Things That Should Be Common Knowledge By Now

[Olthar]

Greek isn't English.

It's weird how foreigners cling to their out-moded languages, isn't it?

Well, I was specifically asked if it meant anything else "in English," so...

[Grenartia]

-double post-

[Grenartia]

Unless its child porn.

On a related note, it should also be really fucking common knowledge that having sex with kids is inherently a Bad Thing^TM. I can't believe I actually have to post this, but apparently somebody here actually thought kiddie-diddling was ok so long as you paid them or their pimps.

Who?

I'm not going to name names, due to unofficial mod complaints in the comments of an FB post containing the links to posts evidencing the person's admitted pedophilia (their complaints were based on privacy of the person, and to their credit, they did say that they were taking appropriate actions, and that the person has been DOS'd).

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

1. Yes and no. They're legally minors, so they still need parental guidance though many states have set their age of consent at 16. But since its so close to 18, as long as the person having sex with the 16 year old in question is within about 4 years of age, most people don't really give two shits, unless they want to start shit, or if they're parents of the 16 year old.

2. That's what nearly all non-asexual people think, albiet replacing "girl" with whatever gender they prefer.

3. The problem is that 14 year olds can be prone to manipulation, especially by much older people.

1. The common sense is that 16-year-olds are always raped if they fuck with an adult. Like, WTF.

2. Yeah, I desired boys only of my age at that time. I'd imagine a 20-year-old guy trying to fuck with me was a pretty dangerous and undesirable thing, it wouldn't matter my gender.

3. No evidence for that besides popular anecdote and moralism. Outside Japan, Spain and Latin America, of course. Feeling attracted over adolescents and even pre-teens is from an evolutionary point-of-view a completely normal thing inside the borders of normality (even because for 97% of our history our average lifespan was 20 or less AFAIK), and no one should be flagged by rape just for being in one of those relationships. I find it completely OK for the parents of either youth to denounce and a social assistent to avail if there is oppression/fear/coercion or not, but healthy relationships between legal adults and people as young as 12 may be completely possible, and otherwise we have no evidence to suggest this extreme makes sense.

It seems just like the pro-life points. I think it is more dangerous to adolescent psychology than not banning it, and a judge in Brazil who looked at a case of a 18-year-old being the boyfriend of a 13-year-old emo boy needed less than 15 minutes to access the same, despite the age of consent in Brazil being 14, and he was freed (yeah, a 18-year-old arrested for kissing someone in the lips publicly) in 2 days after unnecessary controversy and disclosure to the social environment of both. Not to say about how one of those could be closeted, and then the way parents often deal with the non-heterosexuality of their children be the real issue.

Yeah, because parents can be fucking wrong too. My father, for example, was fucking insane about completely normal and healthy online friendships I had when I was 12-14 and living with him. Everything is raaaaaaaaep and they turnin' my kiddo into a fag.

[Oppressorion]

It's weird how foreigners cling to their out-moded languages, isn't it?

Well, I was specifically asked if it meant anything else "in English," so...

English people call them Lesbians, too. Mostly right before desperately trying to cover sniggers.

[Oppressorion]

Also,

Payment=/=Proprietary, and Free(dom)=/=Free(of charge), as I noticed in this thread.

[Vazdania]

Things that should be common knowledge by now: Nationstates is far superior to facebook.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Things that should be common knowledge by now: Nationstates is far superior to facebook.

Yeah. This place kind of reminds me of the top 10% best places in orkut when it was alive.

[Trotskylvania]

Who?

I'm not going to name names, due to unofficial mod complaints in the comments of an FB post containing the links to posts evidencing the person's admitted pedophilia (their complaints were based on privacy of the person, and to their credit, they did say that they were taking appropriate actions, and that the person has been DOS'd).

Which is, of course, bullshit.

