Looks or Game? - Page 35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Social_attitudes

Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] 15 to 18 had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century.



that's just to corroborate some of what i said earlier that you attacked me for. I'll try to find out the history if i can. Now plz find me that floofy post as it is only one post u have a problem with and if I find it it will mean nothing bc u can argue it was in another post that he said what you claimed he said

Nothing wrong with taking advantage of an inexperienced girl, she may be inexperienced even if she's 20 yrs old, age has little to do with that.... as long as you don't hurt her feelings I think It's fine

On March 09 2008 08:45 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:40 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:36 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:28 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:26 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:20 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:17 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:11 Steal City wrote:   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. could you plz find this post where he said that??? I don't want to find a post and then have u say no he said it in another. No, I'm not going to find the post. I don't have to convince you. This has nothing to do with you. This has to do with what floofy wants to do with some girl who's immature and inexperienced because he's too awkward and weird to man up and get somebody who knows better. I don't give a flying fuck about you. exactly, the post doesn't exist, he merely implied that her lack of experience was good bc there are fewer expectations on his performance. He did not say anything about targeting girls who are not ready for a relationship Or maybe I'm not going to dig through hundreds of posts to prove something to somebody that this has absolutely nothing to do with? What lack of experience is good because of the fewer expectations of his performance? We aren't tlaking about sex. We aren't talking about sexual inexperience. We're talking about taking advantage of somebody who is emotionally immature and inexperience with life and people because he doesn't feel comfortable going for somebody who is ebcause he's too awkward and weird. How many times do I have to repeat it? Stop talking about sex, it has nothing to do with it. I'm not talking about sex, i'm saying FLOOFY was talking about sex and emotional inexperience (as he is a virgin and emotionally inexperienced when it comes to relationships with the opposite sex) I'm saying HE was not talking about targeting girls who were not ready for a relationship plz reread if u don't understand No, he wasn't. Show me where this is the case. I'm not the only person who thought this is what floofy though. If you can't do so, then stop saying that this is what he was talking about. How would you even know? You're just disagreeing for the sake of doing so because you don't even really know. You're saying I'm not right in what he said, and that that isn't what he meant, and not refering to anything and then when I do something similar, I'm somehow being unreasonable. You have to do it too or you can't expect it from me. It's not like I'm the only person who thought this is what floofy was saying. Half the people participating in the thread thought this is what he was saying. You're the only person so far who has seen it differently. Do you not think this is unusual? Do you not think there is any possibility you could ever be wrong? Are you really that arrogant? Ora re you just right because you said so? lol reread your argument, now imagine i had written it. Exactly, you say that he explicitly said or implied taht he wants a relationship with a girl who is not ready for a relationship and I ASKED YOU first to find the post.... you wouldn't do so. The reason I asked is because there were many posts on the subject and instead of quoting every single one of his posts to show that he didn't, you only need to find the one posts where he allegedly did say that! do you see? I know what I said. I've said it before. I've also said I don't need to prove anything to you. It has nothing to do with you. It has to do with floofy. It has to do with what I said to floofy. What makes you think your opinion and your thoughts on what you think he said are so definitive that you can just flat out tell me that I'm wrong and that wasn't what was said?

plz reread, I never explicitly said that he didn't say it. I said that I read his posts and I didn't see him say anything like that. Plz find the post you have issue with as I could dig up some posts and u could say... no it was another post.

On March 09 2008 08:44 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:39 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:32 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:26 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   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. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. again you're attacking people that are just trying to understand your logic. He never said he thought that!!! I know you didn't say he thought that but you said "And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum?" implying that he DOES think it. He doesn't think so, he's just trying to understand how you can hold both opinions. Many people think that poker pros take advantage of people who are not financially mature, emotionally mature or simply just not mature enough human beings to responsibly gamble. CERTAINLY, there are many people who play poker than don't have experience... and you are certainly taking advantage of these things. Please don't be mean to people like that and stop assuming people are against you. Ppl just want to understand your logic ;p I'm not even going to argue this, it's really that stupid. it's not stupid, you just think the world is against you and you're attacking people who are just trying to understand you. I don't think the world is against me. Almost everybody agreed with me. Only you didn't. You're saiyng that any time you better anybody at anything you're taking advantage of them. That any time a situation betters you because of circumstances or you making decisions absed on things around you, that you've taken advantage of everything that is present. That's a backwards way of thinking and ridiculous. If I actually thought that by not playing poker the people who are actually struggling because of it wouldn't be, I wouldn't play. But that's not the case, that's not how things work. I'm not taking advantage of them. I'm playing poker. And I'm not attacking people who are trying to understand me, because you're not trying to understand me. You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. in terms of the world being against you, i'm referring to the other arguments i've been told you've been picking with people. idk how true it is but I hear this is a common occurrence with you. U've attacked 3 people in this thread essentially calling them pieces of shit and disgusting human beings and I hear something similar happened in sakisaki's blog.

