Entertainment Industry Nostalgia: June 1990

Cowboy Channel on cable TV begins transmitting.  “Turtle Power” by Partners In Kryme hits #13.  Greyhound Bus files bankruptcy.  Dr Jack Kevorkian assisted an Oregon woman to commit suicide, beginning a national debate over the right to die.  “It’s Garry Shandling’s Show” last airs on Fox-TV.  Supreme Court says law prohibiting desecration of US flag unconstitutional.  “Mariah Carey” debut album by Mariah Carey is released.  Supreme Court rules police check for drunk drivers constitutional.  “U Can’t Touch This” by MC Hammer peaks at #8.  Asteroid Eureka is discovered.  NYC’s Zodiac killer shoots 4th victim, Larry Parham.  At Yankee Stadium rally, Nelson Mandela dons a NY Yankee baseball cap and proclaims “I am a Yankee!”.  Adam Sandler joins “Saturday Night Live”.  A rally to save Alien Nation from cancellation held at Statue of Liberty.  Police find marijuana at Chuck Berry’s home.  “Dave Thomas Comedy Show” last airs on CBS-TV.  NBC decides to air episodes of “Quantum Leap” for 5 straight days.

This month, it was all about the videogames.  What a glorious month for gaming.  But first, as a warm-up…

 

Music

Stuff I don’t care for (that either wasn’t a big enough culture hit, or it managed to make the top charts in some category) that you might dig: Tiamat: Sumerian Cry (I may like heavy metal, but I despise death metal); Anita Baker: Compositions; Keith Sweat: I’ll Give All My Love To You; Colin James: Sudden Stop; Deicide: Deicide; Dusty Springfield: Reputation (her big comeback album after 11 years without releasing new material); Sonic Youth: Goo; Cheap Trick: Busted; James: Gold Mother; Robert Cray: Midnight Stroll.

New Kids on the Block: Step by Step

Oh Jesus.  Ok, so this is not my kind of music.  But considering how famous these guys have gotten, how heavily they were being promoted, and all the goddamn merchandise they were selling, I can’t exactly ignore them.

 

Teenage Fanclub: A Catholic Education

Very rough around the edges (though this was their debut album, and I hear they improve later in their career), but it does have some nice beats to it.  Kinda groovy once you get past the rough stuff.  The track “Heavy Metal II” won me over.

 

Bad Company: Holy Water

 

 

Mariah Carey: Mariah Carey

Debut album from this famous singer.  Personally, I don’t care for this music, at all.  But considering how well known she is, kinda have to include it.

 

Mike Oldfield: Amarok

This is more on the unique side.  It’s intended to be listened to in its entirety rather than have a single standout track.  And, uh, I don’t know if I like it or don’t.

 

Alias: Alias

The band seems on the verge of going more hard edge than it is in this album.  But this was a big debut for this new band, and I do enjoy “Haunted Heart.”

 

Green on Red: This Time Around

I like this album.  That is all.

 

Uncle Tupelo: No Depression

Normally not interested in country music, though I will admit this is a tad above average.  Plus it’s classified as “alternative country” rather than just plain country, which is probably why it appeals to me a little more.  Main reason I’m including this is because it is considered one of the most important alternative country albums ever released, mainly because of its impact on the alternative country genre.  Not to mention it helped kick-start the “Americana” music movement.  Can’t ignore it because of the impact it made.

 

His Name is Alive: Livonia

Interesting.

 

Nelson: After the Rain

It’s just ok.  But their single “(Can’t Live Without Your) Love and Affection” was the #1 hit for a while.  And considering this was their debut album, in that time period, that does make it an achievement.

 

Danzig: Danzig II Lucifuge

While not containing a single that ever got as popular as “Mother” (from their previous album), it’s a pretty damn solid album.  My choice for album of the month.

 

Sonic Youth: Goo

I initially didn’t want to add this here, mainly because the single “Mildred Pierce” sounded like nails on a chalkboard to me.  But since this album is considered one of the most important alternative rock records of all time, primarily for its contribution to the music culture, how influential it became…  Well, the whole album is very hit and miss for me.  And when it misses, it misses a lot harder than it hits in my opinion.  But that’s just my subjective opinion.

 

Gene Loves Jezebel: Kiss of Life

It’s worth listing just for the title song alone.  The single “Jealous” was considered a hit from what I understand; but the other song I really enjoyed was “Why Can’t I?”  Especially because that latter song would be so appropriate for Captain Marvel when you consider some of the lyrics.

 

Movies

Movies that didn’t make the cut: Another 48 Hours was an inferior sequel to the solid first film, and is ultimately forgettable.  With that out of the way, you’re about to witness why this is one of the best months in 1990.

Frankenhooker

I personally didn’t care for this movie, but it is a cult classic for many.

 

Total Recall

Now we’re talking.  One of my all time favorites, and one of the most well-known sci-fi flicks of all time.  Everyone knows (or should know) about this classic masterpiece.  Easily the best film of the month, by a mile.  Maybe even best of the year.  One of those movies that MADE this year.

 

Dick Tracy

Christ, all the build-up and hype for this film.  Even Madonna was hyping it up, mainly because she was starring in it too.  But this is one of those films that is not as good as it’s hyped up to be, it’s overlong, a bit tedious, and Warren Beatty is full of himself (and so is Madonna).  The first 15 minutes is as good as it gets.  Make-up effects are pretty damn good too.

 

Gremlins 2: The New Batch

This is one of those sequels where there is heated debate to this day as to whether it’s better or worse than the first film.  Sometimes it can go so far as people saying you’ll either love it or hate it.  I’m one of those who finds it superior to the first, but that’s just me.

 

Robocop 2

It’s not as good as the first, but it has some good stuff to it.  Just got a little too goofy at times.  Well, at least it wasn’t as bad as the 3rd film.

 

Days of Thunder

Here’s that other Top Gun-like movie.  Except with race cars.  And, it’s alright for what it is.

 

Ghost Dad

Despite its bad rap, I find this film both intentionally and unintentionally hilarious.  I even made a drunk review of it.

 

Games

Others not listed that could be worth checking out: Shingen the Ruler (NES),
ESWAT: City under Siege (Sega Genesis), Batman (Game Boy), Shanghai (Game Boy), Little League Baseball: Championship Series (NES).  With that out of the way, get ready for bombardment of goodness.  This month offered gaming overload.

Dragon Spirit: The New Legend (June 1990; NES)

Dragon Spirit: The New Legend (Game) - Giant Bomb

It’s a solid port of the arcade version (by NES standards).  But one of the things people remember about this game is the music.

 

 

Boulder Dash (June 1990; NES)

Boulder Dash - Nintendo NES - Games Database

A classic, in my opinion.  The name is so familiar and nostalgic.

 

 

Bad News Baseball (June 1990; NES)

One of the more fun baseball games.  It may have some issues, but that’s because, in this game, you can play ball like a girl!

 
Adventures in the Magic Kingdom (June 1990; NES)

It’s not that good, but people have, uh, memories of this one.  Left too much of an impression to ignore.

 

 

Arkista’s Ring (June 1990; NES)

It’s ok.

 

 

Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers (June 1990; NES)

When we didn’t have Ducktales (woo-ooo), we had this.  There were enough times where licensed games were legitimately great.

