to school in NJ. I spent a lot of my time avoiding getting beat up.
I wish I was molested by a hot teacher when I was a teen
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 09, 2017, 07:48:16 PM
Colleges have become predominantly liberal, the teaching profession in particular to indoctrinate students.
Liberal in the sense of left of Hannity? Perhaps. I mean, prioritizing education in itself (with the implication that education is a way to better a community) might be considered a radical leftist idea in some circles.
But colleges as super liberal institutions? Haha, no.
QuoteMoral relativism is a hallmark of liberal ideology.
I'm pretty sure Sam Harris and others would disagree with you there.
QuoteGender itself is relative.
Not touching that with a 10ft pole.
QuoteThe very notion there is real right or real wrong is challenged by liberalism.
Absolutely wrong. So wrong, in fact, that it actually makes me feel bad for you.
QuoteStill waiting for anyone's better counter explanation.
Don't shift the burden of proof just because you jumped to conclusions and couldn't back it up. And btw, we've seen that tactic from you before. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 10, 2017, 03:38:43 PM
But colleges as super liberal institutions? Haha, no.
I didn't say super liberal institutions I said predominantly liberal. Not all colleges but most.
The very notion there is real right or real wrong is challenged by liberalism.QuoteAbsolutely wrong. So wrong, in fact, that it actually makes me feel bad for you.
This should be good I'm happy I'm wrong because I too believe certain moral acts are truly wrong. Name a few acts you think are truly wrong (apart from anyone's opinion) and what makes them absolutely wrong even if no one thinks they are wrong?
QuoteDon't shift the burden of proof just because you jumped to conclusions and couldn't back it up. And btw, we've seen that tactic from you before. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now.
And I've seen the complain and whine about what I say while offering nothing better innumerable times. Instead just the usual case of extreme flatulence and when the gas clears no substance...just empty rhetoric.
Blah, blah, blah.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 10, 2017, 07:38:27 PM
just the usual case of extreme flatulence and when the gas clears no substance...just empty rhetoric.
That does describe you to a T--smack on the money. AND your are very consistent!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 10, 2017, 07:38:27 PMI didn't say super liberal institutions I said predominantly liberal. Not all colleges but most.
They reflect their surroundings and colleges tend to be near cities, so maybe slightly more liberal than the general public. But there's lots of variation, going to Berkley is a pretty different experience than going to Liberty University.
On average, I'd say that colleges are predominantly neither particularly liberal nor conservative. But they're a frequent topic of scaremongering among conservative circles (a favorite pastime), so naturally they're demonized as liberal brainwashing camps.
QuoteThis should be good I'm happy I'm wrong because I too believe certain moral acts are truly wrong. Name a few acts you think are truly wrong (apart from anyone's opinion) and what makes them absolutely wrong even if no one thinks they are wrong?
Really? We're playing the "but that's just your opinion, gotcha libtard" game now? Do you really think I'm going to bite?
But to answer your inquiry as if it were genuine, I lean pretty heavily on the harm principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle). (Notice how it's part of the liberalism series. Liberals having some sort of ethical framework, whodathunkit?) So I consider serious bodily harm and deprivation of liberty to be serious ethical no-nos unless there's a solid justification for it (like throwing a killer in jail because he's a threat to the wellbeing of others). Victimless crimes, like violating blue laws or recreational drug use, are not regarded as ethically "bad", but can become a problematic behavior.
QuoteAnd I've seen the complain and whine about what I say while offering nothing better innumerable times. Instead just the usual case of extreme flatulence and when the gas clears no substance...just empty rhetoric.
Was that meant to be sarcastic or ironic? I'm not sure if you're attempting to satirize conservatives.
In other news. A judge here in Alabama dismissed the charges against a female teacher accused of having sex with two 16-year-old male students. 16 is the age of consent in Alabama. The judge said the Alabama law that makes it illegal for teachers to have sex with their students is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and declared it unconstitutional. The reasoning there is you can't make something that is legal for everyone else illegal for someone because of their job.
