Looks or Game? - Page 33

On March 09 2008 07:40 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: And again, asinine can't be used to insult somebody but can be used to describe an action. You shouldn't make up instances in which people are insulting you just so you can play victim and avoid actually saying anything. But calling you daft is actually an insult.

lol now your arguing semantics like this. Calling my action asinine is an insult and the way you were talking to Floofy was insulting. I don't think i need to explain this... lol

Wiki doesn't talk about the history of it because it doesn't exist and you made it up. Because being an adult has absolutely nothing to do with maturity and making good decisions in life, being able to function and talk to people, to accomplish things in society and to handle problems and deal with people. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. In fact, as soon as somebody is able to make babies, they're good to go. It's the only thing that matters.

I guess that's why so many 14 year olds are such accomplished, well rounded, emotionally developed individuals. They are mature adults at the age of 14. I mean, I'm of sexual maturity, so I'm a mature adult in your books, and you are having an argument on me.

This is all about being a mature adult and engaging in relationships with mature adults. You're saying that all this goes out the window and the only thing that matters is sexual maturity. The ability for me to make sperm and my ability to be emotionally developed, mature, well rounded, balanced and socially smart have nothing to do with one another. You're thinking that they do is what's silly.

But you're just going to disregard all this, once again.

On March 09 2008 07:43 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 07:38 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 07:30 Steal City wrote: also, ofc i am regurgitating it.... just like to the evolution stuff that i was spouting earlier (which many ppl backed me up on -including wikipedia- and is very well established). Do you expect me to reinvent the wheel? It's like you saying something simple poker related that you read somewhere and me saying you are regurgitating asinine then daft, better think of a good word to insult me with in ur next comment ;p no, srysly a good word like that is much better than a real argument... ppl are like, wow he uses semi-complicated words, he must know what he's talking about ;p If you admitting to regurgitating it, you're admitting to having nothing worthwhile to say on the subject, good job. And the evolution stuff wasn't very well established, and that was proven earlier in the thread. Nobody asked you to reinvent the wheel, I asked you to stop repeating stuff that you really don't know anything about. I don't say anything simply poker related that I read somewhere, everything I say poker related is original thought and something I've come to via critical thinking and thought. Something you aren't doing, you're just spouting stuff off without any coherency or real point. I made a real argument, you just chose to ignore it because you have nothing to say and are only capable of being a parrot. Oh look, I insulted you agian. That allows you to disregard everything I say. How convenient. i'm not saying you do repeat anything poker related like that, but say if you were to give advise in the low stakes hand section. It would be stupid not to talk about basic principles of poker. Saying things like A3 is an obvious fold preflop from that position. These are things that, maybe you felt were right when you started playing poker, but you probably read them somewhere to validate your thoughts before you took out a calculator or methodically thought things through and realized it was a fold Also I am listening, you have stated your position but not defended it, simple as that

And I'm saying you're only repeating stuff so this analogy doesn't work at all and I don't know why you bothered with it.

And no, you're not listening, because I have defended it. "Simple as that"

On March 09 2008 07:46 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 07:40 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: And again, asinine can't be used to insult somebody but can be used to describe an action. You shouldn't make up instances in which people are insulting you just so you can play victim and avoid actually saying anything. But calling you daft is actually an insult. lol now your arguing semantics like this. Calling my action asinine is an insult and the way you were talking to Floofy was insulting. I don't think i need to explain this... lol

I don't think you know what arguing semantics means. I don't think you know what insult means. Since your action has nothing to do with you as a person, how is that insulting you? It has nothing to do with you, only what you're doing.

And just because what I said to floofy may have been insulting to him does that just mean I shouldn't say it? If it's what I think, I'm going to say it. I don't care if it's insulting. I think I've made this abundantly clear. Whether or not it's insulting doesn't take away from what I said. Nor does it make it wrong. Just disregarding everything I say because you are so caught up on whether or not I'm insulting you or floofy is ridiculous.

I didn't even claim to not be insulting floofy so I don't know why you keep talking about it.

Perhaps you like to hear your own voice. Because you certainly don't listen to anybody else's.

Here, just using the link that YOU provided, I'm going to prove you wrong.

You're saying that somebody who is sexually mature holds the traits of self control, stability, independence, seriousness, responsibility, method/tact, endurance, experience, objectivity and decision making capability.

If the answer is no, they aren't a mature adult. Stop trying to argue as if being sexually mature is the only thing that dictates adulthood.