 

 

Cabal (June 1990; NES)

Cabal (Game) - Giant Bomb

This is not to be confused with hunting simulators.  When it first came out at the arcades in the 80s, it set a standard for arcade third person shooters.

 

 

Captain Skyhawk (June 1990; NES)

Play Captain Skyhawk Nintendo NES online | Play retro ...
Why is this motherfucker flying with his eyes closed?

An ambitious NES game that simulated a 3D flying experience in the same way Sonic 3D Blast on the Sega Genesis (much much later) simulated a 3D Sonic game. About as good of graphics as the NES was capable of putting out.

 

 

Silkworm (June 1990; NES)

Silkworm (video game) - Wikipedia

Yep, another shoot-em-up that was cool.  With co-op, the way it is intended to be played.

 

 

Rad Racer II (June 1990; NES)

Rad Racer II (Game) - Giant Bomb

One of the most famous racing series to ever hit the NES.  Plus the first Rad Racer is also well-known particularly for the power glove scene in The Wizard.  Some prefer the first to the second, but the second has its fans too, and people enjoy it either way.

 

 

Pinball Quest Jaleco Entertainment (June 1990; NES)

What a fascinating concept for a pinball game.  A sort of pinball RPG.  The concept is great, but the execution is lacking, especially by today’s standards.  It can be very frustrating and repetitive, especially for those not all that skilled at these type of pinball games.  But it really stood out from every other pinball game back in the day.  Hell, this would stand out in the present day.

 

 

Starship Hector (June 1990; NES)

Bullet hell.  Hard as fuck.  Good luck.

 

 

 

Solstice: The Quest for the Staff of Demnos (June 1990; NES)

Solstice: The Quest for the Staff of Demnos (Game) - Giant Bomb

Whew.

 

 

The Mafat Conspiracy (June 1990; NES)

One of the main ways Americans were introduced to Golgo 13, based on the famous manga (which became an anime series, and an anime movie).  If not for that, I probably wouldn’t mention this.  I mean, yeah, there are people who enjoy it in spite of its faults, especially that cocksucking first person portion of the game.

 

 

Columns (June 1990; Arcade, Sega Genesis, Atari ST)

Yes, it’s time for the Sega Genesis to shine.  And it got an all time classic puzzle game.  True, it was also on the arcades and the Atari, but what mattered is that the Sega Genesis had it.  There’s just something about that music and sound effects.  So enchanting.

 

 

Ghostbusters (June 29, 1990; Sega Genesis)

Oh yeah.  Damn right.  One of the most revered Sega Genesis titles ever.

 

 

Budbrain (aka Megademo; June 1990; Amiga)

This has become a cult classic.  It’s just a demo for the Amiga system, or something like that.  But it’s a big thing for some people.

Target Earth (June 1990; Sega Genesis)

Don’t let the reviewer fool you, this game was fucking awesome.  Hard as balls, but so damn rewarding.

CyberBall (June 1990; Sega Genesis [ported from 1989 arcade])

This is one of those games that could get people who don’t normally enjoy football to play football.

Sid Meier’s Covert Action (June 1990; MS-DOS, Amiga)

I’m just going to leave this here.  Don’t make the mistake of believing Sid Meier was only good at developing Civilization games.

 

 

 

TV Shows

Jack shit for tv shows this month.  Some attempted game shows like Monopoly and others that never caught on and never became anything special.  So, yeah, we’re ending the month on that note.  But let’s face it, we can’t become spoiled with every category in every month.  We had an unbelievable dose of great games, and that’s good enough as is.  Never mind that we also got Total Recall.

Entertainment Industry Nostalgia: May 1990

microsoft 3

Stuff that happened this month: Angela Bowie reveals that ex-husband David slept with Mick Jagger.  Nora Dunn and Sinead O’Connor boycott “Saturday Night Live” to protest Andrew Dice Clay’s hosting which was perceived as sexist; the show uses a time delay for the third time in its history.  “Cheers” star Kelsey Grammer sentenced to jail for 30 days for DWI.  European court rules on pension rights for men & women.  World Health Organization takes homosexuality out of its list of mental illnesses.  Hubble Space Telescope sends its 1st photographs from space.  Microsoft releases Windows 3.0.  NYC’s Zodiac killer shoots 3rd victim, Joseph Ponce.  James “Jim” Henson, American puppeteer, artist, screenwriter and filmmaker, best known as the creator of ‘the Muppets” (Sesame Street, The Muppet Show), dies of toxic shock syndrome caused by pneumonia at 53.

Source: https://www.onthisday.com/date/1990/may

  

 

Music

Music some may like that I don’t (again, I won’t include everything, as there’s too much, and I’m not exactly a connoisseur): Sonia: Everybody Knows; Kim Wilde: Love Moves; Tony! Toni! Toné!: The Revival; Adrian Belew: Young Lions; Doug Anthony All-Stars (notable for only releasing one album, which was successful in Australia, but banned in the UK); George Strait: Livin it UpThe Pretenders: Packed!; Katydids: Katydids; John Doe: Meet John Doe; The Breeders: Pod (maybe add this, with the track Fortunately Gone); Wire: Manscape.

Billy Idol: Charmed Life

His 4th studio album.  You should know his name, as he’s one of the most famous rock stars to have ever existed.  While I enjoy the whole album, the biggest hit was the single Charmed Life, which also had a hit music video directed by David Fincher, which also appeared in the film The Adventure’s of Ford Fairlane, an Andrew “Dice” Clay movie that would be coming out very soon this same year.
 

Flotsam & Jetsam: When the Storm Comes Down

Thrash metal.  Not considered their strongest album (it does get monotonous at times), but it does have some notable standouts such as The Master Sleeps, and Suffer the Masses.
 

 

Mark Lanegan: The Winding Sheet

Not bad, but I’m only really keen for “Mockingbirds.”
 

 

Yngwie Malmsteen: Eclipse

“Devil in Disguise,” “Faultline,” “See You In Hell,” and “Save our Love” are pretty damn good songs.  In fact, the “See You In Hell” song has some beats similar to what would be used in Final Fantasy VIII battle music some years later.  This could very well be the best album of the month.

Bruce Dickinson: Tattooed Millionaire

First singles album from the lead singer of Iron Maiden.  The song “Lickin’ the Gun” isn’t half bad either.  Rather enjoyed “All the Young Dudes,” if only to be reminded of that awesome song’s existence (originally done by Mott the Hoople).

 

Dio: Lock Up the Wolves

It’s Dio.  You can’t go wrong with him.

 

Y&T: Ten

Not bad.
 

 

Ice Cube: AmeriKKKa’s Most Wanted

Considering this is one of the most famous rappers and rap albums of all time, kinda have to include this just for the culture shock (though not as big of a culture shock as NWA, but that was the 80s).

 

Madonna: I’m Breathless

Released to promote the film Dick Tracy, which would be released next month.  Also has a music video directed by David Fincher (that guy sure gets around) that was also a big hit.  Big hits were “Vogue” and “Hanky Panky.”

 

The Jeff Healey Band: Hell to Pay

 

 

Concrete Blonde: Bloodletting

Behold the resurgence of the goth subculture.  And I’ll be damned if I didn’t find some of this catchy.

 

 

The Breeders: Pod

Quite unique and interesting girl band.