Oh, and Alabama judges are elected. I doubt this one is a liberal.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 11, 2017, 07:52:40 AM
Oh, and Alabama judges are elected. I doubt this one is a liberal.
Always good to check on that. Red states aren't 100% red, same-same blues. And a really good lawyer can become a judge despite his politics. Just sayin'.
In other news one county in Missouri doesn't have enough people interested in the job to make up the County Commission. ;-)
Colleges are liberal because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Colleges are where smart and knowledgeable people hang out and study complex subjects. Of course they're liberal.
Quote from: Atheon on August 11, 2017, 10:18:09 AM
Colleges are liberal because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Colleges are where smart and knowledgeable people hang out and study complex subjects. Of course they're liberal.
Or drunk, or full of themselves, or bored/spoiled. YMMV
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 11, 2017, 09:27:20 AM
Always good to check on that. Red states aren't 100% red, same-same blues. And a really good lawyer can become a judge despite his politics. Just sayin'.
Judge Thompson holds court in the next county over from here. He campaigns as a democrat but definitely a blue dog.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3240/5871016669_fcab608a55_b.jpg)
"Blue dog"?
Quote from: Atheon on August 11, 2017, 10:18:09 AM
Colleges are liberal because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Colleges are where smart and knowledgeable people hang out and study complex subjects. Of course they're liberal.
Eh, I've had a fair number of conservative professors. One of them is absolutely brilliant when it comes to computer science but drowned in the Trump koolaid. He teaches class with a MAGA hat on, lol.
Someone who's very knowledgeable in one subject isn't necessary smart in other subjects.
Atheon likes to trigger anyone to the Right of Lenin ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 11, 2017, 11:29:10 AM
"Blue dog"?
Blue Dog Democrat. AKA a Democrat In Name Only (DINO). The republican version would be a RINO.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 11, 2017, 01:55:19 PM
Blue Dog Democrat. AKA a Democrat In Name Only (DINO). The republican version would be a RINO.
Also, it's a word play on "Yellow Dog Democrat."
Hydra009,
QuoteReally? We're playing the "but that's just your opinion, gotcha libtard" game now? Do you really think I'm going to bite?
You bit yourself by claiming there are real rights and wrongs as opposed to mere opinions and as expected dodging the question.
This should be good I'm happy I'm wrong because I too believe certain moral acts are truly wrong. Name a few acts you think are truly wrong (apart from anyone's opinion) and what makes them absolutely wrong even if no one thinks they are wrong?QuoteBut to answer your inquiry as if it were genuine, I lean pretty heavily on the harm principle.
This is a guiding principal you've elected for yourself but its not binding to anyone else and if others wish to live by some other code so be it even if it violates the code you've chosen for yourself. So explain how this means somethings are really wrong? If something is really wrong then it doesn't matter whether you believe its wrong or not, true? In your world view (correct me if wrong) humans alone or collectively decide whats good or bad and what might be good today maybe bad tomorrow.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 11, 2017, 07:52:40 AM
In other news. A judge here in Alabama dismissed the charges against a female teacher accused of having sex with two 16-year-old male students. 16 is the age of consent in Alabama. The judge said the Alabama law that makes it illegal for teachers to have sex with their students is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and declared it unconstitutional. The reasoning there is you can't make something that is legal for everyone else illegal for someone because of their job.
Oh, and Alabama judges are elected. I doubt this one is a liberal.
You might be right because conservative judges tend to make rulings based on how the law was written and not how they might wish it was written or how they think the crafter of the law intended. I agree with the ruling in this case because the students were other wise of age and she wasn't a teacher over them. I bet it would have been a harder call if the teacher was a 44 year old male and the girl a 16 year old.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 11, 2017, 07:45:55 PMSo explain how this means somethings are really wrong?
Haha, called it. The same ol' tired talking points that one can spot a mile away. I dunno why I would expect anything else.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 11, 2017, 08:01:01 PM
Haha, called it. The same ol' tired talking points that one can spot a mile away. I dunno why I would expect anything else.