On March 09 2008 07:46 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Wiki doesn't talk about the history of it because it doesn't exist and you made it up. Because being an adult has absolutely nothing to do with maturity and making good decisions in life, being able to function and talk to people, to accomplish things in society and to handle problems and deal with people. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. In fact, as soon as somebody is able to make babies, they're good to go. It's the only thing that matters. I guess that's why so many 14 year olds are such accomplished, well rounded, emotionally developed individuals. They are mature adults at the age of 14. I mean, I'm of sexual maturity, so I'm a mature adult in your books, and you are having an argument on me. This is all about being a mature adult and engaging in relationships with mature adults. You're saying that all this goes out the window and the only thing that matters is sexual maturity. The ability for me to make sperm and my ability to be emotionally developed, mature, well rounded, balanced and socially smart have nothing to do with one another. You're thinking that they do is what's silly. But you're just going to disregard all this, once again.

no ofc i'm not going to disregard it. This actually is an argument of sorts. This is the 'beefy' thing that needs to be discussed. I too think that sexual maturity doesn't mean one is capable of having a sexual relationship... especially if it means bringing children into the world.

BUT, where do people draw the line? I mean there are tons TON TONS of 30 year old women who are unfit to be parents or even be in a healthy sexual relationship, but the law says, you can have sex and you can have kids. It's pretty arbitrary. I think a case by case basis/analysis of a girl is a much better determinant of whether she is at a state of mental and emotional maturity to have a sexual relationship or to have children or to marry or be in a committed relationship. I think these are things Floofy can judge and hopefully if he is a healthy person with normal desires he will be turned off by her if she is not mature with in that regard. Obviously though, the legal system cannot prosecute and put pedophiles in jail without some concrete numbers here. And hence the law!! BUT, I think that you criticized and judged Floofy wayyyyyyyy too harshly and didn't think of things in a clear light. I also think that some of these laws need to be looked at closer... there will always be criticism on such laws however as every person is not the same and will reach maturity at different ages. For instance, some people should be allowed to drink alcohol at the age of 18 or even younger because they are responsible and mature enough to do so. Some people never EVER will reach that level of maturity and/or have problems specific to the substance and it would be better if they NEVER drank alcohol.

On March 09 2008 07:53 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 07:46 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 07:40 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: And again, asinine can't be used to insult somebody but can be used to describe an action. You shouldn't make up instances in which people are insulting you just so you can play victim and avoid actually saying anything. But calling you daft is actually an insult. lol now your arguing semantics like this. Calling my action asinine is an insult and the way you were talking to Floofy was insulting. I don't think i need to explain this... lol I don't think you know what arguing semantics means. I don't think you know what insult means. Since your action has nothing to do with you as a person, how is that insulting you? It has nothing to do with you, only what you're doing. And just because what I said to floofy may have been insulting to him does that just mean I shouldn't say it? If it's what I think, I'm going to say it. I don't care if it's insulting. I think I've made this abundantly clear. Whether or not it's insulting doesn't take away from what I said. Nor does it make it wrong. Just disregarding everything I say because you are so caught up on whether or not I'm insulting you or floofy is ridiculous.

If you say the death penalty is a terrible and foolish concept, it is wrong and unjust, you are calling those who argue FOR the death penalty either foolish/mislead or vindictive people. On many levels it is certainly an insult to the person as actions of people are what defines people.

Floofy said he was intentionally targeting somebody who was inexperienced and immature because he feels awkward around those that are experienced and immature.

This has very little to do with age. It has to do with him targeting a 16 year old BECAUSE that 16 year old is inexperienced. I said that in my original post. I don't know how you missed that. I don't think he should be going after anybody inexperienced or who isn't prepared to be in a relationship, regardless of age. I made that clear. Age isn't the important thing. 16 year olds as a whole are just inexperienced and immature. It becomes less so as people get older and get more experience and learn.

There are obvious exceptions either way. How you continuously miss that my focus is on him taking advantage of somebody's lack of experience is beyond me. Goes back to your refusal to listen.