 

 

Movies

There was this one little movie called Bird on a Wire, starring Mel Gibson and Goldie Hawn.  It sucked.  That’s why I’m not listing it.  But it does have some amount of popularity, mainly because it was such a terrible film made with a film starring two popular stars.  There’s also this bland forgettable Top Gun knockoff with Tommy Lee Jones and Nicolas Cage called Fire Birds that isn’t really worth recommending.  The better Top Gun knockoff would come next month.  Lastly, there’s this one film called The Swordsman, Chinese martial arts film (kind of), which was the first part of a trilogy of which many say the 2nd is the best.  I can’t seem to find a way of getting a hold of this film currently, so this blog might get revised if I ever do see it.  That being said, this wasn’t exactly what I would call a good month for movies in my personal opinion.

Short Time

Honestly, this movie is just an ok film.  So why mention it?  Because it has this amazing car chase sequence.

 

Tales From the Darkside: The Movie

http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/99/MPW-49945

This personally isn’t my kind of film.  I’m not really into horror anthologies, or even anthologies in general.  But it’s a cult classic that deserves to be mentioned, and you’ll likely enjoy it more than I did.  This film is also known as the true sequel to Creepshow 2.

 

Back to the Future: Part III

While it is considered the weakest of the trilogy, it’s still Back to the Future.

 

Class of 1999

Easily my favorite film of the month, by a mile.  Such a guilty pleasure.  Schools taken over by gangs, so cyborg teachers get sent in to get the students in line, and then they start a gang war, and it ends in a climax at the school with shootings and explosions and stuff.  And to be honest, it’s kind of eerie when you consider how relevant some of the thematic implications of this are today.

 

Games

I couldn’t find a large selection of games that were released this month in particular.  Either I’m missing a bunch of releases, or there weren’t very many released this month compared to the previous months.  Either way, here’s a short but very sweet selection.

Qix (May 1990; Game Boy)

Fascinating.

 

 

Shove It! …The Warehouse Game (May 1990; Sega Genesis)

I’m getting a sense of deja vu.

 

 

Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos (May 1990; NES)

Are you a glutton for punishment?

 

Final Fantasy (May 1990; NES)

Where it all started.  While Phantasy Star may have been released prior to this in the U.S., this had been in Japan since 1987.  It took 3 years for it to get here.  And when it did, Phantasy Star had some serious competition, which would cause their downfall in the long run.

 

 

 

TV Shows

America’s Funniest People (May 1, 1990 – August 28, 1994; ABC)

America’s Funniest Home Video’s spiritual cousin; both shows aired during the same period (this one came a few months after AFHV got started).  I personally consider this to be inferior, but it has its fans, and it certainly ran for a long enough time period.

Talespin (May 5, 1990 – August 8, 1991; The Disney Channel)

Oh-eyah!

 

The Dave Thomas Comedy Show (May 28 – June 25, 1990; CBS)

Another comedy sketch show that was somewhat popular at the time, but has faded into obscurity.  Seriously, despite how it crashed and burned in the ratings, many today still think it was great, and wished it went longer.  Or even got a DVD release.

RE: Pedophilia

So I’ve waited long enough trying to get a response to what is currently my most popular and controversial post.  Decided to see if the Free Speech group on Gab.com is up to snuff when discussing these controversial idea.  Well, I was met with the expected ad-hominem attacks without much discussion on the ideas/arguments presented in the blog.  But there were some that were a bit more fruitful.  Below is the post I made asking for a challenge (it also included a link to the original blog):

As for everyone else here in the Free Speech group, can I get any takers please?  I legitimately want challengers to tackle my argument and attempt to destroy it, logically (none of that ad-hominem BS).  The argument is: pedophilia shouldn’t be as illegal as it currently is under it’s broad scope.

Below are the discussions I’ve had, organized from a back-and-forth between me and one person, to the next exchange with another individual, and so on.


Children can’t consent. Children who have been sexualized by an adult are likely to suffer permanent and life altering changes to their body and mind.

 

“Likely” does not equal “guaranteed,” as there are factors involved in that, such as whether or not it was consensual, how mature the kid really is, if the adult was being reasonable and taking factors about the kid’s development into account, etc.

And your first statement is a lie. It’s not that “children can’t consent,” it’s that “many children can’t consent,” at least not in terms of being mature and wise enough to think for themselves and decide for themselves when pressured by an adult (though we should be debating what the definition of a child and adult actually is, if this continues).

As for “children can’t consent,” let me tell you why exactly that is bullshit. It is not that rare to learn that teenagers had sex with each other at some point. Don’t try to convince me otherwise, I’ve had friends who have discussed their experiences with that back in the day.

 

Your argument could be rephrased as “some people can hold their liquor, so driving under the influence shouldn’t be illegal.” Your premise is correct, but your conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

Well, I have to give you credit, that’s a good re-phrasal. The thing is, it’s not like drivers, drunk or not, usually give consent as to whether or not they want to get in an accident.

[…]

Ah. What I should have said is that it used to be ok for people to drive under the influence; as in there used to be no laws against it because people could be trusted to be responsible enough not to drive while drunk (at least THAT drunk). But eventually enough accidents happened to indicate that no, there are too many irresponsible drunkards out there, thus a law should be made against it. Despite the law, drunk drivers remain, and have arguably increased since (though that might be due to increased population; on the other hand, there’s the immigration factor to consider).

That’s about the laws being made due to irresponsibility of the driver. That analogy therefore would state that sex with minors is illegal because pedophiles can’t be trusted to be responsible. I can’t exactly argue with that in the general sense. However, if the conclusion doesn’t follow regarding drunk drivers in terms of, “because they can’t be trusted to be responsible individuals, drunk driving is illegal to reduce the likelihood of irresponsible individuals causing harm to others,” and equating that with pedophiles in place of drunk drivers, then I argue your conclusion isn’t exactly perfect either. Statistically speaking, if it can be shown that laws against drunk driving didn’t quell the number of drunk driving accidents on average, then it can be argued that laws against sex with minors wouldn’t fair much better.

I’m going to have to look for statistics on how laws against drunk driving affected the average number of drunk driving accidents (taking into account population growth, so more of a per 100,000 thing or something like that).

 

Ok, so I did some digging around regarding drunk driving fatalities. I wanted to go as far back as the 1950s, maybe even the 1960s, but the best studies I can find so far only go back to the early-80s. Anyway, the first source I found basically goes with the trend you would expect, which speaking from the analogy point of view, would appear to hurt my case.
https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/…There’s also other charts showing that the rate these accidents occur varies wildly between states (California, Florida, and Texas are considerably higher than the others when it comes to DUI fatalities). So in a general sense, that seems to make your case, especially since underage DUIs play a factor into those statistics. However, there’s also the racial factor to consider. This is important because of culture clash, illegal immigration rates (and what their nationalities/race tends to be), and the fact that blacks and hispanics have a lower IQ on average compared to whites. I quote:
“Blacks comprise about 12 percent of the U.S. population, and Hispanics about 8 percent (Bureau of Census 1987). Research suggests that problem drinking and associated mortality rates are higher in these two minority groups than in the general public.”
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCYL.pdfThere’s other sources that also add indians (aka native americans) among those about as likely to have DUIs. But anyway, the point I’m making is that such laws regarding the legalities of drunk driving wouldn’t need to be implemented if there wasn’t an increase in the black and hispanic population compared to the white population (the latter of which has been on the decline since the 1960s, and may no longer be a majority by 2040). I would argue a similar case when it comes to age of consent laws.One more quote from the same source above, which can also be used as an analogy for why it is difficult to gather relevant data on the subject:
“Political and legal considerations may further limit the availability of relevant data. Drunk driving is a criminal and civil offense that can have severe personal consequences for the driver involved, Moreover, the stigmatization of individuals accused of drunk driving can also taint the groups to which they belong. Under these circumstances, government authorities may be reluctant to collect pertinent information on specific ethnic groups, or they may decline to release data that has been collected.”