You saw the dog shit yet stepped your foot right in it when you claimed there are real rights and wrongs.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 11, 2017, 10:26:23 PM
You saw the dog shit yet stepped your foot right in it when you claimed there are real rights and wrongs.
lol. Great job admitting to engaging in disingenuous rhetoric. I'm sure it'll do wonders for your flagging credibility.
Quote from: 0bserver on August 10, 2017, 03:04:08 PM
I wish I was molested by a hot teacher when I was a teen
Some teen's dreams, but mostly not beneficial for growing up normally.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2017, 03:37:30 AM
Some teen's dreams, but mostly not beneficial for growing up normally.
Better than wanting to bed your mother, eh Oedipus? ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2017, 09:01:49 AM
Better than wanting to bed your mother, eh Oedipus? ;-)
During puberty, I had a one time dream that I was having instructional sex with my mother. Freud would have loved it. I just thought it was weird. I decided not to tell my friends about it.
Quote from: SGOS on August 11, 2017, 05:18:19 PM
Also, it's a word play on "Yellow Dog Democrat."
And that means...
Quote from: SGOS on August 12, 2017, 09:28:02 AM
During puberty, I had a one time dream that I was having instructional sex with my mother. Freud would have loved it. I just thought it was weird. I decided not to tell my friends about it.
Freud would have said there were reasons we want to marry women like our mothers. I think it is just part of growing up. We just find mates that fit our culture usually. Not much "mom" about it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 12, 2017, 09:31:22 AM
And that means...
Quoteyel·low dog
noun, adjective: yellow dog Democrat
2. a person who is inclined to support any candidate affiliated with the Democratic party, regardless of the candidate's personal qualities or political qualifications.
"he is a self-proclaimed yellow dog Democrat"
I've been told the origin of that expression came from some political person that publicly stated once, "I would vote for any Democrat, even if it was a yellow dog." I wouldn't make too much of a play on words. I suppose a blue dog Democrat would be a conservative that ran on the Democratic ticket, because it was the best way to win an election. Or you can make up your own definition.
Humans never fail to amuse me.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 03, 2017, 06:35:52 PM
I ask:
Is this an epidemic?
Do the teachers think its okay?
Are they unaware of how much there life will suck if convicted and forced to register as a sex offender?
Does society as a whole think its not much of a crime if the boys just got lucky?
Why are woman preying on boys much younger?
No.
Depends which ones you ask, but for the most part I'm going to say no.
Yes.
Yes.
They aren't, it's just reported more.
Quote from: SGOS on August 12, 2017, 09:51:52 AM
I've been told the origin of that expression came from some political person that publicly stated once, "I would vote for any Democrat, even if it was a yellow dog." I wouldn't make too much of a play on words. I suppose a blue dog Democrat would be a conservative that ran on the Democratic ticket, because it was the best way to win an election. Or you can make up your own definition.
The #*$&%^ Clintons are blue dogs.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 11, 2017, 11:21:04 PM
lol. Great job admitting to engaging in disingenuous rhetoric. I'm sure it'll do wonders for your flagging credibility.
I called you out on your statement that there are real right and wrong moral actions nothing more. You responded by substituting your opinion as expected.
Male High School teachers are called out on it more, but I know female younger teachers understand the attraction too. I dated a few in my 30s and they always mentioned it (preferring older guys in response I think.
But ah Ms Williams my 11th grade English teacher... Fortunately, she married the 12th grade English teacher, so that got resolved rather officially. LOL!.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 12, 2017, 02:46:48 PM
I called you out on your statement that there are real right and wrong moral actions nothing more. You responded by substituting your opinion as expected.
