20 Kids Stabbed

I agree, but therein lies the problem sir, mental readiness: I know people in their late 20's/30's that aren't responsible enough for children.

As far as "most" that's a harsh thing to say, and really judgmental of you. While I agree that our culture really coddles children and they take awhile to fully grow up, but that's an extended discussion.

@ the overall Yoko thing: that was more of my point with "material" than anything and as far as her popping out, calling *** sir, calling ***. Especially if the woman was in for a 3way.

ftfy

and hey, I'm not totally nutty.

Games again? I'll revise and be frank. So you think I support the diddling of little kids?

By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?

You're pretty *** nutty but I really don't care because it doesn't affect anyone.

Except Flavin apparently. Even less of a reason to care.

That is also correct. We are living in a sad state of affairs when people need to be told not to mess with children, and have to set the legal age to be at XX age.

It's why you can't rent a car until you're 25 (and part of why men pay more on car insurance 'til they're 25). It's just about the only rational age-based policy I've ever seen and it's attached to something trivial.

meh, being normal is overrated sir.

I love that question.

both of which I've always found discriminatory practices, but let's try not to go there.

You would have assumed incorrectly.

Why doesn't it bother you as much as it does me? I'm personally shocked at the blase attitude people have seemed to show here about this.

Games? I told you exactly what I did. Are you a supporter of diddling little kids? You only diminish yourself by trying to use this situation to further your own.

Beating my wife? Is there some kind of reference I should get?

Not really harsh or judgmental of -me- though, I didn't pull the number 18 out of my butt.

People are not considered adults from a legal standpoint until a certain age for reasons, trends, studies. Age of consent wasn't determined with a blindfold and a dartboard.

It comes down to the statistics really, that the majority of kids (below 18) are just not capable of making well informed and thought out decisions with regards to sexuality and the repercussions that could occur.

While there are certainly cases where a 16 year old may fully understand everything involved, that 16 year old would be considered very "mature for her age", and would be an exception.

The law however is not there for the minority, for the exceptions, it is there to protect the majority, the typical 15-19 year olds who are raised on TV with two parents who work full time and that go to school in a failing education system and that don't learn how to make good decisions or how to protect themselves from predators who would take advantage of their overdeveloped bodies and underdeveloped minds.

I don't see how I'm implying that I'm bothered rather than asking a question based on an observation. I think I've said 'I don't care' in two of my posts already.

I'm sorry that I disagree and I guess I have an overall more "faith" in young persons than you. Then again; you just described people well up into their 30's and beyond, and the majority too.

Also may be taking into account that I was fully aware at 13/14, and personally decided against going all the way with my gf at the time (was a year behind me in school) even though I'm certain she would have put out.

I still say your judgement is high, and your faith in the legal system is as well, especially in regards to that magical #.

As to what the law is there to protect: actually it's meant to protect everyone, including the minority. All I'm saying overall is that for those who wish to engage in relations, they should be able to go through a process in which to be allowed to do so, and their mate, whether the same age or 50 should be allowed to be with them without legal consequence just due to their age.

Somehow I feel extra shameful discussing this tangent in a thread devoted to a mass school stabbing.

Ultimately, if it were up to me sexual activity would require having an IQ of a certain level and a stable income, but that is just me pushing my chainsaw agenda again...

You said it doesn't bother you nearly as much as it does me to which I inquired why it didn't.

The ridiculuos nature of your question in the first place would be akin to me asking if you're a pedophile to because you're not bothered by it. I observed that you're not bothered by this act so you are one. I obeserved that you are bothered by this act so you have been affected by it.

I can certainly understand that viewpoint, even though I disagree with it.

edit: the IQ/income bit, not the chainsaw bit.

Go Chainsaw Agenda!

I don't care about it because if someone doesn't act on it, it affects no one. Whereas you seem extremely upset over something even existing. I already got my answer on this.

Not getting further into an argument over semantics with you Flavin.

Oh so people here are cracking jokes 1 day later
Oh suuuuuure! Some kids get stabbed and we can crack jokes a day later. A tsunami strikes Japan, I say the same ***and everyone turns into the most caring individual known to man. Hypocrites for days! ;)

I don't even know how far back I would have to go to get to the actual story here, but I heard someone mention today that they thought maybe the stabbing thing was somehow inspired by something that happened in China? Apparently a group of people went on some kind of bladed killing spree, anyone hear anything about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing

And:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/us-china-attack-idUSBREA200OQ20140301

Lol, a day later? First responses in this thread were offtopic, it didn't even take 5 minutes. Remember the Paul Walker thread and all the car jokes? But when an oscar winning junkie OD's on heroine, we have to be sad!

Mass stabbing, pedophilia, a Hitler reference... Yep, the unholy trinity has been achieved.

Locked.