I think you’re agreeing with me, but you don’t say so. Thank you for admitting I have a point, even if it’s tangential. I’ll note that a major factor for the decrease in fatalities is better motor vehicle safety. I don’t think that it has anything to do with pedophilia, but it’s interesting.

 

Guess I should make my point more clear. Society should progress in such a way so as to make those sorts of laws unnecessary. You know, because a healthy and intelligent society would promote independent and responsible individuals. And yet society isn’t progressing in that direction. It’s regressing, because whites are becoming less of a majority, and as a consequence other races with other cultures and personalities and levels of intelligence are becoming more dominant. And that is the reason laws like this have become necessary, because they are dragging society down, and causing it to regress. For instance, the DUI rates in South Africa are higher than in the U.S., while they tend to be at their lowest in places like India and China. The latter countries are not where we’re getting the majority of our immigrants. Even Ireland has a considerably lower DUI rate than the U.S., and they’re notorious for drinking.

So yes, I’ll admit the laws are currently necessary, but with the caveat that they didn’t use to be necessary. And their necessity addresses the symptom rather than the cause. Because of that, in the long-term, the laws will eventually break down. Addressing the cause will require a more radical method of enforcement.

 

 

 




 

Family Guy Pedophile | Memes.com

Pedophiles do great harm to society by seeding evil in the minds of those who are the future. They should be generally culled from society one way or another. It is likely, much like the homos, that their behavior could be rooted in some genes. So it would make sense to screen embryos for what amounts to evil genes and just eliminate them in the zygote stage or some similar early stage of development. Until we take such measures humanity will continue to have a large vein of evil within it. Who will decide such things? Why not. Let’s just do it.

 

“Pedophiles do great harm to society by seeding evil in the minds of those who are the future.”

In what way? I’m not trying to be a smartass here, I want to see where you go when it comes to getting to the root on how you justify that statement. Specifics.

 

Damage to the psyche of the child which ripples throughout the life of the person. This, causes other effects on society by that individual not being able to live up to his or her potential and ability to establish a proper psyche.

It is well known that child abuse lowers IQ, it stifles life prospects, it can cause many behavioral issues and mental illness. For starters, you can look up Stefan Molyneux and consult any honest psychologist. I’m not here to educate you but I will provide you with places you can start as I don’t really believe you’re completely genuine or sane. If you can’t find anything for yourself from there then you really are a loon. Or maybe you’re genuine in which case that is hilarious.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/1709…

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/you-illumi…

As a person you start with a range of potential and your environment determines wherein that range you rest and solidify as you grow as a being. A sexual intervention on part of a pedophile in the life of a child is very destructive and harms development. He has not the right to do that. Not to mention that children cannot give consent due to the fact that they don’t have full autonomy due to their underdeveloped brains. They are lesser creatures who need guidance and protection so they can grow into functioning adult humans. It is one main argument against allowing 14yr olds to vote or toddlers to drive, their biology.

If you want to loosen restrictions on laws against pedophilia you’re probably just a degenerate retard who (at best) wants to hold a naive mercy for a condition that is indeed pure evil. -You’re probably a leftist to but I don’t want to assume too much.- If the behavior has major roots in genetics then we will erase it from the face of the Earth if there is any good in humanity. You can screen a very early embryo for nearly anything without destroying it. Here is something like the apparatus that will be used to erase many of the evils of mankind after we get a visionary dictator: https://blog.ivf.com.au/embryo-screening

 

Ok, started reading through these links. The first one, linking to ScienceDaily, basically states that there’s a clear connection between those who have been subjected to “child abuse,” and those who haven’t, when it comes to long-term brain development (the first 20 years are of significant importance). The connection being those who have been subject to child abuse are more likely to commit suicide, mainly because it affects their brain’s ability to regulate emotions and attachment.

Fine and all, but “child abuse” isn’t exactly limited to sexual mistreatment of a child. It can also involve physical trauma, emotional trauma unrelated to sex, or just neglect. Hell, I myself am a victim of this, because I was dropped on my head when I was a baby (in a parking lot). Plus I got hit by a car a couple years after that. I’m well aware I’m different from others because of that, lacking the ability to become too attached to anyone or anything (it has its pros and cons), among other side-effects. I contemplated suicide in the 4th grade, and have the occasional hits of depression and suicidal thoughts every 3-4 months or so. None of that fucking happened because I was sexually abused as a kid. Being molested (consensually) doesn’t necessarily cause that lack of myelinated nerve fibres in the brain. It depends on how physically and emotionally traumatic such events are.

Please don’t respond until I go through the other 2 sites. One of them might change my opinion.

 

Second link, Psychology Today, it pretty much says the same thing, except it focuses on the development of children up to about the age of 12, and takes into account the affect childhood trauma (which the article basically defines as “physical abuse or lack of parental involvement; physically abused or orphaned”) affects children negatively. The abused tend to have smaller amygdala and hippocampi, which leads to behavioral problems such as aggression, school-fighting, or ditching school. Again, not specifically linked to sexual trauma per-se, but even if it did, it’s not exactly focusing on “consensual sex” studies (good luck finding studies on that). One more to go.

 

Fertile Minds website. Is this a joke? It talks about embryo screening. It doesn’t say anything about childhood development. It’s rubbish.

Feel free to respond.

 

:1 wat

Yeah Child Abuse is a bit of an umbrella term so what is your problem with linking to a study regarding the effects of abuse? Is the molestation of a child not child-abuse in your opinion? Really, I don’t think this can go anywhere you’re obviously a bit committed to that weird position of yours and it’s probably rooted in justifying whatever happened to you as a child. Which is a bit of a drop in an already filled bucket that states children are very much harmed by abuse in its many forms.

Yes I provided a website that is for a firm that does IVF procedures for those who want to screen out genetic abnormalities and mutations in primitive human embryos some of which are known to cause myraid disorders in children. I obviously linked you to that after saying that if pedophilia, like homosexuality is believed to, has serious underpinnings of genetics that it will be possible to erase/filter it from The Human Condition altogether. Did that reiteration of what I said earlier fly over your head to?

You can’t even understand my position and as I learn about yours it becomes obvious… Note, I gave you a springboard I’m not your search engine. Clearly you were molested and have deep issues regarding it and facing the damage it did to you as the underpinnings of psychological damage spread about your personality as you grew. Many things you have certainly done and are doing to compensate for this. You have been damaged by that/those events. I am 100% sure of this and because I now know that you truly are disturbed and aren’t just a troll or a curious fellow I won’t be talking to you again. I wish you luck in tackling the monster you have within you and I implore that you seek help if you don’t think you can handle its wiles. Evil exists and yes it has a natural form, character, and destination altogether I call it Human Entropy. Bye.

