sephiroth_king

HOLY CRAP thank you. I love the Atheist experience. ... Just thought I should throw that in their before I get back to my university work :shock:

It must be easy to straw man. I never once claimed she was developed fully at all, but I can argue that some kids are more developed than 19 year olds. And what's up with the fallacy? If someone has a mental disability, of course they have to be examined closer. But we weren't talking about that. So why include it? Also, do you not know when puberty starts? Thats the age. Come one now, don't argue that. Its a moot point anyway. Now you're just purposely finding things to get angry about. I was just stating something. One thing I will say, though, is you have great drive, and in all seriousness, respect you for that.

Prevent a couple of bad things that happened when I was a child. Or at least that was the first thing that came into my head, but I guess I wouldn't change that either. Nothing. My life really has risen above and beyond those things. And I'm happy as a result. :)

Or at least when they hit a point where they can reason. I've known a lot of people who were able to reason around that time, and some who weren't. We were all taught not to give out personal information or talk to strangers since we were even younger.

Most people wouldn't, probably. I would still find it a problem and would want it fixed. It would be a double standard otherwise.

Has she hit puberty? Probably not. I'm at least arguing from a pubescent standpoint. If she hit puberty by that age, she should be cognitively tested, but chances are sure won't have that great of maturity because he/she'll have just started puberty. At that age, you are usually still a child. Pre-pubescent. Which is a child. Simply put. If she was 10, probably NO. @Tacos: 'Tis indeed. I don't really like going there. :/

Eh, I was posting a long response to this, but I got distracted and can't remember what else I was going to type. But in short, no. Pedophilia is the attraction of prepubescent children which I am not asking we allow, simply just a test for pubescent teens to see if their cognitive abilities are on par with what is expected of an adult: to differentiate what is harmful and whats best for them. Immaturity should be contained within protective laws, but those that can think shouldn't be held with these laws. Basically, again, one should be tested based upon cognitive ability.

The consent law is arbitrary. Being 18 means nothing in biology. Nothing. Age of consent laws are arbitrary not only in sex, but everywhere else. Theme parks, for example, can decide when you are an adult to charge you more. Though this is an extremely poor contrast. You futile attempts at using straw men are also rather amusing. I am 18, going on 19 in about 26sh days. Now, what I simply think is that consent should be defined with the cognition of one's brain. One can be 14 and be more mature and developed than that of a 19 year old, for example. But in our age of consent laws (at least in 'Merica), the said 14 yeah old would still be cognitively devoid than that of a 19 year old because the law said so. And only a couple hundred years ago, those laws were different than todays. Laws evolve and change over time as we investigate and discover new realities, or when we can disprove older laws and replace them. Every single person who has anything resembling a rational thought should question the law every now and then, in my opinion. Mindlessly following the law is silly and dangerous. Its good to question the reality of the situation sometimes. This girl may not have had the cognitive abilities to discern what is good or bad in her situation, and we won't know because of the law. I also cannot agree with the so-called "reality" you stated. Teenagers mature younger and more rapid nowadays. Puberty is occurring younger, and many children are also capable of rational thought during those ages. I also find it arbitrary that an adult, lets say age 33, can have sex with a 15 year old and he would be the only one charged with any wrongdoing, even if the teen consented. However, if the situation was twisted and lets say the 15 year old were to rob a bank with this man, she can be tried as an adult for being an assistant to this mans crime. Granted, sex is definitely more psychologically relative and is emotionally connected as well, but given the conditions of the bank robbery scenario it can be just as frightening for the child. No. In reality, age does not show anything but how many days one has lived on this earth and does not necessarily relate to cognitive ability. Surely there are teens that obviously cannot make that decision, but at the same time there must also be quite a few that can. I was ninja'd :P Also, if I were trolling, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't make an attempt to sound intelligent and I also wouldn't make an attempt to care about what I was saying. But hell, I apparently may be a troll simply because I don't agree with the majority.