Did you even read what happened in SakiSaki's blog? Did you see how it turned out? Did you see that me, stygg and saki cleared everything up and all managed to see eye to eye on things and that it was just a misunderstanding to begin with? Or are you just talking with lack of information again?

And I've called ONE person a piece of shit and a disgusting human being, and that's floofy. And I've said that if anybody thinks it's okay to take advantage of people, they're no different. I haven't called anybody else anything, unless they're like minded to floofy.

Seriously, if you don't know anything about situations,w hy do you feel the need to comment on them? If this is such a common occurrence, please show where. Most everybody I talk to, despite me getting into a lot of heated arguments and discussions, sees eye to eye with me eventually because we both make an effort to better understand one another. You are not doing this. You're just disagreeing with me.

On March 09 2008 08:44 kimseongchan wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   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. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. I didn't accuse you of taking advantage of anyone's lack of emotional maturity. I'm saying you're being hypocritical when you say it's wrong to take advantage of another's lack of experience for your own benefit while at the same time you're playing a game where the whole point is taking advantage of another's lack of experience to further your own profits

No, the point of the game is to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given situation. If I make better decisions than other people, I win. I'm not outright taking advantage of anybody. It's compeltely different.

On March 09 2008 08:49 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:44 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:39 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:32 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:26 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   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. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. again you're attacking people that are just trying to understand your logic. He never said he thought that!!! I know you didn't say he thought that but you said "And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum?" implying that he DOES think it. He doesn't think so, he's just trying to understand how you can hold both opinions. Many people think that poker pros take advantage of people who are not financially mature, emotionally mature or simply just not mature enough human beings to responsibly gamble. CERTAINLY, there are many people who play poker than don't have experience... and you are certainly taking advantage of these things. Please don't be mean to people like that and stop assuming people are against you. Ppl just want to understand your logic ;p I'm not even going to argue this, it's really that stupid. it's not stupid, you just think the world is against you and you're attacking people who are just trying to understand you. I don't think the world is against me. Almost everybody agreed with me. Only you didn't. You're saiyng that any time you better anybody at anything you're taking advantage of them. That any time a situation betters you because of circumstances or you making decisions absed on things around you, that you've taken advantage of everything that is present. That's a backwards way of thinking and ridiculous. If I actually thought that by not playing poker the people who are actually struggling because of it wouldn't be, I wouldn't play. But that's not the case, that's not how things work. I'm not taking advantage of them. I'm playing poker. And I'm not attacking people who are trying to understand me, because you're not trying to understand me. You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. in terms of the world being against you, i'm referring to the other arguments i've been told you've been picking with people. idk how true it is but I hear this is a common occurrence with you. U've attacked 3 people in this thread essentially calling them pieces of shit and disgusting human beings and I hear something similar happened in sakisaki's blog. Did you even read what happened in SakiSaki's blog? Did you see how it turned out? Did you see that me, stygg and saki cleared everything up and all managed to see eye to eye on things and that it was just a misunderstanding to begin with? Or are you just talking with lack of information again? And I've called ONE person a piece of shit and a disgusting human being, and that's floofy. And I've said that if anybody thinks it's okay to take advantage of people, they're no different. I haven't called anybody else anything, unless they're like minded to floofy. Seriously, if you don't know anything about situations,w hy do you feel the need to comment on them? If this is such a common occurrence, please show where. Most everybody I talk to, despite me getting into a lot of heated arguments and discussions, sees eye to eye with me eventually because we both make an effort to better understand one another. You are not doing this. You're just disagreeing with me.

plz reread the post that you're quoting, I specifically said I do not know what happened. I just know you have a history of putting yourself in spots like this. I know you attacked floofy and the way you responded to me and kimseongchan was very disrespectful and insulting

On March 09 2008 08:47 Steal City wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Social_attitudes Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] 15 to 18 had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. that's just to corroborate some of what i said earlier that you attacked me for. I'll try to find out the history if i can. Now plz find me that floofy post as it is only one post u have a problem with and if I find it it will mean nothing bc u can argue it was in another post that he said what you claimed he said

You are aware that the appropriate age of consent where I'm from is 14? This doesn't have anything to do with anything and this has absolutely nothing to do with what you said earlier. What you said earlier was completely different.