What a member chooses to make public on the forum is no longer private to the members of the forum, and in the case of criminal behavior people really deserve to know who has had safe harbor here until some people raised a huge stink to have something done about it after the problem was repeatedly ignored and in fact the person in question was all but actively shielded out of some inane concern for privacy and values pluralism (which, of course, has never been universally extended.)

[Choronzon]

I'm not going to name names, due to unofficial mod complaints in the comments of an FB post containing the links to posts evidencing the person's admitted pedophilia (their complaints were based on privacy of the person, and to their credit, they did say that they were taking appropriate actions, and that the person has been DOS'd).

Which is, of course, bullshit.

What a member chooses to make public on the forum is no longer private to the members of the forum, and in the case of criminal behavior people really deserve to know who has had safe harbor here until some people raised a huge stink to have something done about it after the problem was repeatedly ignored and in fact the person in question was all but actively shielded out of some inane concern for privacy and values pluralism (which, of course, has never been universally extended.)

They're covering their asses because they have been actively harboring kiddy diddlers.

I can't believe anyone would help them do so.

[Grenartia]

1. Yes and no. They're legally minors, so they still need parental guidance though many states have set their age of consent at 16. But since its so close to 18, as long as the person having sex with the 16 year old in question is within about 4 years of age, most people don't really give two shits, unless they want to start shit, or if they're parents of the 16 year old.

2. That's what nearly all non-asexual people think, albiet replacing "girl" with whatever gender they prefer.

3. The problem is that 14 year olds can be prone to manipulation, especially by much older people.

1. The common sense is that 16-year-olds are always raped if they fuck with an adult. Like, WTF.

2. Yeah, I desired boys only of my age at that time. I'd imagine a 20-year-old guy trying to fuck with me was a pretty dangerous and undesirable thing, it wouldn't matter my gender.

3. No evidence for that besides popular anecdote and moralism. Outside Japan, Spain and Latin America, of course. Feeling attracted over adolescents and even pre-teens is from an evolutionary point-of-view a completely normal thing inside the borders of normality (even because for 97% of our history our average lifespan was 20 or less AFAIK), and no one should be flagged by rape just for being in one of those relationships. I find it completely OK for the parents of either youth to denounce and a social assistent to avail if there is oppression/fear/coercion or not, but healthy relationships between legal adults and people as young as 12 may be completely possible, and otherwise we have no evidence to suggest this extreme makes sense.

It seems just like the pro-life points. I think it is more dangerous to adolescent psychology than not banning it, and a judge in Brazil who looked at a case of a 18-year-old being the boyfriend of a 13-year-old emo boy needed less than 15 minutes to access the same, despite the age of consent in Brazil being 14, and he was freed (yeah, a 18-year-old arrested for kissing someone in the lips publicly) in 2 days after unnecessary controversy and disclosure to the social environment of both. Not to say about how one of those could be closeted, and then the way parents often deal with the non-heterosexuality of their children be the real issue.

Yeah, because parents can be fucking wrong too. My father, for example, was fucking insane about completely normal and healthy online friendships I had when I was 12-14 and living with him. Everything is raaaaaaaaep and they turnin' my kiddo into a fag.

1. After the the age difference in the Romeo and Juliet clause is passed (usually 4 years), yes, due to the potential of coercion/manipulation.

3. I don't believe you. Source that there's no coercion or manipulation. Also, that 'rare to live past 20' thing is a misnomer. Average lifespans were apparently well into middle age, but the life expectancy figure was dragged down by the horrendous infant mortality rate.

Which is, of course, bullshit.

What a member chooses to make public on the forum is no longer private to the members of the forum, and in the case of criminal behavior people really deserve to know who has had safe harbor here until some people raised a huge stink to have something done about it after the problem was repeatedly ignored and in fact the person in question was all but actively shielded out of some inane concern for privacy and values pluralism (which, of course, has never been universally extended.)

They're covering their asses because they have been actively harboring kiddy diddlers.

I can't believe anyone would help them do so.