I know you were 'calling Hydra 'out''--where were you going to take him--to his favorite diner? Anyway, there are real right and wrong actions. But they are not handed down from above or spelled out in any religious text. They are determined by whatever society one is referring to and they are called 'laws'. None are forever or universal. They evolve with each society.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 12, 2017, 03:41:35 PM
I know you were 'calling Hydra 'out''--where were you going to take him--to his favorite diner? Anyway, there are real right and wrong actions. But they are not handed down from above or spelled out in any religious text. They are determined by whatever society one is referring to and they are called 'laws'. None are forever or universal. They evolve with each society.
Nice. A point I try to get at sometimes. Religious texts claim to PROSCRIBE civil ethics when, in fact, they REFLECT civil ethics that are already working for a town or culture. IOW, religious texts describe what is already successful in a society, meaning that they are, at best, more a codification than a set of revelations.
And when a religion is merely codifying functional working practices, the whole theistic backup is merely an afterthought by organized societal leeches.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2017, 03:56:02 PM
Religious texts claim to PROSCRIBE civil ethics when, in fact, they REFLECT civil ethics that are already working for a town or culture.
I like that--great way to put it!
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 12, 2017, 05:37:28 PM
I like that--great way to put it!
Thank you. Its my best argument when I read that religion PROVIDES ethics.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2017, 05:41:10 PM
Thank you. Its my best argument when I read that religion PROVIDES ethics.
Yeah, and I'll rip off the way you put it and use it too. :))
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 12, 2017, 05:46:27 PM
Yeah, and I'll rip off the way you put it and use it too. :))
Share and share alike. Any good argument is worth spreading.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 12, 2017, 03:41:35 PM
. They are determined by whatever society one is referring to and they are called 'laws'. None are forever or universal. They evolve with each society.
The Holocaust in Germany 'evolved' under Hitler was perfectly legal and was consummated by the man in power and much of the population (society) was in favor. Based on your premise there was nothing wrong with the final solution correct?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 12, 2017, 11:03:43 PM
The Holocaust in Germany 'evolved' under Hitler was perfectly legal and was consummated by the man in power and much of the population (society) was in favor. Based on your premise there was nothing wrong with the final solution correct?
I think Mike is just being descriptive, not proscriptive. Most people here have a problem with anything other than Libertinism.
And Germany's example is another instance of the law being blind and an ass. A legal system on average reflects the culture it is in, see Sharia for instance. Germany had problems ... and probably still does. Not that American culture is anything to write home about.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 12, 2017, 11:03:43 PM
The Holocaust in Germany 'evolved' under Hitler was perfectly legal and was consummated by the man in power and much of the population (society) was in favor. Based on your premise there was nothing wrong with the final solution correct?
At least you are right about one thing--Hitler's Germany did evolve it's own set of right and wrongs. Those were codified. Is the final solution 'wrong'? Depends upon who you ask. Ask Hitler and it was not only not wrong, but morally necessary. If you ask me, not only is it 'wrong', it is horridly wrong and ethically wrong. What about you? Sparta said it was morally correct to bash a deformed babies head to kill it. Morals are not static; are not given to us from above--they are grown by societies. Just because a particular society suggests a certain action is morally right or wrong, does not make it so in my eyes. But it does in their eyes. For you, where do morals come from.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 13, 2017, 12:41:51 AM
At least you are right about one thing--Hitler's Germany did evolve it's own set of right and wrongs. Those were codified. Is the final solution 'wrong'? Depends upon who you ask. Ask Hitler and it was not only not wrong, but morally necessary. If you ask me, not only is it 'wrong', it is horridly wrong and ethically wrong. What about you? Sparta said it was morally correct to bash a deformed babies head to kill it. Morals are not static; are not given to us from above--they are grown by societies. Just because a particular society suggests a certain action is morally right or wrong, does not make it so in my eyes. But it does in their eyes. For you, where do morals come from.
I'm pleased your response is consistent with the statement you made earlier. Some folks express your belief but then contradict themselves when it comes to something as horrific as the Holocaust. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) when you say the Holocaust was wrong, you mean it would be wrong if you did it because it would violate your sense of morality but you acknowledge that the Nazi's have their own set of equally valid ethics therefore it would be wrong to intervene and stop the Nazi's from exterminating the Jews since they believed it was morally right and there are no real morally wrong or morally right actions.