On March 09 2008 08:02 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 07:53 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 07:46 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 07:40 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: And again, asinine can't be used to insult somebody but can be used to describe an action. You shouldn't make up instances in which people are insulting you just so you can play victim and avoid actually saying anything. But calling you daft is actually an insult. lol now your arguing semantics like this. Calling my action asinine is an insult and the way you were talking to Floofy was insulting. I don't think i need to explain this... lol I don't think you know what arguing semantics means. I don't think you know what insult means. Since your action has nothing to do with you as a person, how is that insulting you? It has nothing to do with you, only what you're doing. And just because what I said to floofy may have been insulting to him does that just mean I shouldn't say it? If it's what I think, I'm going to say it. I don't care if it's insulting. I think I've made this abundantly clear. Whether or not it's insulting doesn't take away from what I said. Nor does it make it wrong. Just disregarding everything I say because you are so caught up on whether or not I'm insulting you or floofy is ridiculous. If you say the death penalty is a terrible and foolish concept, it is wrong and unjust, you are calling those who argue FOR the death penalty either foolish/mislead or vindictive people. On many levels it is certainly an insult to the person as actions of people are what defines people.

No, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with something that is happening but that doesn't mean people who are for it don't have points and are wrong. And just because I disagree with them on a subject doesn't mean I think less of them as a person. The fact that you actually see things this way is baffling and kind of sad. No wonder so many of these conversations go this way. You think anybody who disagrees with you thinks you're stupid.

If you seriously think it's OKAY to take advantage of somebody's lack of experience, then we have nothing more to talk about. I think you're a disgusting human being and I have nothing more to say to you.

btw, notice in my response post #564 i'm not actually arguing that one is right or wrong. I never did! I'm merely pointing out something that DEFINITELY needs to be examined. I am also pointing out that you are wrong in forcing such assumptions on people. This is a topic with no solvable right answer but making hasty/uninformed decisions and then coming from a moral highground and attacking floofy like you did is certainly wrong in my book. That's what I'm arguing. Reread my posts if you didn't see that.

On March 09 2008 07:58 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Here, just using the link that YOU provided, I'm going to prove you wrong. You're saying that somebody who is sexually mature holds the traits of self control, stability, independence, seriousness, responsibility, method/tact, endurance, experience, objectivity and decision making capability. If the answer is no, they aren't a mature adult. Stop trying to argue as if being sexually mature is the only thing that dictates adulthood.

I never argued this!!! please REREAD!!! I said that lines draw like the current ones we have are arbitrary!

There is a solvable right answer. It's wrong to take advantage of somebody's lack of experience to further your own desires. If you disagree with this I think you're a disgusting piece of shit and have nothing more to say to you.

This isn't something I'm going to change or budge on. I will NEVER agree with taking advantage of people's lack of emotional development, maturity or social experience because you have something you want. People who take advantage of people are disgusting and need to find a place to rot.

I help people, I'm compassionate, I love people with all my heart with little regard to myself. I will NEVER be okay, under any circumstances, of people taking advantage of people. I don't care what you say.

On March 09 2008 08:03 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Floofy said he was intentionally targeting somebody who was inexperienced and immature because he feels awkward around those that are experienced and immature. This has very little to do with age. It has to do with him targeting a 16 year old BECAUSE that 16 year old is inexperienced. I said that in my original post. I don't know how you missed that. I don't think he should be going after anybody inexperienced or who isn't prepared to be in a relationship, regardless of age. I made that clear. Age isn't the important thing. 16 year olds as a whole are just inexperienced and immature. It becomes less so as people get older and get more experience and learn. There are obvious exceptions either way. How you continuously miss that my focus is on him taking advantage of somebody's lack of experience is beyond me. Goes back to your refusal to listen.

to me it seemed like Floofy was just talking about sexual immaturity and relationship immaturity (I'll reread though) I didn't see him saying he wanted someone who was immature to the degree that she is not mature enough to have a relationship? Otherwise, how is it different that people wanting to lose their virginity to other virgins?

On March 09 2008 08:10 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: There is a solvable right answer. It's wrong to take advantage of somebody's lack of experience to further your own desires. If you disagree with this I think you're a disgusting piece of shit and have nothing more to say to you.

I don't think you can say this as a poker player.

On March 09 2008 08:08 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 07:58 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Here, just using the link that YOU provided, I'm going to prove you wrong. You're saying that somebody who is sexually mature holds the traits of self control, stability, independence, seriousness, responsibility, method/tact, endurance, experience, objectivity and decision making capability. If the answer is no, they aren't a mature adult. Stop trying to argue as if being sexually mature is the only thing that dictates adulthood. I never argued this!!! please REREAD!!! I said that lines draw like the current ones we have are arbitrary!