Its not that big of a fucking secret on the NSG FB group. Anybody who wants to know, and is a member can see the post. If you're not a member, you can TG me your FB, and I'll put you in it. If you're not on FB, I can TG you direct links to the posts in question. However, I won't risk possibly being DOS'd myself, especially when there is NO reason for me to believe that they actively covered anything up, and that they've currently contacted the appropriate authorities.

Unlike certain people on this forum, I'm not a mod conspiracy theorist. Until I see hard PROOF that they've actively covered something up, and did NOT notify the proper authorities, I won't believe they have done anything wrong.

Are the mods perfect, god-like beings? Hell to the fuck no. They're human, like ALL of us. They're not capable of seeing EVERY FUCKING POST on the forums, contrary to what must be popular belief. But unlike popular perception, they aren't out to actively fuck over people unless they violate the rules.

[Breadknife]

I thought we were also unique in having invented the unicycle.

You're forgetting about the Speckle-throated Unicycle Bird.

(Although the White-throated Unicycle Bird never did, it just steals the unicycles that the StUB has carefully woven from dried grasses and twigs. And the Crested Unicycle Bird actually has nothing to do with unicycles. It actually weaves monowheels, but the early Victorian explorers that discovered it were quite ignorant about the distinction, as they were about many things.)

[Souseiseki]

Its not that big of a fucking secret on the NSG FB group. Anybody who wants to know, and is a member can see the post. If you're not a member, you can TG me your FB, and I'll put you in it. If you're not on FB, I can TG you direct links to the posts in question. However, I won't risk possibly being DOS'd myself, especially when there is NO reason for me to believe that they actively covered anything up, and that they've currently contacted the appropriate authorities.

Unlike certain people on this forum, I'm not a mod conspiracy theorist. Until I see hard PROOF that they've actively covered something up, and did NOT notify the proper authorities, I won't believe they have done anything wrong.

Are the mods perfect, god-like beings? Hell to the fuck no. They're human, like ALL of us. They're not capable of seeing EVERY FUCKING POST on the forums, contrary to what must be popular belief. But unlike popular perception, they aren't out to actively fuck over people unless they violate the rules.

viewtopic.php?p=13126925#p13126925
viewtopic.php?p=13126912#p13126912

it does kinda make you wonder what these posts look like in retrospect, doesn't it?

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I think Brazil, aside its contemporary 14-year-old age of consent, should have a Romeo and Juliet law of 5 years for 11-year-olds, 6 years for 12-year-olds, and 7 years for 13-year-olds. If those kids believe they are being raped, they will just denounce it. If their parents or friends or relatives believe so, they may call social service, so that they analyze the behavior and psychiatric profile of the older person (it would be useful in the debate, after all) aside accessing the general wellbeing of the adolescents in such relationships (I'd blame more their guardians than their significant other).

We should have right of our own romantic and sexual life and our own bodies without adults and their institutions having their final say on our lives. We are independently-thinking individuals and, despite being a virgin, I think sex is not inherently oppressive just as masturbating over porn isn't doesn't matter how many time since you start to grow pubes have passed.

But I wouldn't be fucking with or even dating kids even if it was legal. It is just wrong. And I'm 18, 2 years younger than Soubi of Loveless. People are just idiotic sometimes.

[Republica Newland]

The USSR was far deadlier than Nazi Germany, Stalin is the biggest killer of WW2 not the "liberator of europe", hearing that makes me wanna throw up, degrading half a continent for half a century is not liberating it.

[Souseiseki]

The USSR was far deadlier than Nazi Germany, Stalin is the biggest killer of WW2 not the "liberator of europe", hearing that makes me wanna throw up, degrading half a continent for half a century is not liberating it.

have you heard the story about how people used to treat the nazis as liberators, but for some mysterious reason, soon changed their minds on that front?

[Republica Newland]

IMO the veridity of consent should be judged based on psychological capability not age. Once a person proves he/she understands what sex is and what comes with it there should be no discrimination based on age from a legal standpoint.