There is no such thing as consent from someone younger than the age of consent. "Yeah, I'm old enough, let's do this," Sorry honey, the government says that its not your decision to make, and the answer is automatically a resounding "NO." What happened to her WAS wrong. A 54 year old man should not be having sex with a CHILD. If you're an adult, children (minors under the age of 18) are off limits. I never said ti wasn't wrong. In fact, I said that at the end. But then again, I'm not one to follow arbitrary age laws as defining who a person was as I believe in the cognitive standards of someone rather than, again, an arbitrary age. By law standards, sure, consent is non existent. But that doesn't mean one cannot make a decision on heir own based Upon their age. So [bleep] your government. You can argue from law, but I will not argue from law because law is just another way of control. I'm simply arguing from a psychological viewpoint here. But I did say the situation was wrong in general. So I don't know where you came off as me saying it wasn't wrong. EDIT: This could also be a likely candidate of what was happening.

(I'm taking my intro out, its flame bait without me noticing it. I apologize.) There's no need for personal attack, either. I already said before that manipulation played a big part in this mess. Are you not reading my posts or something? You're agreeing with me on that part. On behalf of disagreeing, I'm simply saying that you cannot simply victimize someone that chose to participate, through manipulation or not, though she shouldn't be blamed for the situation. When someone chooses to participate in something, accept items from somebody, sneak around with somebody, etc. then age shouldn't even play a part in deciding who's at fault, only cognition. And in her mind (even if people qualify her decisions as null and void due to her age), she still made a decision--to have sex, and in continuing she didn't feel it was rape. She acted on a sexual urge which is quite common for her age. That's all I'm arguing. Manipulation or not, she still consented. And then, she'll be programmed and told that what happened to her was wrong, and she'll probably scarred because of it bing beaten into her head. Its rather sad, even though the situation is wrong. You can also not make the assumption that he's done this before without proper evidence to back it up, however similar situations have some of the same backgrounds. But I will say this again: Don't take offense because people won't agree with your position, and I am certainly not sorry for disagreeing with you.

Wow, OT you have disappointed :wall: Things don't always work out the ideal way they should. I don't see how you could blame anyone but the guy, it's pretty damn easy to hide a cell phone/what you are doing on the computer from parents. Especially when there's only one in the household and they work two jobs Don't freak out because people won't agree with you in relation to this. I understand your position, but you have to understand that a victim that was raped (in the sense of forced sex) wouldn't continue to get raped (by that form of the definition). He molested and raped her because she was underage and thus, by cognitive standards, probably couldn't make wholly correct decisions. Basically, there's the rape where you are forced, and the rape where you allow it, but are too young. She was simply too young and kept going for more. Clearly she was manipulated, but everyone has a choice, and her choice was to stay and accept sex from this pedophile. At some point, one has to acknowledge in these situations that there is no victim in the traditional sense. She's a victim of manipulation, not forced sex and the like.

Well, I wouldn't say she didn't know what sex was. I would go as far as to say curiosity starts out at an extremely young age (via Freudian standards), and is hard wired into us because of evolutionary standards. Children are curious about genitalia (our own and the opposite sex) and the opposite sex. Girls also tend to start puberty around that age as well. However, I agree with you. Psychologically, no child that age can make correct decisions in regards to having sex with an adult. Children that age--male or female--for the most part are incredibly naive. Hell, even I was. The man most likely told her that he loved her and got her to have sex with him that way. But she isn't fully a victim, either, as she seems to have wanted it rather than telling someone or avoiding the situation altogether, and this man was able to take advantage of her because of her naivety (and/or lack of knowledge in regards to predators). She probably isn't exactly scarred either, but she damn will be after the people pound into her head that what happened to her was horrible and reprehensible--which it is, but its sad to see someone become scarred because it is programmed into her. But, on my opinion on the location, typical. I hear these stories all to often in Massachusetts. I know a lot that went through something like this. I like it in MA, I just don't like hearing these stories all that much (like anyone else, but it is typical around these parts in local news).