 

“Yeah Child Abuse is a bit of an umbrella term so what is your problem with linking to a study regarding the effects of abuse? Is the molestation of a child not child-abuse in your opinion?”

Rape of a child is definitively child abuse. The alternative, that’s basically what I’m arguing for. I’d go into more detail to clarify the specifics, but you’ve already stated that you’re previous response will be your last response, so I don’t see the point.

“I obviously linked you to that after saying that if pedophilia, like homosexuality is believed to, has serious underpinnings of genetics that it will be possible to erase/filter it from The Human Condition altogether. Did that reiteration of what I said earlier fly over your head to?”

Whew, ok, I guess I did misjudge your intention with that link. That is something that goes beyond what I aimed to talk about, and has the potential for even greater side-effects than underaged sex, or lack thereof, could ever do. That’s a topic too big for this discussion.

“Clearly you were molested and have deep issues regarding it and facing the damage it did to you as the underpinnings of psychological damage spread about your personality as you grew. […] I am 100% sure of this”

You’re a moron. You’re a moron for using the “making an argument from incredulity” fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy, and once again resorting to the ad-hominem fallacy. You’re also a moron for making a false assumption by making this more personal than it needs to be. So for your information, though you won’t believe it because you’re not open-minded enough, no, I was never molested as a kid. And quite frankly, I’ve never had sex with anyone. I’m a virgin. So you can take your certainties and shove it up your dim-witted ass. Don’t let the door hit you there on the way out.

 

And for the record, you could’ve brought up some study the clearly linked psychological damage to molestation. But you didn’t. That would’ve been too interesting and enlightening for this conversation apparently.

 

Dude, google is your friend.
Or is it frenemy? idk Just go dude we’re not going to get anywhere.

 

I prefer DuckDuckGo myself. In any case, the reason I ask is because you must surely know of a source yourself, otherwise why be so steadfast in your position? This is one of the reasons I question this stance in the first place, I don’t think any definitive studies supporting your position exist, anymore than definitive studies supporting my position exist. Where could one even hope to find such studies?

So the best I could do is find cases of a similar nature that imply my position is correct. For instance, a study showing that youths having sex during the ages of 13-15 have long term social/psychological benefits, such as being less likely to have delinquent behavior (which might explain why I am the way I am, along with the physical head trauma):
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/0711…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367729

Now let’s see if we’ll get somewhere (I doubt it, but that might just be because I’m pessimistic).

 

 

 

 




 

 

People 18 or younger don’t really know that much, but, think they know everything. That’s why the laws are the way they are; to protect people who don’t know better.

 

Heheh, the same could be said about those over the age of 18.

 

And you’d be hard pressed to find ANYONE in their 30+’s who doesn’t agree that it’s a good thing, that there is some inherent stupidity that is unknowable at that time…

 

Of course that’s not a good thing. Of course I should expect/hope that everyone at that age should know better (just to be clear, know better than to take advantage of someone in a way that isn’t clearly consensual). The thing is, such expectations tended to be had of children aged 10 and older prior to the 1920s. What changed? Our understanding of biology and science and ethics? How do we know for sure we didn’t end up regressing, like how we’ve been doing in regards to male/female sexes over the past decade? Discussing it would be a good start, finding studies on the subject matter would be better.

 

I think the idea is to be cautious with our children. I’m not going to research this topic because it’s really not that interesting to me. Maybe you should. You wrote the article, dig in and educate us. The thing is tho, that most adults my age will be hard pressed to change their thinking on the matter as we will err on the side of caution especially when our children are the subject.

 

One should always be cautious of their children. Any self-respecting parent would be. The tricky part is the balancing act of how much independence (ie room for independent growth) one should give their child, and when to give it to them. It’s especially tricky because it varies based not just on the child at that point, but also on the family itself. Even the community.

 




 

I’ll take you on, because I won’t make the mistake of saying something that can be twisted into a perversion. Come at me.

 

Uh, I believe I was the one who asked you to do that first. Read my blog, pick out some point that you disagree with, and show me how/why it’s wrong. Be specific, not generalized.

 

TL:DR
Grown adults banging kids is wrong. Kids will be kids and explore with each other, there’s nothing stopping them from that and for the most part it’s handled by the family if at all. Education for those who have entered puberty is important, but supplying your kid the device with which to fuck themself is creepy and wrong. Kids under 15 should not have unsupervised access to television or the internet. That’s my position.

 

“I won’t make the mistake of saying something that can be twisted into a perversion.”

I just knew you were going to regret those words.

“Kids will be kids and explore with each other, there’s nothing stopping them from that and for the most part it’s handled by the family if at all.”

So I guess kids being kids and exploring each other and it being handled by the family means brothers and sisters doing a little incest is ok.

Sorry, I couldn’t help it. When someone gives enough rope to hang themselves with, it’s tough to resist kicking the table out from under them.

But anyway, being serious now. “Grown adults banging kids is wrong.” That’s true in a general sense. I argue that there should be exceptions. Because not having those exceptions allows for those laws/rules/ethics to be exploited in dangerous ways. People may say children are too vulnerable towards adults to allow for any adult-child relationship (in a sexual way) to ever safely work (by safely, I mean in terms of child development on an emotional/mental level). I say there exist children (I’m not saying they’re anywhere near the majority of cases, just that they exist) who are capable of exploiting vulnerable adults. Whether the adults are vulnerable because they are mentally stunted, physically stunted, because a child put them in that position or because they put themselves in that position; there do exist children who are definitely capable of taking advantage of adults in that way, and making the laws work even further towards that exploitation, just as women statistically take advantage of the courts in cases against men. Or have you heard that children raping adults is a thing? Because I can site some examples if you doubt it.

Those are some of the reasons why I hold the position I currently do.

 

I didn’t say it was ok. Only that it’s human nature. Table is secure. Exceptions are an excuse to create a slippery slope. Zero tolerance policies exist for a reason.

 

And that slippery slope didn’t seem like that big of a deal prior to the 1920s. Because up until then, the age of consent (officially established in the 1880s, in America) as 10-12 years of age, depending on which State you were in. In some countries, such as Austria, the age of consent is 14 (present day).

I think you should start questioning why it was determined that age 18 (again, this varies by State, I’m just going with that number for general reference) was the one to go with. Doesn’t seem right to me that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is a crime, while a 50 year old having sex with a 22 year old is perfectly ok.

Perhaps you could start mentioning exactly why zero-tolerance policies regarding pedophilia (or more specifically, statutory rape) do exist. What are those good reasons? And do zero-tolerance laws not risk causing more harm than what the slippery slope could inevitably cause? Why shouldn’t these things be judged on a case by case basis?

 

Post pubescent kids having sex is not wrong in a literal sense, however predators take advantage of children who don’t have a firm grasp on the gravity of the situation and the life long scars they may have to deal with. Also pair bonding will never get it’s proper chance if sex is trivialized. There are some major flaws to your logic, and the 18-17 argument is an obvious bait and switch.