Monogamy and the standard of starting one's sexual life after a period of time from the moment one has reached sexual maturity are merely social constructs. Naturally, humans are polygamous and start their sexual lives when they reach sexual maturity, like most other primates and animals ( biology is not one of my strong points but there are few exceptions AFAIK ). Normally, once sexual maturity is reached, animals get in on the action as soon as they can find a mate, IIRC.

I am not and have never been attracted to younger or "underage" persons in particular ; for me one's psychological maturity is a criterion instead of one's age. Actually, I have never had a GF younger than me simply because of the reason stated above although I would not hesitate to be involved with one if she proved to be mature enough from this psychological standpoint.

[Republica Newland]

Porn shouldn't be banned.

Unless its child porn.

On a related note, it should also be really fucking common knowledge that having sex with kids is inherently a Bad Thing^TM. I can't believe I actually have to post this, but apparently somebody here actually thought kiddie-diddling was ok so long as you paid them or their pimps.

A decrease in rapes has been attributed to the advent of pornography. It seems logical to me and if it is indeed true I'd have to disagree with you.

For CP cases where the offenders have been prosecuted and somehow by the slightest chance the ( now mature ) victim agreed to it, the government should stop prosecution against the distribution of said material and rather leave it at large. If that can keep even one child safer then I say it is worth it.

EDIT: Let me put it this way: would you rather have a pedophile rub one off to the Internet stuff and satisfy his perverted needs or actually go out and do it to a child?

[Grenartia]

Unless its child porn.

On a related note, it should also be really fucking common knowledge that having sex with kids is inherently a Bad Thing^TM. I can't believe I actually have to post this, but apparently somebody here actually thought kiddie-diddling was ok so long as you paid them or their pimps.

A decrease in rapes has been attributed to the advent of pornography. It seems logical to me and if it is indeed true I'd have to disagree with you.

For CP cases where the offenders have been prosecuted and somehow by the slightest chance the ( now mature ) victim agreed to it, the government should stop prosecution against the distribution of said material and rather leave it at large. If that can keep even one child safer then I say it is worth it.

EDIT: Let me put it this way: would you rather have a pedophile rub one off to the Internet stuff and satisfy his perverted needs or actually go out and do it to a child?

And what about the children being abused in the creation of child porn?

[Menassa]

There is no old testament evidence to support the Messianic figure of the Nazarene.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Pedophiles may have shotacon and lolicon in most countries other than Ausfailia and its laws trying to prohibite everything making the population in a constant state of fear.

I am pretty tolerant about alternative sexualities. Brazil legalized zoophilia in 1830 together with homosexuality, never criminalized zoo porn that would be as easily available as normal human one depending on the market; no law whatsoever would be used to witchhunt zoophiles since our legislation lost its least bit of heterosexist language with the unban of homosexuals in the military in 1969, that probably talked about sexual deviancy or acts against nature. And I support every single bit of it. Even because I'm not vegan, because we can't arrest all those at least hundreds of thousands of people for something that is already so pervasive that became part of our folklore, and because I generally think criminalization over sexuality, just like with recreational drugs and abortion, tend to do more harm than good.

But fucking with kids and K.P. are inherently Evil Things, because sexualized real children is something hell dangerous to create. To their present beings, and to the future we may be creating. Well, not so much about adolescents since according to my beliefs they indeed often do fully consent, but kids are supposed to be left alone. I concede some photos may be interpreted as artistic, and that nudity is just our natural state, but the clearly sexual ones shouldn't be allowed.