Source Info -There is a perk that will lower the sound of your footsteps. -Perk for Axe that enables deeper cuts, which means prolonged bleeding. You can hit someone once and they will eventually bleed out. -Eventual perk upgrade for Maces that will allow you to hit for full damage, ignoring armor stats. -The article mentions placing runes on the floor (that we know already) but in particular talks about 'lob a frost rune down and if an enemy wanders over it, shards of ice will be launched through its body' -Telekinesis is an available spell. -'No more agility to build up so don't have to keep jumping around to level up' (I assume they mean no longer skills like acrobatics and athletes but they use the word agility) -When you kill a dragon you're able to absorb its soul which will make you learn a new dragon shout. -There is a dragon shout called 'Unrelenting Force' which pushes anything standing directly in front of you backwards. -Dragon shouts have cooldown periods after each shout performed. Individual shouts will have their own cooldown time. -In the northern parts of Solitude is the Bard's College. The city is a busy port and there's event similar to bonfire night that has the burning of an effigy of King Olaf. -Windhelm is the largest city. It has a palace that should look spectacular. This is also apparently the hangout for the Imperial Guards who monitor the path to Morrowind. -Bleak Falls Barrows is a dungeon, with ancient Nord catacombs which features rivers, tree roots coming through the ceiling and light coming through odd cracks. -120 Dungeons and they claim that 'no two areas will be alike'. -Just to re-confirm this fact straight from Todd Howard. Oblivion had 1 dungeon designer with artists doing the rest. Skyrim has 8 dungeon designers. -Whole world is hand-crafted. Oblivion had some generated landscapes and there is NONE of that anymore used in Skyrim. -The Shivering isles expansion inspired the team that unique, hand-crafted cities, where no two buildings look the same, was the way to go. -Example of a 'Radiant Story'. OXM UK recieved a quest to go to Bleak Falls Barrow and retrieve a golden dragon claw antique and take it back to shopkeeper Lucan. If you killed Lucan, the quest would change to his friend Camilla instead. -The Snow. Has been a lot of confusion about this. OXM UK says that snowfall is dynamic. Instead of a texture with a bit of white added, landscapes realistically get dusted with snow landing in appropiate nooks and crannies. -There are one-off puzzles in certain dungeons. Example of new AI: 'Wolves have a den. Few times a day they go out and do a patrol and hunt in a pack. If they kill something then they'll hang out there. If you go outside and they're on patrol they will come after you. If they've killed something they will guard that and not chase you down as they want to look after it. Dragon Shouts The fact about the 'absorb soul of dragons to learn new shouts' has caused a little bit of confusion. The dragon shout phases, of up to three words, can be found inscribed on the walls of ancient Nord dungeons. When uttered by the Dragonborn (the player) the words invoke powerful magic powers. For many of the shouts you can learn more phases which in turn will allow you to unleash a lengthier or more powerful version of the shout by holding the shout button down. This appears to be the main way of learning shouts, by finding the word inscriptions. However the OXM article also mentions that you can learn new shouts in the process of absorbing dragon souls. The article doesn't mention anything else about this, maybe not all dragons give shouts, we don't know yet. Key Map Locations visible on page 34 Solitude Markarth Dawnstar Winter Hold Windhelm Whiterun Riften Falkreath edit - These map locations may very well be outdated as OXM have used the old skyrim map with a new colour scheme. Confirmed Skills Alchemy Illusion Conjuration Destruction Restoration Alteration Enchanting New Screenshots Page 31 - We see a dragon on top of snow covered ruins. There is a huge backdrop behind it showing off mountains, new clouds and fog. Draw distance looks great. Page 34 - There is a picture of the skyrim worldmap which lists the locations listed above. On 2nd look they've used the same map as the one on the UESP wiki, so it may be outdated. Page 38 - A player appears to be wearing Elven armor and dualwielding a sword and staff. The staff is able to cast light along a corrider. (Was in gameinformer but bigger shot here and addition info) Page 39 - 2 new screenshots here, we see a hooded stealth character performing a stealth execution (Assassin's Creed style, blade to the chest up close). We see a new dungeon called the 'Hall of Stories' which features a locked door and a puzzle to open it. Stonework looks fantastic with spider webbing across the walls. Most of this article (especially the entire land being hand crafted!! :D) makes me giddy as hell. The bleeding effect pwns as well. Now I just hope for skeletal variation, and I will be happy.