On March 09 2008 08:51 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:44 kimseongchan wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   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. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. I didn't accuse you of taking advantage of anyone's lack of emotional maturity. I'm saying you're being hypocritical when you say it's wrong to take advantage of another's lack of experience for your own benefit while at the same time you're playing a game where the whole point is taking advantage of another's lack of experience to further your own profits No, the point of the game is to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given situation. If I make better decisions than other people, I win. I'm not outright taking advantage of anybody. It's compeltely different.

i think this is a fancy innocent way of looking at it. You are taking advantage of people's inexperience. Do you seriously not see that? It may be semi indirect but you are taking advantage of that. The make more mistakes if they are inexperienced (most of the time) and you make more money based on how inexperienced they are.

Does this need to be argued?

On March 09 2008 08:52 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:49 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:44 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:39 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:32 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:26 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   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. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. again you're attacking people that are just trying to understand your logic. He never said he thought that!!! I know you didn't say he thought that but you said "And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum?" implying that he DOES think it. He doesn't think so, he's just trying to understand how you can hold both opinions. Many people think that poker pros take advantage of people who are not financially mature, emotionally mature or simply just not mature enough human beings to responsibly gamble. CERTAINLY, there are many people who play poker than don't have experience... and you are certainly taking advantage of these things. Please don't be mean to people like that and stop assuming people are against you. Ppl just want to understand your logic ;p I'm not even going to argue this, it's really that stupid. it's not stupid, you just think the world is against you and you're attacking people who are just trying to understand you. I don't think the world is against me. Almost everybody agreed with me. Only you didn't. You're saiyng that any time you better anybody at anything you're taking advantage of them. That any time a situation betters you because of circumstances or you making decisions absed on things around you, that you've taken advantage of everything that is present. That's a backwards way of thinking and ridiculous. If I actually thought that by not playing poker the people who are actually struggling because of it wouldn't be, I wouldn't play. But that's not the case, that's not how things work. I'm not taking advantage of them. I'm playing poker. And I'm not attacking people who are trying to understand me, because you're not trying to understand me. You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. in terms of the world being against you, i'm referring to the other arguments i've been told you've been picking with people. idk how true it is but I hear this is a common occurrence with you. U've attacked 3 people in this thread essentially calling them pieces of shit and disgusting human beings and I hear something similar happened in sakisaki's blog. Did you even read what happened in SakiSaki's blog? Did you see how it turned out? Did you see that me, stygg and saki cleared everything up and all managed to see eye to eye on things and that it was just a misunderstanding to begin with? Or are you just talking with lack of information again? And I've called ONE person a piece of shit and a disgusting human being, and that's floofy. And I've said that if anybody thinks it's okay to take advantage of people, they're no different. I haven't called anybody else anything, unless they're like minded to floofy. Seriously, if you don't know anything about situations,w hy do you feel the need to comment on them? If this is such a common occurrence, please show where. Most everybody I talk to, despite me getting into a lot of heated arguments and discussions, sees eye to eye with me eventually because we both make an effort to better understand one another. You are not doing this. You're just disagreeing with me. plz reread the post that you're quoting, I specifically said I do not know what happened. I just know you have a history of putting yourself in spots like this. I know you attacked floofy and the way you responded to me and kimseongchan was very disrespectful and insulting

If you do not know what happened then why are you commenting on it?

It's the same thing you've been doing in this thread. You don't know what happened but you're going to go on it based on very little information and try to argue with somebody who's been around for the entire thread. It's ridiculous.

I attacked floofy because he deserved it.

On March 09 2008 08:55 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:51 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:44 kimseongchan wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   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. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. I didn't accuse you of taking advantage of anyone's lack of emotional maturity. I'm saying you're being hypocritical when you say it's wrong to take advantage of another's lack of experience for your own benefit while at the same time you're playing a game where the whole point is taking advantage of another's lack of experience to further your own profits No, the point of the game is to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given situation. If I make better decisions than other people, I win. I'm not outright taking advantage of anybody. It's compeltely different. i think this is a fancy innocent way of looking at it. You are taking advantage of people's inexperience. Do you seriously not see that? It may be semi indirect but you are taking advantage of that. The make more mistakes if they are inexperienced (most of the time) and you make more money based on how inexperienced they are. Does this need to be argued?

So if I get a job because I'm more experienced than the other people who applied, I am taking advantage of their inexperience.