However this underscores the problem with a system of ethics based on what folks individually or collectively think is right (or wrong) at anytime. It would be like attempting to navigate somewhere yet saying any direction picked is as equally good as any other. Fortunately I can't think of any place this system of ethics is practiced. As a society when we catch someone stealing, maiming, raping, practicing pedophilia we don't care if the person practicing such deeds thinks it wrong or not. The defense I didn't think there was anything wrong with raping that woman (it made me feel good) never works. Whether true or not (that they're real rights and wrongs) we act like they're are.
My moral values are derived from philosophical theism just as rights in the USA are derived...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â€"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Rather than ground ethics based on individual or collective opinion in a Creator we have an external source that is beyond mere opinion. In theism the universe was created intentionally for human existence therefore humanity is special and is warranted special sanctions. In the Gettysburg address Lincoln pontificated on this principal.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The argument against slavery is that it was an offense not just to fellow men, but to God our Creator therefore it didn't matter if in the south there was nothing wrong with slavery in their minds. Same holds true for the Nazi's. They were exterminating fellow men. At one time slavery was legal because the supreme court ruled that blacks were sub-human (just as the Jews were to Nazi's) therefore weren't entitled to equal protection. They erred in their ruling just as in my opinion they erred when ruling unborn children are sub-human and therefore legal to terminate.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 13, 2017, 04:07:11 PM
However this underscores the problem with a system of ethics based on what folks individually or collectively think is right (or wrong) at anytime. It would be like attempting to navigate somewhere yet saying any direction picked is as equally good as any other.
As in any other subject you remark about or bring up, you are simply wrong headed. Whether or not you like it or approve of it, the society in which you live has a codified set of ethics--the written laws of the land. You can disagree, and with a great deal of effort and usually time, you can get a part of those ethics amended. And that body of law does not care what you think of it--all legal decisions are based on that set of laws. And you have (as does everybody else) have a personal set of ethics that you have determined for yourself. I would think your ethics do not 100% match the countries written law code.
Trying to attach a universal ethical/moral code, delivered by a fictional 'creator' (all creators are fictional) does not work. Slavery was defended and attacked by christians, using the same 'written word of god'. So much for that. The constitution suggested that all men were created equal. Yet the system that was set up put that statement to the lie. The only 'equal' part of society was the landed white male. 'Colored' people of both sexes, any female, and unlanded white males, were not 'equal'. So much for creator endowed ethics.
No culture in history has been clean of cruelty to those unlike them. Everyone sees ways to dislke everyone else. Some cultures become ascendent and define "Proper". Some fail and aren't for a while.
But we are all Homo Sapiens and capable of the same things.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 14, 2017, 01:00:33 AM
But we are all Homo Sapiens and capable of the same things.
Sorry, I can't eat balut.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 13, 2017, 09:35:16 PM
As in any other subject you remark about or bring up, you are simply wrong headed. Whether or not you like it or approve of it, the society in which you live has a codified set of ethics--the written laws of the land. You can disagree, and with a great deal of effort and usually time, you can get a part of those ethics amended. And that body of law does not care what you think of it--all legal decisions are based on that set of laws. And you have (as does everybody else) have a personal set of ethics that you have determined for yourself. I would think your ethics do not 100% match the countries written law code.
Mike, according to your philosophy of ethics all ethics are equally valid and made up by people's opinion of what is right or wrong therefore the Holocaust though despicable was nonetheless ethical from your point of view because the Germans decided that Jews were sub-human and codified that belief. Yet you say my basis of ethics is wrong headed. From my philosophical point of view there are real rights and wrongs regardless of opinion. It wasn't only wrong for the Nazi's to exterminate the Jews it was an evil act . You condemn the act while approving of it. Whether you agree or not, if you live in the USA the very notion of our government is theistic-ally based.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â€"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...QuoteTrying to attach a universal ethical/moral code, delivered by a fictional 'creator' (all creators are fictional) does not work.