 

I believe I already stated that your argument is correct in the general sense, that there are child predators who take advantage of children who don’t know any better and give them those lifelong (or at least considerably long) scars. But I also said that there are exceptions, and you’re not addressing those said exceptions. At least aside from calling them a bait-and-switch, which means nothing to me considering those exceptions are valid points. If you still don’t think that’s the case, then you’re going to have to explain why exactly that is without just calling it a bait-and-switch or something like that. You say there’s major flaws. Point out what they are and why they’re flaws.

 

It comes back to the slippery slope. Of course the 17-18 thing is bait and switch, it’s where the argument “but what about 16-18 pairs?” is birthed from, and just ratchet it back little by little until you’re talking about 9-18 pairs.

 

Well, considering that puberty doesn’t happen until the age of 12 (sometimes as early as 11), you can rest assured that I won’t be talking about 9-18 pairs. Lowest I’d ever go, just based purely on a biological science point of view, is 12, if even that.

That aside, I’m not exactly seeing any specifics here. You’re not pointing out clearly what these flaws in logic are. Unless it’s based purely on the slippery slope argument, where one could argue that, “One day it will be age 16, next day it will be age 15, then 14, etc.” Kind of like how one argues about the slippery slope of abortion. However, the “slippery slope” itself is an argumentative fallacy. You can’t hope to win a logical argument on those grounds.

 

Fair enough, and I wasn’t implying you meant anyone that young, however, the rates of early onset puberty in girls has been on the rise, so 8 and 9 year old girls getting their period is a thing. Still advocate for it?

 

Ah shit. Well now I’m interested in looking into studies that explain why children are beginning to have puberty 1-2 years earlier than what was normally shown a decade ago. Probably has to do in-part with the chemicals in the water (not being ironic here, Alex Jones was kind of onto something there).

I’d have to go through more trials of objective critique, but for now I’d just fall back on my initial position of 12 years at the absolute earliest (if even that, and this again depends on the child itself, let alone what an adult would find attractive; for all I know these early pubescent are ugly mutated freaks). Main reason being is that children need to learn about their own self, their own sexuality, their own wants and desires first. Similar to the reason why I would never advocate for sex-change surgery or hormones or shit like that at an early age, except that is actually worse because that can cause both physical and mental harm in the long-run, maybe even the short term.

And that’s the thing. Some children are faster at learning about themselves in that way than others, just as some children can learn math faster than others, physics faster than others, etc. The only real way it can be judged is on a case by case basis. At the very least, I think we can both agree that each child is different (speaking beyond just sexuality here, I’m also talking personalities, physical attributes, mental functions/disfunctions, etc.)

PS: Have you even read the blog yet?

 

No, I have not if I’m being honest. Yes case by case is the way to take this situation, however you can’t legislate case by case, that’s why there are age of consent laws. Maybe they aren’t perfect, but they’re designed to protect those who don’t fully understand their autonomy and the repercussions of abuse. Some people probably enjoyed being molested at the time, but look back on it with shame and disgust. That’s worth sparing.

 

The other side of the coin is that some people may have enjoyed being molested at the time, and not let it affect them at all later in life.

And those laws may be designed to protect those who don’t fully understand things such as anatomy and whatnot, but that’s not exactly helping them completely now is it? How do we know for sure that the alternative wouldn’t be a better option? Not saying I’m advocating for child rape or anything (that should be obvious, but some people on here assume otherwise without looking into the context). Rape should always be punished, no matter the age (that should be independent from age of consent, statutory rape aside). I am saying that the age of consent should be lowered.

In any case, this looks like it’s heading in the direction of “agree to disagree.” Or something like that.

 

You are the sumation of all the moments of your life. It’s impossible to not be affected. What you’re advocating by saying sex with a 12yo shouldn’t be a crime is the erosion of traditional family values. Traditions exist for a reason. They got us here. I like here.
As far as agree to disagree, yeah pretty much. Maybe age of consent isn’t perfect in it’s current state, but dropping those laws is just inviting the wolves to the hen house.

 

If only a study could be done for comparison. Like comparing how it was pre-1920s to post-1920s. Obviously, I could see why there would be hesitation (at the very least) in doing a statistical study in that manner. And doing the study by comparing different countries/cultures isn’t a good alternative either, at least in my opinion.

 

The reason things were different prior to the 20’s is mortality rates were higher and life was harder. Girls of child bearing age were expected to shore up the population. Thankfully things have changed.

 

“Thankfully things have changed.”

For now.

 

Exactly what do you mean “for now”?

 

Things can change again, sometimes reverting. Sometimes moving forward in unexpected ways. Ten years ago, it wouldn’t have been socially acceptable to have drag queens lecture kindergartners (let alone teach them sex ed; seriously, kids that age have better things to do, and should have better things on their minds). Now it is. That means either things are going to start getting considerably worse in a few years or less, or they’ll start to get better. I’m betting on the former, because things always have to get a lot worse before they get better.

 

I disagree… The pendulum is about as far left as it’s gonna get.

 

If you really believe that, then you obviously haven’t seen how bad it’s gotten in Sweden, the UK, Germany, and France. Let alone how bad it got in Germany during the 1920s.

 

I’m talking about the people who aren’t still living in 600 AD

 

We’ll know for sure by 2025 at the latest. I’m betting more on 2021.

 

Doubt.

 




 

It’s objectively immoral because children’s minds/bodies haven’t matured enough to handle or understand the situation. They’re powerless to stop an adult or to say no. A pedo takes advantage of this knowing full well what they’re doing. It’s the highest level of child abuse.

Pedos can live their lives, look at all hentai they want, fantasize all they want but the moment they act on their urges, their life is forfeit. No sex offenders list. No jail or prison. No rehabilitation. No second chances. Just an expedited death.

 

“It’s objectively immoral because children’s minds/bodies haven’t matured enough to handle or understand the situation.”

Objectively not true. There are some children who are the exception to the rule because they do have minds/bodies that do what you say they don’t. For example, there are children who rape adults.

“They’re powerless to stop an adult or to say no.”

Powerless to stop on a physical level, generally speaking, yes. To say no, not necessarily.

“A pedo takes advantage of this knowing full well what they’re doing. It’s the highest level of child abuse.”

No, a child predator takes advantage of this. There’s a distinction between a pedophile and a child predator which should be made. That’s like saying all men who aren’t virgins have raped someone. Not true.

 

Even if this actually happened, a handful of children raping doesn’t change the fact that pedophilia is highly immoral.

Their “no” is not gonna be respected by a pedo. Children are very guilliable and trusting. They can easily be coerced or pressured into something they don’t understand. That’s the main reason why they can’t consent.

Child predator is a synonym of pedophile.

 

That’s like saying “statutory rape” is a synonym of “rape.” I don’t consider those equivalent, and neither do various sources.

On that note, from my understanding of the definition of a pedophile, as defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition:
“An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.”

I don’t exactly see that as being the equivalent of a predator.

 

If a pedo is trying to normalize pedophilia or advocate for it or in pursuit of fullfilling their urges, they’re a child predator.

 

Yeah, and if someone advocates for pro-life and nationalism, they’re fascists and nazis and sexists and racists and all that other bullshit. You’re argument is the equivalent of that. Except it’s worse, because that’s literally not the definition of a child predator. That’s a political activist.

 

Dude, you’re talking about advocating for fucking little kids and being called a predator for it.