You did too. I'm not trying to draw the line. I'm saying that if you are aware that somebody is not a mature adult and target them regardless because you think that will get you what you want, you're a disgusting human being. That's what I said to begin with, that's what I said to floofy. This is what you're arguing with me about. I don't give a fuck about what society says or what the norms are. If you take advantage of people, you're a waste of skin.

I don't know why you keep talking about society and what norms are and what people think. My thoughts aren't dictated by society or what society has to say is acceptable. Nor has anything I said made that seem like the case. The only reason I argued about society is because you brought it up for some reason. But now I see what you're trying to argue and I'm telling you it has nothing to do with society.

If you take advantage of people, you're a pathetic piece of shit. If you don't agree with this, stop fucking arguing with me.

I know I'm getting emotional, this isn't something I'm going to budge on. If this isn't what you're trying to argue with me about, fuck off. You're being annoying.

On March 09 2008 08:10 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: There is a solvable right answer. It's wrong to take advantage of somebody's lack of experience to further your own desires. If you disagree with this I think you're a disgusting piece of shit and have nothing more to say to you. This isn't something I'm going to change or budge on. I will NEVER agree with taking advantage of people's lack of emotional development, maturity or social experience because you have something you want. People who take advantage of people are disgusting and need to find a place to rot. I help people, I'm compassionate, I love people with all my heart with little regard to myself. I will NEVER be okay, under any circumstances, of people taking advantage of people. I don't care what you say.

taking advantage is different than abusing... you may decide to become closer friends with someone you went to highschool with and now is coincidentally at the same college as you. This is taking advantage of a person who is in a similar time of their life. It is also taking advantage of location/logistics and simply having things in common. This is what I think floofy is talking about.

On March 09 2008 08:11 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:03 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Floofy said he was intentionally targeting somebody who was inexperienced and immature because he feels awkward around those that are experienced and immature. This has very little to do with age. It has to do with him targeting a 16 year old BECAUSE that 16 year old is inexperienced. I said that in my original post. I don't know how you missed that. I don't think he should be going after anybody inexperienced or who isn't prepared to be in a relationship, regardless of age. I made that clear. Age isn't the important thing. 16 year olds as a whole are just inexperienced and immature. It becomes less so as people get older and get more experience and learn. There are obvious exceptions either way. How you continuously miss that my focus is on him taking advantage of somebody's lack of experience is beyond me. Goes back to your refusal to listen. to me it seemed like Floofy was just talking about sexual immaturity and relationship immaturity (I'll reread though) I didn't see him saying he wanted someone who was immature to the degree that she is not mature enough to have a relationship? Otherwise, how is it different that people wanting to lose their virginity to other virgins?

That's exactly what he said. That he felt awkward around people who were experienced and had lots of talk about because he had nothing to say and didn't know what to do because he's socially awkward and feels weird interacting with mature adults. So he's going to go after some 16 year old because he thinks they'll be more on his level.

That's what he said. How you missed this is beyond me.

On March 09 2008 08:13 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:08 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 07:58 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Here, just using the link that YOU provided, I'm going to prove you wrong. You're saying that somebody who is sexually mature holds the traits of self control, stability, independence, seriousness, responsibility, method/tact, endurance, experience, objectivity and decision making capability. If the answer is no, they aren't a mature adult. Stop trying to argue as if being sexually mature is the only thing that dictates adulthood. I never argued this!!! please REREAD!!! I said that lines draw like the current ones we have are arbitrary! You did too. I'm not trying to draw the line. I'm saying that if you are aware that somebody is not a mature adult and target them regardless because you think that will get you what you want, you're a disgusting human being. That's what I said to begin with, that's what I said to floofy. This is what you're arguing with me about. I don't give a fuck about what society says or what the norms are. If you take advantage of people, you're a waste of skin. I don't know why you keep talking about society and what norms are and what people think. My thoughts aren't dictated by society or what society has to say is acceptable. Nor has anything I said made that seem like the case. The only reason I argued about society is because you brought it up for some reason. But now I see what you're trying to argue and I'm telling you it has nothing to do with society. If you take advantage of people, you're a pathetic piece of shit. If you don't agree with this, stop fucking arguing with me. I know I'm getting emotional, this isn't something I'm going to budge on. If this isn't what you're trying to argue with me about, fuck off. You're being annoying.

you came from the point of view that the girl, merely because of her age and sexual inexperience is not mature enough to have a realtionship or sex with Floofy. My argument was "who are you to judge?"