Of course, I started to fap at about 9, some people I know started at 7 or 8, without much influence from the outside, just a photo or video of something already usual wouldn't hurt by itself, but I believe talking about such event is something for here in 4 centuries. The world is already sufficiently fucked up for thinking of normalizing things like this. First we need to stop killing each other like crazy, and stop not giving a fuck if people are dying of hunger or cold, or blowing up the environment, and really caring about everyone that needs help, including most importantly the children. Then, when we can be sure almost no one is going to damage other people because psychiatry and psychology are both very advanced and basic knowledge of them is something the average person got, and we are sure inoffensive pedophiles won't become child molesters because there is a huge difference between being sexual and being a rapist (and it is inherently rape, because even persons that start to have pubes by 5 like me are still impressionable, oblivious and easily misguided just as pretty much everyone at their age), perhaps.

[L Ron Cupboard]

It's weird how foreigners cling to their out-moded languages, isn't it?

Well, I was specifically asked if it meant anything else "in English," so...

Someone who lives on Lesbos.

[Grenartia]

Its not that big of a fucking secret on the NSG FB group. Anybody who wants to know, and is a member can see the post. If you're not a member, you can TG me your FB, and I'll put you in it. If you're not on FB, I can TG you direct links to the posts in question. However, I won't risk possibly being DOS'd myself, especially when there is NO reason for me to believe that they actively covered anything up, and that they've currently contacted the appropriate authorities.

Unlike certain people on this forum, I'm not a mod conspiracy theorist. Until I see hard PROOF that they've actively covered something up, and did NOT notify the proper authorities, I won't believe they have done anything wrong.

Are the mods perfect, god-like beings? Hell to the fuck no. They're human, like ALL of us. They're not capable of seeing EVERY FUCKING POST on the forums, contrary to what must be popular belief. But unlike popular perception, they aren't out to actively fuck over people unless they violate the rules.

viewtopic.php?p=13126925#p13126925
viewtopic.php?p=13126912#p13126912

it does kinda make you wonder what these posts look like in retrospect, doesn't it?

What. The actual. Fucking. Fuck.

[Paixao]

the american civil war was about slavery.

What?

This is wrong. If it's common knowledge it's incorrect Common Knowledge.

Slavery (and specifically the expansion of slavery into not-yet-states out to the West) was definitely a huge factor in the increase of tensions surrounding the American Civil War, but the main issue in the Civil war was secession. The North couldn't afford to allow the South to secede despite the South believing it had the right to. Not combating the South would be accepting they had seceded and that it was a lawful and legal action, encouraging the entirety of the US to disintegrate.

Slavery was a side issue. Lincoln himself was a gradual emancipist, not an abolitionist. As far as he was concerned, slavery was set to die out over time. To quote him:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Yes, he was opposed to slavery, yes he would've like to have seen it disappear from earth. However, he was a lawyer and a unionist first, and couldn't rightly find a way to make slavery illegal in the South (before they had seceded). Once they had seceded, his main interest was to reunify the United States. Slavery itself was relevant only as part of the compromise in the issue. It was not why the American Civil war was fought.

[/history rant for the day]

[Grenartia]

the american civil war was about slavery.

What?

This is wrong. If it's common knowledge it's incorrect Common Knowledge.

Slavery (and specifically the expansion of slavery into not-yet-states out to the West) was definitely a huge factor in the increase of tensions surrounding the American Civil War, but the main issue in the Civil war was secession. The North couldn't afford to allow the South to secede despite the South believing it had the right to. Not combating the South would be accepting they had seceded and that it was a lawful and legal action, encouraging the entirety of the US to disintegrate.

Slavery was a side issue. Lincoln himself was a gradual emancipist, not an abolitionist. As far as he was concerned, slavery was set to die out over time. To quote him:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Yes, he was opposed to slavery, yes he would've like to have seen it disappear from earth. However, he was a lawyer and a unionist first, and couldn't rightly find a way to make slavery illegal in the South (before they had seceded). Once they had seceded, his main interest was to reunify the United States. Slavery itself was relevant only as part of the compromise in the issue. It was not why the American Civil war was fought.

[/history rant for the day]

Arguably, slavery WAS the main issue, as it was the main issue behind secession.