It’s not comparable to being an advocate for pro-life and being called a nazi for it.

I hope dems and the LGBT crowd back this “pedo is a sexuality” stuff. It will be the end of their party and political movements. So just keep advocating away.

 

You misunderstand (though I doubt your mental capacity to do otherwise). I’m not calling for the normalization of it. I’m saying there are exceptions here. That there are cases of adults screwing kids, consensually, where the kids don’t turn out all screwed up. In fact, sometimes it’s the other way around; with the kids coming onto the adults and screwing them. But the adult gets punished either way. It’s a problem of, “No matter what the context, the adult deserves punishment,” which doesn’t sit well with me. And if you’re unwilling to consider arguments for that, then we’ve nothing to talk about.

 

You asked that we don’t use ad hominem against you but yet you do when backed into a corner?

Considering your argument doesn’t mean I have to agree with it in any sense. You haven’t made any compelling arguments. Just false equivalences.

Yes, you’re making the argument for decriminalize/normalizing it at least in part. That’s what this whole thing is about.

 

Then let’s compare. You have argued that having sex with minors is wrong because their minds and bodies aren’t developed enough to handle it; the implication being this applies to ALL minors. You state that this is an objective fact (without citing a source to back it up). I argue back, objectively, that there are minors who do have minds and bodies that are developed enough to handle it, while keeping in mind this is a case-by-case basis that depends on both the child and the adult; an objective statement.

Your response to that is that (aside from attempting to redefine the actual definition of pedophile and equating it with child predator, of which there is a clear distinction definition-wise, which can be shown objectively) is that sex with minors is highly immoral either way. Well, that’s not quite how you word it; you worded it as child raping, which I think we can both agree is wrong, but that’s not what I’m arguing for here (unless you want to bring up “statutory rape,” in which case I am arguing exclusively about that). But anyway, assuming we’re on agreement that you intended to say that sex with minors is highly immoral no matter what, that’s a subjective statement, and you haven’t gone into the details as to why it is or isn’t immoral.

I made the mistake of not going into detail as to why I don’t believe it should be considered highly immoral when consensual sex is involved (and if the adult truly has no manipulative intent; that the adult has no intention of physically and mentally harming the child). Though I gave those details in the blog linked in the OP, which of course you haven’t read because you’re not interested in taking this discussion seriously, if you ever had that intention to begin with. So I’ll just repeat it here:

The golden rule, which multiple religions share to an extent: “Do unto others as you would do to yourselves,” or “Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself.” In other words, if you expect to be treated well by others, you should also treat them well. Be nice to others. Don’t do them any harm. There are some situations which could muddle that idea a bit when getting into nitty gritty details, but the long and short of it is that if an individual isn’t causing anyone any harm, they should be left alone.

Therefore, if the adult is not causing harm to the child through consensual sex, then it’s not immoral.

If none of that can be considered a compelling argument, than neither is anything you have said. And if you’re referring to my alleged ad-hominem against you when I said I doubted your mental capacity to understand (ie reason), that’s a way of goading you into trying to prove me wrong. You’ll either respond with an ad-hominem yourself, or you’ll show that you do posses an amount of reasoning capacity. If the former, then it will accelerate this conversation between us ending, and me potentially muting you. If the latter, then maybe things will get more constructive and enlightening.

 

You haven’t provided one source to any of the outlandish things you said. You’re the one challenging what’s accepted as established truth. I don’t need to back up that pedophilia is objectively immoral. It’s an established fact backed by decades of medical professionals saying that it is.

Pedophilia harms kids mentally and physically. Exceptions to a rule don’t change it or make a new one.

You asked people not to attack you as a person. Considering what you’re advocating for, that’s alot to ask for. You’re being a hypocrite for breaking your own rule.

I only bothered with this to make the counter argument so other people might read it. It’s obvious that you have a warped sense of morality and you’re just trying to justify it to others.

 

“You haven’t provided one source to any of the outlandish things you said. You’re the one challenging what’s accepted as established truth.”

Fair enough. Here’s one study stating that teens who have sex at an early age may be less inclined to exhibit delinquent behavior in early adulthood than their peers who waited until they were older to have sex:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/0711…

And another that hypothesizes (and concludes) youth would experience more positive and less negative affects following sexual intercourse than at other times in their daily lives:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367729

As for studies demonstrating that it can be beneficial for an adult to have sex with a minor, good luck finding one of those. Although it may be possible if one were to go overseas to analyze such studies in certain countries where that is more legal. In any case, the studies above show that minors having sex has benefits in terms of mental development, potentially even physical.

“I don’t need to back up that pedophilia is objectively immoral. It’s an established fact backed by decades of medical professionals saying that it is.”

And they say the same thing about the Holocaust, and some places outlaw questioning it. And yet there are valid reasons to question it, some of which I’ve looked into, which provide very convincing arguments. This response of yours isn’t good enough. You do need to back it up if you wish to challenge my argument successfully. And if you have decades of medical professionals at your disposal, then this should be easy for you.

“Pedophilia harms kids mentally and physically. Exceptions to a rule don’t change it or make a new one.”

Science says otherwise. Exceptions make new rules (or formulas) all the time in those fields.

“You asked people not to attack you as a person. Considering what you’re advocating for, that’s alot to ask for.”

As Socrates once said, strong minds discuss ideas, weak minds discuss people.

“I only bothered with this to make the counter argument so other people might read it.”

Then consider my responses to you as intended to do the same.

“It’s obvious that you have a warped sense of morality and you’re just trying to justify it to others.”

Perhaps. But it’s also something I being brought up so it can be challenged. I want to see if it stands up to scrutiny. So far the primary thing being scrutinized is me, and not the idea itself.

 




 

Your question is mainly about the age of consent.

The age of consent is there to allow someone enough time to mature in order to lower the chances of predators taking advantage of someone.

This issue is a question of capacity. It is better to be cautious than allow room for predators to take advantage. That’s what predators do.

The goal is to prevent harm by predators.

 

But how does one arrive at that “age of consent” number? Especially when children have been shown to develop at varying rates; including maturity.

And I’m sure we can both agree that no one wants a predator to take advantage of a child (or of anyone for that matter, of any age). The issue is that sometimes the children themselves can become the predator. At which point they are the ones taking advantage of the age of consent laws (potentially for blackmail, let alone other reasons).

 

Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill by arguing the minimal possibility. Those situations will almost never happen. Wringing your hands over that small possibility is a waste. Due Process will take its course if someone has a good, competant lawyer.

The number is arbitrary. How can someone ever predict someone else’s capacity via age? It’s too broad and specific language written in law defining all of that would never be decipherable. Something has to be in place and it is better to not allow room for potential predatory behavior to occur thus becoming a deterrent.

It may not always work at deterrence but what does 100% of the time?

You may have self-control but not everyone does or wants to exercise self-control.

For simplicity purposes, statute uses 18 (mostly). The law has to be used as a deterrent and punishment. It isn’t perfect but predators never sleep.

This is a proper use of law.

 

“Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill by arguing the minimal possibility.”

Oh come on. Like laws don’t exist because of a minimal possibility. “Mountain out of a mole hill” is pure semantics. They used to say we shouldn’t take the PC police so seriously, not to make a mountain out of a mole hill regarding PC arguments during the 90s, and look how that’s turned out today.