On March 09 2008 08:52 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:47 Steal City wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Social_attitudes Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] 15 to 18 had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. that's just to corroborate some of what i said earlier that you attacked me for. I'll try to find out the history if i can. Now plz find me that floofy post as it is only one post u have a problem with and if I find it it will mean nothing bc u can argue it was in another post that he said what you claimed he said You are aware that the appropriate age of consent where I'm from is 14? This doesn't have anything to do with anything and this has absolutely nothing to do with what you said earlier. What you said earlier was completely different.

lol I said earlier that it was the norm and still is in most places that people enter adulthood and the ability to have consensual sex when they hit puberty. I said that only recently had an idea become popularized in a few countries that 15 to 18 should be the age of consent. Lol at now arguing that I didn't say this. The post I'm replying to is completely wrong. Have you been listening to me at all? I said this, It's one of the things you asked me to verify along with the rest of the history which I'm still trying to find info on.

On March 09 2008 08:57 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:55 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:51 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:44 kimseongchan wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   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. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. I didn't accuse you of taking advantage of anyone's lack of emotional maturity. I'm saying you're being hypocritical when you say it's wrong to take advantage of another's lack of experience for your own benefit while at the same time you're playing a game where the whole point is taking advantage of another's lack of experience to further your own profits No, the point of the game is to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given situation. If I make better decisions than other people, I win. I'm not outright taking advantage of anybody. It's compeltely different. i think this is a fancy innocent way of looking at it. You are taking advantage of people's inexperience. Do you seriously not see that? It may be semi indirect but you are taking advantage of that. The make more mistakes if they are inexperienced (most of the time) and you make more money based on how inexperienced they are. Does this need to be argued? So if I get a job because I'm more experienced than the other people who applied, I am taking advantage of their inexperience.

try to find an example where the other party loses something in a way that it can hurt their lifestyle. Maybe something that also has the degeneracy traits poker can bring out. Or it can even be like this: if I buy a property that I know is being sold for a ton less than it's value.... am I taking advantage of their lack of knowledge or their need to sell the property really fast? The answer is yes. I'm not saying it's wrong, certainly in the buying property example it isn't. But it is obviously taking advantage.

On March 09 2008 08:59 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:52 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:47 Steal City wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Social_attitudes Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] 15 to 18 had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. that's just to corroborate some of what i said earlier that you attacked me for. I'll try to find out the history if i can. Now plz find me that floofy post as it is only one post u have a problem with and if I find it it will mean nothing bc u can argue it was in another post that he said what you claimed he said You are aware that the appropriate age of consent where I'm from is 14? This doesn't have anything to do with anything and this has absolutely nothing to do with what you said earlier. What you said earlier was completely different. lol I said earlier that it was the norm and still is in most places that people enter adulthood and the ability to have consensual sex when they hit puberty. I said that only recently had an idea become popularized in a few countries that 15 to 18 should be the age of consent. Lol at now arguing that I didn't say this. The post I'm replying to is completely wrong. Have you been listening to me at all? I said this, It's one of the things you asked me to verify along with the rest of the history which I'm still trying to find info on.

That's not the case though and it wasn't what you were talking about earlier. Because you were talking about the age of being a legal adult and why the law was put into place, not age of consent. Age of consent has to do with sexual maturity and nothing else. There are difference ages that are legally refered to. In Canada they are 14, 16 and 19. Each age gets you further rights. You weren't talking about age of consent.

And again, it has nothing to do with anything.

On March 09 2008 09:07 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:57 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:55 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:51 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:44 kimseongchan wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   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. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. I didn't accuse you of taking advantage of anyone's lack of emotional maturity. I'm saying you're being hypocritical when you say it's wrong to take advantage of another's lack of experience for your own benefit while at the same time you're playing a game where the whole point is taking advantage of another's lack of experience to further your own profits No, the point of the game is to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given situation. If I make better decisions than other people, I win. I'm not outright taking advantage of anybody. It's compeltely different. i think this is a fancy innocent way of looking at it. You are taking advantage of people's inexperience. Do you seriously not see that? It may be semi indirect but you are taking advantage of that. The make more mistakes if they are inexperienced (most of the time) and you make more money based on how inexperienced they are. Does this need to be argued? So if I get a job because I'm more experienced than the other people who applied, I am taking advantage of their inexperience. try to find an example where the other party loses something in a way that it can hurt their lifestyle. Maybe something that also has the degeneracy traits poker can bring out. Or it can even be like this: if I buy a property that I know is being sold for a ton less than it's value.... am I taking advantage of their lack of knowledge or their need to sell the property really fast? The answer is yes. I'm not saying it's wrong, certainly in the buying property example it isn't. But it is obviously taking advantage.

