They’re 18 for Gods sake

@Setanta,

Quote:

She is not to be trusted.

Quote:

You can do it in future without my assistance.

So far she has done it only once, while you have made this silly little promise of yours more times than A2K has posts.

I'm still finding it difficult to get my mind wrapped around the incredible hypocrisy. Even more so, that no one calls you on it, Set.

Where's Beth's honesty when it's most needed?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

so you can't provide an argument against the glaring evidence of her lack of character.

Doncha just love the smell of napalm in the morning, Set?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I'm not asking anyone to conform to my sexual mores - you're the one who stated that if people don't conform to hers and people like her or understand and agree with the choices they make sexually, THEIR sexual mores constricting and confined and restricted to missionary sex in the marital bed.

You ARE beyond ridiculous.

I don't give a crap who has sex with who or what - as long as they are not adults placed in a position of trust who are taking advantage of having a group of children and/or young and/or vulnerable adults placed under the auspices of their 'care' and 'authority', to elicit sex.

And yes, I know your words (after the fact- when your salacious enjoyment of the situation was pointed out to you) seem to imply you agree that she shouldn't face prison , but should not be teaching , but then you betray those words YET AGAIN when YOU point out that anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR take on her behavior must be sexually frustrated, repressed and only enjoys sex one very specific and pedestrian way.

I haven't made any judgments on or about how you or anyone has sex because I don't care how anyone else has consentual sex, as long as my tax dollars aren't paying their salary at a place where they're SUPPOSED tp be educating children and okay, young adults, not texting them for sex.

So don't try to put me (or anyone else) in some pigeonhole about how I or they have sex based on our opinion on her behavior. Which is exactly what you did do.

3 Replies

My lord had JTT found enough anti-American materials in her sick mind to post ten posts in a row on this thread?

I could looks at a few of her postings but everytimes I do I end up regretting having done so.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

So don't try to put me (or anyone else) in some pigeonhole about how I or they have sex based on our opinion on her behavior. Which is exactly what you did do.

What I do, Aidan, is to quote what I am going to comment on...rather than do what you do, which is to make up bullshit and then be indignant about it.

Have the guts to quote exactly what you are referring to...so I can defend what I said rather than post the nonsense you just posted.

I dare you to pick out one comment I made and actually discuss and debate it with me. I doubt you will do that.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

And yes, I know your words (after the fact- when your salacious enjoyment of the situation was pointed out to you) seem to imply you agree that she shouldn't face prison , but should not be teaching , but then you betray those words YET AGAIN when YOU point out that anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR take on her behavior must be sexually frustrated, repressed and only enjoys sex one very specific and pedestrian way.

This particular passage is an abomination, because it mischaracterizes my stance in so many ways. For the record, Aidan, you can go to page one of this thread and see that I immediately acknowledged that she did break a law...and the state did have a right to seek what they see as "justice."

I HAVE NO SALACIOUS ENJOYMENT OF THIS SITUATION WHICH I SEE AS A TRAGEDY...that was something Beth decided to dream up because she obviously had no reasonable arguments to make. And obviously, neither do you or you would not be repeating it rather than actually documenting what YOU determine to be my salacious enjoyment of this situation.

I defy you to take me up on my earlier dare. Go to my first comment...we'll move on to every comment after that one. I will defend every word I have written.

Or continue to paraphrase and create strawmen to argue against.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

then reinterpret my statement about her feeling far from free,

But the point is Rebecca that if she was not free in the sense you say then it is automatic that she was not responsible for her actions.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

The great state of Texas had taken the following position......The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate “morality based” reasons for the laws, which include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation.

The great state of Texas should get out and stay out of adults bedrooms even when the sex is unrelated to procreation.

But that is a valid position for a Christian to take. It is the official Christian position. Saying that Texas should get out bedrooms is the same as saying that Christianity is invalid. You need to understand what "legitimate 'morality based' reasons for the laws" means and only then can you try to undermine them. You need to attack the legitimation and not the actions the legitimation outlaws. Attacking the actions is too easy and such attacks are invalid if the legitimation is not addressed. If the legitimation has validity so too have the actions stemming from it.

In the promotion of teaching evolution in schools debate a Texas senator referred to "controversial issues". Those on the side of promoting the teaching of evolution in schools would never address what he meant despite my constant references to it and it was one of them who quoted it.

It is necessary to have "legitimate 'morality based' reasons" to execute people.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

I'm talking about the frame of mind of a woman who's a mother and a teacher and would risk it all to do something like this for kicks, and the men on this thread who are insinutating that if you don't agree that her choice was a wise or particularly healthy and fortunate one - you must be a nun or something.

But you intimated that she wasn't free from her urges and thus doing it for kicks is not relevant. If her urges were powerful then it is considered by many scientists unhealthy to repress them and that not repressing them becomes both wise and fortunate because such repression leads to neuroses and the conditions which arise from neuroses.

I am insinuating nothing. What do you mean by "something" in "a nun or something"?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Consenting sex between adults should not fall under any state criminal law period.

It is intellectually invalid, Bill, to say that without addressing the "legitimate 'morality based' reasons for the criminal law. All the criminal law. Failure to do so leaves you with nothing but an assertion which is highly likely to be subjectively prejudiced.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

PS I did many years ago had a friend who was a teacher dealing with senior high school students and after a few drinks one night she told me that having good looking and fit young men having romantic crushes on her is one hell of a turn on for her.