[/hide] That has Old Testament references in it, though. I have some disagreeable quotes from the New Testament that I have marked in my defiled bible. :P [Hide=My Rebuttal] I'll be jumping around as I flick through random passages, so bare with me. Jesus on Not Abolishing the Old Testament Law: Jesus abdicates killing: Jesus abdicating Child abuse: Wait, didn't you use that one? :P Also see: Mark 7:9 Slaves Obeying Their Masters: [/hide] Among other random passages. And of course, most of those things we don't follow because they are bronze age mythology and we have learned to be more secular in our thinking. But why pick and choose? No, usually I know the answer: because its a comfort zone, a security blanket. ignore the old and in with the new--which still gives bad advice with a mixture of good things to say (that steals from other Religions like Hinduism). I would also just like to point out that the Old Testament isn't necessarily defunct just because some passages said so because, again, Jesus didn't exactly care to bring down the old law and had some twisted beliefs in regards to slavery and the such. He did have a lot of good things to say, but then again a lot of what Jesus has said is reflected upon religions older than Jesus. The Old Testament shows the rudimentary and vicious, savage God who seemed bloodthirsty and violent throughout the old book. The New Testament shows the other side to appeal to people in my opinion. The only conclusion I can make is that this book was written by a few to control the many, and to do that they had to make a nice, forgiving savior. But both contain contradictions and unjust things that should be examined carefully, as even things that seem just may not even be at all in my opinion. (Like I said, the Sermon On The Mount as an example.) Nite everyone. See you tomorrow. :)

I completely agree. Our dorm hall had a party, and pretty much every person bashed the hell out of the commercials and the half time show. Christina Aguilera wasn't that good, and Fergi was absolutely terrible. All in all, it sucked.

And what, prey tell, is the point? That Jesus is the savior, the all good, and the New Testament is canon whilst the Old Testament is canon-fodder? Sorry, the New Testament isn't all good either. No, you have. You've decided to completely disregard the origins of your own religion (if you're a Christian) and inherently take in the teachings of Christ, which are again not all that good either. That's the problem: picking and choosing. The point is to read it all and consider it, lest you simply just ignorantly push aside all of the bad for the bliss. Picking and choosing is just a mechanism for a believer to decide what they don't want to hear and what they do. Too many people I know do that. But please (and I mean this politely, I don't mean to come off like a jackass, which I inevitably will do) don't tell me to read the New Testament as if I haven't read it and then tell me to stop being hung up on the Old Testament. Read and take in both or be ignorant. And personally, I'll take in both. You do as you please.

You really should read the New Testament. There's a lot of good stuff in there, and you'd fix your gross misconceptions. So, disregard the old testament for the new? To put it bluntly, screw that. I'll read both as to what those medieval beliefs are. Also, I've read the Bible multiple times, went to a Catholic School where my Faith was destroyed which led me to read it multiple times, and I know for a fact that the New Testament is just as full of crap as the old testament. And when I say crap, I mean, in my opinion, immoral crap. For example, Jesus' Sermon on The Mount, which is looked at usually as "good" when looked at theologically, but when looked at in depth is just kind of sad. The Iron Chariots Wiki Is a good place to find lots of counter-apologetics stuff, among it the Sermon on the Mount. By the way, there is no misconception just because one Testament says different things from the other. If there are two testaments, one should study them both, not look at one and snub it because it says a few bad things. But as I've said before, the New Testament isn't up to par either. "And you can't smell your own [cabbage] on your knees." -Marilyn Manson, The Beautiful People (Lol, just being a wise-ass here really)

