Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

What I'm saying is this guy gets it, even if people here don't believe it needs apology or remorse, he (assuming he is being genuine) does see my perspective and gets it.

Given that there doesn't seem to be a pattern of indiscretions, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
That's what I'm saying.

Although you (falsely) claimed that people here were suggesting he was a "hero,"

That's fair, I'll give you that one.

in reality we recognized how difficult the situation was and sympathized with his predicament.  Do I believe there are situations where an adult might reasonably decide to not report a teenager engaging in consensual sex to the authorities?  Yes.

I believe it was his obligation to do so.
Things apparently turned out all right in that case, but there are so many ways it could have gone wrong.

Frankly, I'd like to see a cybertechnotelentertainette rights today and tomorrow teaparty from the Oval Office led by Stewart Brand, John Perry Barlow, Woz and Laurie Anderson. Oh, and R.U.Sirius, Xeni Jardin and Cory Doctorow. And Jobs.

They'll have spiritual advice from Doctress Neutopia:
http://www.lovolution.net/

Last edited by daemon (2009-10-02 12:00 pm)

robco wrote:

Well gosh, that darn liberal media and their fact checkin'...

I doubt this will change anyone's opinion on the matter. Facts don't seem to matter these days. I find that very disturbing.

Because, the truth will set you free.
The truth will stand when the world is burning.

If this proves to be the truth, will you admit that your heroes Beck and Limbaugh are liars and scumbags?

resedit wrote:

DukeofNuke wrote:

Because, the truth will set you free.
The truth will stand when the world is burning.

If this proves to be the truth, will you admit that your heroes Beck and Limbaugh are liars and scumbags?

If it is shown they knew he was 16 but lied about his age.
However, I believe the age was provided by the czar himself. So while he may have been accidentally within the law, as he recounts it - it would have been illegal.

Maybe I blacked out while my fingers were moving.

How can you be within the law, and illegal at the same time?

DukeofNuke wrote:

resedit wrote:

DukeofNuke wrote:

Because, the truth will set you free.
The truth will stand when the world is burning.

If this proves to be the truth, will you admit that your heroes Beck and Limbaugh are liars and scumbags?

If it is shown they knew he was 16 but lied about his age.
However, I believe the age was provided by the czar himself. So while he may have been accidentally within the law, as he recounts it - it would have been illegal.

Maybe I blacked out while my fingers were moving.

How can you be within the law, and illegal at the same time?

As I said, facts don't matter.

Tallgeese wrote:

It was still illegal - sodomy.

If sodomy took place.
I saw nothing that specified it did.

Graphic Autist wrote:

DukeofNuke wrote:

resedit wrote:

If it is shown they knew he was 16 but lied about his age.
However, I believe the age was provided by the czar himself. So while he may have been accidentally within the law, as he recounts it - it would have been illegal.

Maybe I blacked out while my fingers were moving.

How can you be within the law, and illegal at the same time?

As I said, facts don't matter.

I didn't say it was within the law and illegal.
I said the events as he recounted them were illegal. He simply had the facts wrong in his recollection.

Please read what I wrote with intent to understand, not just to look for something to nitpick at.

So, it was legal. He had no duty to report the sexual activity that a student of legal age of concent confided in him to any authority. Right? He simply misspoke when telling the tale.
Is that how I am to understand what you're saying?
Is that what you believe?

No more than racist!

"The Hung Man"?

resedit wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

What a surprise... the faux outrage has just been run of the mill homophobia all along.  But we all know that righties aren't homophobic.

Fox expresses just as much outrage when this happens in hetero context.
You wouldn't know that, because you'd rather hate Fox than actually watch it.

When what, exactly, happens?

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

What a surprise... the faux outrage has just been run of the mill homophobia all along.  But we all know that righties aren't homophobic.

Fox expresses just as much outrage when this happens in hetero context.
You wouldn't know that, because you'd rather hate Fox than actually watch it.

When what, exactly, happens?

Adults take advantage of children, judges go easy on adults who took advantage of children, etc.
Try watching sometime.