Stating that she from time to time needed to have long talks with herself to keep behaving in a proper manner.

But what matters Bill is whether her repression resulted in any long term conditions and whether, also, her "long talks" with herself were due to fear of punishment from external controllers, which the Freudians call the superego when internalised by conditioning. Her urge being called the id.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

Reading back it seems like everyone is in agreement - no jail time, loss of job. Is there anyone that is not of that opinion?

If push really comes to shove I think no loss of job either.

But I recognise the political facts and thus I accept her removal from the school. If really pushed on the political facts I accept her jailing as well as long as her jury and judge recognise their witch hunting and that the savagery of the sentence is proportional to their fear of female sexuality and the necessity to control it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Two things Frank--

Quote:

I am saying she has the right to enjoy sex as she sees fit.

There is an ambiguous use of "right" there. The State has a right too. And the exercise of that right contributes to the social system in which Brittini received many benefits. I think you use her right in the sense of a natural right but social systems are not natural.

The path between these opposing rights is very difficult and might even be dangerous.

Suppose that the decision to prosecute was taken to avoid the risk of her appealing against dismissal from teaching and the case arriving at the USSC. As a convicted felon her being dismissed from teaching is then the responsibility of the court rather than of the education authorities.

I'm not sure there is any answer but I am sure there are no easy ones.

She is, like Joan of Arc, a victim of circumstances not all that dissimilar to a freeway accident. Andy Warhol characterised Valerie Solanis firing a revolver into his chest from close range as an accident. What a gracious and saintly man eh? (Look her up on Wiki). She got 3 years.

Quote:

It is maddening the kind of reasoning you are using here.

That response is not appropriate. This is a very confusing issue. We need to keep our heads. Female impulsiveness is not a facet of human life that the law is altogether equipt to deal with. We recognise that in the general leniency courts extend to ladies and we have to hope that the prison authorities will view Brittini is that light.

The whole idea that men and women are equal is shite and the consequences of that silly notion are one giant pile of it.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

I'm still finding it difficult to get my mind wrapped around the incredible hypocrisy. Even more so, that no one calls you on it, Set.

I don't call him on it JT like I don't bang my head against thick, brick walls such as those surrounding the Tower Of London.

I demonstrate it from time to time of course.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

I'm not asking anyone to conform to my sexual mores - you're the one who stated that if people don't conform to hers and people like her or understand and agree with the choices they make sexually, THEIR sexual mores constricting and confined and restricted to missionary sex in the marital bed.

I don't think Frank said quite that Rebecca but there is a case for it to be true in general. Freud made it. Wilhelm Reich made it. Frank Harris made it. The Marquis de Sade made it. And Balzac. I could name a few more. It's close to being the river bed through which the River of Avon runs. And Dylan.

If you replace "missionary position" with "anything a sex manual sold in a respectable bookshop" describes or depicts, and replace Brittini's experience with fun with donkeys and horses, or "How to Train Your Husband" instructional literature derived from The medieval Courts of Love, the judges of which would have sheepishly smirked at our thread, you will get a better idea of what we are discussing despite the value of your personal experiences.

Your juxtaposing "missionary position" with " the squirming octopus position" is too specific.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Always better to remain the cool silent type than risk talking, right, Rock head?

But you too JT are being coy. You're just being noisier with it than Rocky. You have taken no position that I can see. I pointed out certain other "injustices" to compare the lady's actions with ages ago.

And your superior assertion "keep a thoroughly confused group more on track" requires some sort of justification rather than just the blurting out of it. Why you think we are confused? Is it all of us? Or is it some of us and if so which of us?

"Thoroughly confused" does mean barmy doesn't it?

So let us have the benefit of your opinions on the case leaving out the geo-political considerations and the insults to individuals and members of the discussion. Otherwise I do believe you are trolling if I understand the word.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

long as her jury and judge recognise their witch hunting and that the savagery of the sentence is proportional to their fear of female sexuality and the necessity to control it.

Talking about fear of female sexuality I am still getting over the idiots in Texas outlawing vibrators and going to the point of having uncover cops pretending to be a married couple at a party to arrest a woman for selling them or raiding a store for that matter.

There is no justification for that nonsense except for fear of female sexuality that I can see.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

But that is a valid position for a Christian to take. It is the official Christian position. Saying that Texas should get out bedrooms is the same as saying that Christianity is invalid

The US constitution is suppose to keep religion dogma and the state at arm length and as I am an atheist and so is my sexual partner their silliness have no claim on me of any kind.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

You have taken no position that I can see.

I don't need to take a position on every little issue, Spendi. My reference was to Rocky in a longer, ongoing sense.

Quote:

And your superior assertion "keep a thoroughly confused group more on track" requires some sort of justification rather than just the blurting out of it. Why you think we are confused? Is it all of us? Or is it some of us and if so which of us?

Why are you so paranoid all of a sudden, S? Read Engineer's two terse responses.

Quote:

So let us have the benefit of your opinions on the case leaving out the geo-political considerations and the insults to individuals and members of the discussion.

It's surely a grand joke that YOU are trying to tell me what to write.

Once you get involved in war crimes, it colors your whole being.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

There is no justification for that nonsense except for fear of female sexuality that I can see.

That's illogical Bill. You can't use "nonsense" and then offer an exception which might not be nonsense. You need to be saying that fear of female sexuality is unjustified in any respect.

0 Replies

They’re 18 for Gods sake

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know