Find an example? They didn't get a job, they can't pay their rent, they lose their place to live because they're in debt and really needed the job, get depressed, and kill themselves. I can make up extreme examples where my being better at something than somebody and coming out ahead because of it hurts people too.

Seriously, you're saiyng that any time you do anything where you come out ahead of other people, you're taking advantage of somebody.

I think you have a very very skewed view of what taking advantage of people means and aren't ever going to see things how I see them. We aren't going to see eye to eye and this has been going on for far too long and isn't going anywhere. I'm just going to agree to disagree with you because I think you just have an extremely skewed view of the world.

I still think floofy is a piece of shit, and you can think I'm a horrible, disrespectful, insulting individual for that all you want. You can disagree with me all you want. You can say I'm wrong all you want. You can say I'm obviously misunderstanding the situation all you want. I think what I think. Leave it at that.

On March 09 2008 09:07 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 08:59 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:52 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:47 Steal City wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Social_attitudes Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] 15 to 18 had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. that's just to corroborate some of what i said earlier that you attacked me for. I'll try to find out the history if i can. Now plz find me that floofy post as it is only one post u have a problem with and if I find it it will mean nothing bc u can argue it was in another post that he said what you claimed he said You are aware that the appropriate age of consent where I'm from is 14? This doesn't have anything to do with anything and this has absolutely nothing to do with what you said earlier. What you said earlier was completely different. lol I said earlier that it was the norm and still is in most places that people enter adulthood and the ability to have consensual sex when they hit puberty. I said that only recently had an idea become popularized in a few countries that 15 to 18 should be the age of consent. Lol at now arguing that I didn't say this. The post I'm replying to is completely wrong. Have you been listening to me at all? I said this, It's one of the things you asked me to verify along with the rest of the history which I'm still trying to find info on. That's not the case though and it wasn't what you were talking about earlier. Because you were talking about the age of being a legal adult and why the law was put into place, not age of consent. Age of consent has to do with sexual maturity and nothing else. There are difference ages that are legally refered to. In Canada they are 14, 16 and 19. Each age gets you further rights. You weren't talking about age of consent. And again, it has nothing to do with anything.

I was talking about the age of consent and when ppl thought it was appropriate to have sex in earlier times and modern times in other parts of hte world. Shit, I even went so far as to say Romeo and Juliet were like 12 and 13, or is it 13 and 14, either way, they were very young and yet the play shows it is the social attitude of the time that young people can be considered adults. The play doesn't suggest that their feelings of love are foolish or naive.

On March 09 2008 09:11 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:07 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:57 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:55 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:51 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:44 kimseongchan wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   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. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. I didn't accuse you of taking advantage of anyone's lack of emotional maturity. I'm saying you're being hypocritical when you say it's wrong to take advantage of another's lack of experience for your own benefit while at the same time you're playing a game where the whole point is taking advantage of another's lack of experience to further your own profits No, the point of the game is to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given situation. If I make better decisions than other people, I win. I'm not outright taking advantage of anybody. It's compeltely different. i think this is a fancy innocent way of looking at it. You are taking advantage of people's inexperience. Do you seriously not see that? It may be semi indirect but you are taking advantage of that. The make more mistakes if they are inexperienced (most of the time) and you make more money based on how inexperienced they are. Does this need to be argued? So if I get a job because I'm more experienced than the other people who applied, I am taking advantage of their inexperience. try to find an example where the other party loses something in a way that it can hurt their lifestyle. Maybe something that also has the degeneracy traits poker can bring out. Or it can even be like this: if I buy a property that I know is being sold for a ton less than it's value.... am I taking advantage of their lack of knowledge or their need to sell the property really fast? The answer is yes. I'm not saying it's wrong, certainly in the buying property example it isn't. But it is obviously taking advantage. Find an example? They didn't get a job, they can't pay their rent, they lose their place to live because they're in debt and really needed the job, get depressed, and kill themselves. I can make up extreme examples where my being better at something than somebody and coming out ahead because of it hurts people too. Seriously, you're saiyng that any time you do anything where you come out ahead of other people, you're taking advantage of somebody.

at the poker table you are taking advantage often of degeneracy and the emotional immaturity of tilt monkeys. In the real world, your (or the best person) getting that job actually can have a utilitarian effect that helps the other people who didn't get the jobs. IE u want smart people to be doctors and strong people to be firemen.

For the record, Romeo was 16. Juliet was 14.

in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad

talks to Lord Capulet about marrying his thirteen-year-old daughter Juliet

idk if she had a birthday before she died