Its been working in the USA for over 200 years whether you like it or not. Regardless of the sincerity of your faith there is no Creator you don't know that to be true you just pretend its a fact.
Funny how in all the thousands of years since people invented gods they haven't come up with any proof for them.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 14, 2017, 02:43:51 PM
Mike, according to your philosophy of ethics all ethics are equally valid and made up by people's opinion of what is right or wrong therefore the Holocaust though despicable was nonetheless ethical from your point of view because the Germans decided that Jews were sub-human and codified that belief. Yet you say my basis of ethics is wrong headed. From my philosophical point of view there are real rights and wrongs regardless of opinion. It wasn't only wrong for the Nazi's to exterminate the Jews it was an evil act . You condemn the act while approving of it. Whether you agree or not, if you live in the USA the very notion of our government is theistic-ally based.
Where or when did I say all ethics are equally valid? The holocaust was not ethical from 'my point of view' (I did not tell what that was), but from the society that created it, it was ethical. Many societies have made evil acts ethical according to that societies standards. I'm not going to take the time or effort to look them up and list for you--you can google as well as anybody else. From my point of view the holocaust was/is evil. So is slavery. So is rape. And on and on. Personally, I consider all acts I think evil as evil and unethical; and all acts I condone as being ethical. Just because any particular society deems something as ethical does not make it so for other societies or times. Ethics are not static--they change with time and environment. They are not simple. They are not cut and dried. It is not as easy as saying 'god said so'.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 14, 2017, 02:43:51 PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â€"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Its been working in the USA for over 200 years whether you like it or not. Regardless of the sincerity of your faith there is no Creator you don't know that to be true you just pretend its a fact.
Let me say that that statement is a great one. I think if it were followed it would make for a great society and government. I love it. But was not followed from before day one. It did not set free one slave. It did not make men and women equal. It did not make the landed equal with the unlanded. Little about the US from the beginning was equal for all--only a few. That does not mean the US was not a step up from most other govts,; I think it was. But the average joe runs this statement out as though it was followed from the beginning and is still being followed. I think you do Drew because you are a white male--and from your viewpoint that's pretty good. Do some actual thinking and do some real research into our history.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 14, 2017, 05:01:00 PM
Let me say that that statement is a great one. I think if it were followed it would make for a great society and government. I love it. But was not followed from before day one. It did not set free one slave. It did not make men and women equal. It did not make the landed equal with the unlanded. Little about the US from the beginning was equal for all--only a few. That does not mean the US was not a step up from most other govts,; I think it was. But the average joe runs this statement out as though it was followed from the beginning and is still being followed. I think you do Drew because you are a white male--and from your viewpoint that's pretty good. Do some actual thinking and do some real research into our history.
We do live in a great society and the words went from theory into practice in a difficult growing struggle that led to the civil war and many other civil upheavals and adjustment. This is why the Gettysburg address was so critical to the growth of this radically experimental government. Lincoln was putting lives on the line to the proposition that all me are created equal. Lincoln deliberately chose the words in the Declaration of Independence in his speech. Its also the basis for woman's suffrage. There is a lot of correlation between abolitionists and woman's rights because they appealed to the same idea that all men (including woman) are equal. I'm sure the founding fathers were well aware the Declaration of Independence was far more of an ideal than a reality. Lincoln made it a reality in regards to slaves.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863QuoteI think you do Drew because you are a white male--and from your viewpoint that's pretty good
Slick. When all else fails inject race into the argument...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 14, 2017, 05:42:27 PM
We do live in a great society and the words went from theory into practice in a difficult growing struggle that led to the civil war and many other civil upheavals and adjustment. This is why the Gettysburg address was so critical to the growth of this radically experimental government. Lincoln was putting lives on the line to the proposition that all me are created equal. Lincoln deliberately chose the words in the Declaration of Independence in his speech. Its also the basis for woman's suffrage. There is a lot of correlation between abolitionists and woman's rights because they appealed to the same idea that all men (including woman) are equal. I'm sure the founding fathers were well aware the Declaration of Independence was far more of an ideal than a reality. Lincoln made it a reality in regards to slaves.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Slick. When all else fails inject race into the argument...