People set morals, not Religion. For example, Let's say Christian in todays world followed the Bible to the very core. Every last person who considered themselves a Christian or a believer in God or Christ followed the Bible to the last bt of ink. If this were the case, the believers would have to kill sodomites, incestual people, women would have absolutely no rights still, slavery would exist, etc. Yet, these beliefs, which were once indeed followed, are abolished as cave man theology by people today. When humanity realizes not to fear authority, then they begin to determine what is truly right and wrong. Religion can be credited with mass control of people via moral standards laid out by their respective Gods, but throughout time it seems secularism has always triumphed against horrific ideals simply because they are horrific. Most religions seem to adapt to what the people believe and feel is right in order to stop people from going astray; Christianity does this a lot (set aside a few sects today). Morality can be debated to the end of time, but no Morality is wholeheartedly true unless we will it. This is why personally I don't believe in good or evil, as they are simply just labels. Also, as a quick addition, the religious morality system seems to be set in place so people will be rewarded for their good deeds in the afterlife, rather than doing good for the sake of doing good. Personally, I haven't known a lot of Christians that do good for the sake of it rather than to be rewarded for their actions. Take my sibling, for example, who vehemently opposes scientific ideas and homosexuality because her Bible demands it, rather than setting her own moral standard. And because she follows it, she'll be rewarded. She even looks at me and snubbingly tells me that she feels sorry for me because I'll burn.

I was cheering for them. I was not confident that they could do it. But they did. :thumbup:

It's not meant to be a "scientific explanation" more than it is a testament to how we don't know and won't assume something else until we accumulate proof/ a better understanding. Also, evolution doesn't so much deal with the origins of life as does abiogenesis. Evolution simply describes the evolution from the beginning to different species and how they adapted through natural selection.

Todd Howard Q&A Podcast Check it out.

Damn nature, you scary Good thing I live in MA :thumbup:

When there is no one left to perceive ten we cease to exist. The laws don't cease to exist. NOTHING ceases to exist until it "dies"--whether it be humans or a star above. everything stays the same until another big crunch. What separates a human from an animal is that we understand existence and can discern as such. If we die, there will be nothing else to perceive what we cognitively can...but that doesn't mean existence no longer has meaning. Thats a blatant lie, intentional or not. Maybe, per say, YOU die, then your existence no longer means anything in the present moment...but everything else is still there and does exist. Same if all humans die--the earth, the stars, everything still exists and that doesn't devalue the existence simply because we, as humans, can't perceive it. If anything, that's an egocentric way of thinking. Your next statements are also patently absurd and sound like appeals to ignorance. Something can come from nothing and vice versa? No. Absolutely not. Something doesn't have to exist for nothing to exist, that's a contradiction. You know what? I don't understand how you could've posted that last part. Its self contradictory and is an argument that sounds like it comes from a spawn of a beaten philosophical ideal. Like taking Nietzsche's Abyss quote and beating the [cabbage] out of it and posting it up. :/

The universe is indifferent to what we think because it is not a sentient being. As to it being true to any other type of existence, it would probably have to be on par or the same as our logic if it were, for example, a God because that God would have had to existed with the laws of the universe or be born with the laws of the universe that created them, and if he was here before the laws, that would beg the question as to how he got there, and who created him, creating a never ending paradox and therefore, for lack of a better word, silly. As to other beings we don't know about...that's the problem. We don't know about them, so we can assume their non existence until we find credible evidence to other existences. We can know our logic is true because it is still bound to natural laws around us, humans didn't arbitrarily make up random rules in which logic is bound to, but our universe had laws that logic must be bound to. Gravity, for example. The Laws of physics as another. Again. Logic doesn't need to be proven true or false. Its not something which can be falsified or made truth because it is in tune with the laws of the universe and as such is already bound to be true. Nothing needed to "prove" something so abstract. Edit: Apologies for any bad grammar or syntax errors. Its 3:20 here and I'm anxious about going back to my university tomorrow and therefore can't get to sleep. :P

Sweet, good memories always dying in Oregon Trails...and I still have the Carmen San Diego games and play them every now and again. Too bad I hate Facebook.