You are just too fucking stupid to try a have a discussion with. You ARE the poster child for a trump follower.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 14, 2017, 04:54:19 PM
Where or when did I say all ethics are equally valid? The holocaust was not ethical from 'my point of view' (I did not tell what that was), but from the society that created it, it was ethical. Many societies have made evil acts ethical according to that societies standards. I'm not going to take the time or effort to look them up and list for you--you can google as well as anybody else. From my point of view the holocaust was/is evil. So is slavery. So is rape. And on and on. Personally, I consider all acts I think evil as evil and unethical; and all acts I condone as being ethical. Just because any particular society deems something as ethical does not make it so for other societies or times. Ethics are not static--they change with time and environment. They are not simple. They are not cut and dried. It is not as easy as saying 'god said so'.
Mike..you're tripping yourself up. That you can say the Holocaust was ethical for that society (even if not for you personally) means that there ethics (though not the same as yours) are morally equivalent. The underlying premise you've bought into this argument is that ethics, values, morals are something people make up and nothing more. They made up values and ethics you find reprehensible but at the same time acknowledge they are equally valid according to your definition of ethics.
You can only disagree with the Holocaust but you can't condemn it unless you think its really wrong and you're appealing to some standard beyond your own personal opinion. But what would that be?
To your other point you misunderstand. I'm not referring to any written religious text as a source for morality only the belief in a Creator that intentionally caused our existence as opposed to the belief we owe our existence to mindless forces that never intended our existence. If the latter is true your brand of ethics makes sense. We can't say as humans we are special and deserve special rights because we're nothing more than the by product of mindless forces that caused everything else to exist and never intended our existence.
American Revolutionaries - crazy
French Revolutionaries - crazy
1825 Decembrist Russian Revolutionaries - crazy
!848 Pan Euro Revolutionaries - crazy
1860 Italian Revolutionaries - crazy
1861 Confederate Revolutionaries - crazy
1865 Reconstruction Revolutionaries - crazy
etc
See a pattern here?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 14, 2017, 05:51:56 PM
You are just too fucking stupid to try a have a discussion with. You ARE the poster child for a trump follower.
I love it when my opponent runs out of intellectual steam gets mad and tosses the chessboard in the air....
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 14, 2017, 06:09:14 PM
I love it when my opponent runs out of intellectual steam gets mad and tosses the chessboard in the air....
Mike is an old guy like me, go easy on us ;-) I happen to agree with him on subjective vs objective ethics (if we confine ourselves to non-pathological people).
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 14, 2017, 06:09:14 PM
I love it when my opponent runs out of intellectual steam gets mad and tosses the chessboard in the air....
Not out of steam (spend most of my time there playing my games)--just rubbing my nose in the fact that you have a belief and no matter what you true it into a fact. No point in trying with you. So, for the third time, I'll just try to ignore you.
Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2017, 06:11:41 PM
Mike is an old guy like me, go easy on us ;-) I happen to agree with him on subjective vs objective ethics (if we confine ourselves to non-pathological people).
Go easy? I didn't say what I did in a vacuum it was in response to...
QuoteYou are just too fucking stupid to try a have a discussion with. You ARE the poster child for a trump follower.
And I'm no spring chicken either.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 14, 2017, 02:43:51 PM
Its been working in the USA for over 200 years whether you like it or not. Regardless of the sincerity of your faith there is no Creator you don't know that to be true you just pretend its a fact.
You are conflating both ethics with beliefs and the Declaration Of Independence with the Constitution. The ethics involved in the Declaration of Independence are affirmatory and the Constitution is merely the construct of Government vis a vis the people.