If the law isn’t perfect, a way to make it more “perfect” should be sought out, while taking various things into account. For instance, statistically speaking, what kind of people are these child predators? Is there a predominant race in relation to them? A predominant religion? State? City? How about false accusations (or how often those are exploited; consider #MeToo as an analogy)?

And what of other countries that define such a law differently?

I’m more interested in the ethics/morals of it than the legalities, mainly because the legalities should serve the ethics, not the other way around.

 

The law must be written so as not to make it easier for predators to take advantage of people.

By using 18 (mostly) as the benchmark, it will act as a deterrent and punishment towards those who would engage in predatory behavior because it will be enforced and prosecuted.

The morality involved is preventing predatory behavior.

Ground cannot be given in favor of predatory behavior of any kind, it must be fought, not negotiated with.

Law cannot be perfect, that is a losing pursuit, it can be just or unjust. Due process exists to determine whether applied law is just or not. If it isn’t, the evidence, circumstances and facts will prove someone innocent.

Using minority possibilities is the same argument used by anti-death penalty advocates and many people buy it. It doesn’t represent a solution.

 

“The law must be written so as not to make it easier for predators to take advantage of people.”

True, but there are scenarios where the cons outweigh the pros (or at the very least don’t make enough difference to the point where such a law is pointless). It should just be stated that, “rape is illegal, end of story,” and everything would/should be honkey-dory. But no, they had to throw in the whole statutory rape thing, and an age of consent (which for the record used to be 10-12 years of age during the 1880s, maybe even up to the 1920s). Just making rape illegal wasn’t good enough, they had to take extra measures. Because, you know, society couldn’t be trusted anymore to raise kids to say no, or trust communities not to take care of their own and have police and courts handle the matters themselves on a case-by-case basis.

No more than you could trust people to use guns responsibly. That’s why there are gun-free cities and states (and even countries). And look how well that’s turning out for places like the UK, and Chicago, among others. That certainly stopped gun crimes (let alone crimes that guns would act as a deterrent to) didn’t it? That’s sarcasm, just in case that needed to be pointed out.

Sticking to more basic functions tends to be more beneficial, such as just saying “murder is illegal,” which you would think would act enough as a deterrent towards people with guns who want to kill other people. Because the laws aren’t exactly acting as a barrier towards the degradation of society. What good is the law if society is becoming rotten? Because sooner or later, a rotten society will make rotten laws. Then what good is the law?

You could argue that “rape is illegal” is an imperfect law. After all, there are false rape accusations. The side-effect of statutory rape (ie age of consent) laws make such false accusations even more deadly. Many would be crucified just from those accusations alone, whether they are true or not. They even used such a tactic against Donald Trump during the 2016 election. Granted, there are times where the evidence will show that this isn’t the case, but sometimes that’s not enough.

By using examples of similar laws as a comparison (such as gun ownership laws and their various forms, among other types of laws meant to deter crime such as violent crime), it can be argued that statutory rape laws do more harm than good.

 

There are too many variables in the human condition to legislate morality. However, there are situations in which law, with some arbitrary elements, is necessary to be applied. Not in all areas nor too broadly.

Consent laws have already been re-written over the years to allow for accommodation of circumstance-in the interest of fair justice and due process.

I maintain that the arbitrary consent benchmark is not as draconian as some people think it is.

It is a necessary arbitration in law used with more mitigations on behalf of society by preventing a predatory instinct in some people from doing harm by prosecuting them.

It is a just use of law with the best effect possible.

 

“It is a just use of law with the best effect possible.”

I’d rephrase it as a law made with the best intention possible. I have already had my say on why those good intentions cause harm that can be avoided. You’re basically repeated what has already been said, none of which directly addresses my earlier statement(s) in such a way as to challenge me to say them. And I’m not sure what else I can say without repeating myself. Each child is different, some mature faster than others, and thus some become mature enough to be considered adults earlier/later than others. And my opinion is that making such laws, considered non-draconian, causes more harm than good.

The compromise, in my opinion, should be, “Let the parents decide.” I don’t mean them deciding on a law, I mean on them deciding on what is in the best interests of their children in such matters, while also having the consent of the child himself/herself. I think we can both agree that in the majority of cases, the parents will say no. But there will be cases where they will say yes. I would know, I’ve seen examples of such cases, where the kid was fine with it (the kid came on to the adult in one such case), the adult was fine with it, and the parents were fine with it, but later on the adult got arrested and incarcerated when others found out and informed the authorities. It seems to me that in that situation, common sense would dictate that those two should just have their relationship until it eventually breaks apart. Or, and this is the difficult outcome for some to fathom, they stay together happily for many years.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/houston-… 

Not to mention studies showing that having sex at a young age (teenage years, 13-15 years of age), not necessarily with adults mind you, can actually be beneficial towards their development, making them have a healthier social life in the long-term.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/0711… 

 

You’re failing to see human nature. Humans will gravitate toward the destructive side of their nature if given the chance.

You’re arguing to give more people that chance but you don’t see it. You’re excusing potential predatory behavior by masking it with variable consent.

The intention of the law is to prevent predatory behavior. It will prevent that behavior more than people will be able to engage in it through prosecution, prison, sex offender registries and intervention.

It will deter potential predatory behavior by planting the thought of consequences in the minds of those who consider those actions. Nothing will stop man’s destructive tendencies but effective consent laws such as 18 (mostly) as the age of consent will establish boundaries that are needed to prevent destructive behaviors from spreading.

 

I agree, human nature does tend to cause humans to gravitate towards their destructive side. However, to turn that argument back around onto you, this also includes children, who are arguably more aggressive in nature than adults are. And they can exploit these very laws you deem necessary to act as predators on adults. As mentioned earlier, false rape claims (and how much worse they are when it’s a child making the false rape accusation), and the damage that can cause on adults who did nothing wrong. By putting up such legal boundaries, that breaks down others.

While there’s no agreeable percentage as to how often false rape vs. real rape accusations occur, false rape accusations do occur far more frequently than actual rape accusations. And the reasons for false rape accusations can be any of these reasons (among others):

• Mental Illness
• Depression
• Profit/Financial Reasons
• Create an Alibi
• Attention
• Sympathy

Now tell me that at least half those reasons wouldn’t apply towards a teenager, especially in this day and age when they demand attention (particularly online on social media), when there’s a promotion of victimization (thus a want for sympathy), many with mental illnesses included Trump Derangement Syndrome (I’m starting to believe that’s related to some real medical illness) and transgenderism (that I also believe to be an illness the majority of the time), and depression caused from all of the above, among other things.

Boundaries needed to prevent destructive behaviors from spreading? Statutory rape laws are ticking time bombs in that regard in this context.

 

You’re jumping around too much. Let’s stay on one topic. Your blog post is asking about the age of consent in law.

It is a question of capacities, which are too variable in the human condition to write laws navigating through them. Some arbitration is necessary in the interest of upholding order.

18 is not a bad age to draw the line. It allows a reasonable amount of time for someone to develop enough mental capacity to make reasoned, informed decisions on their own.

Arguing minority possibilities is not sufficient to strike down the current accepted (in most states, by law) standard age of consent.

Aberrations surrounding the law’s application fall under due process. Cases go to court and they are adjudicated based on their evidence, facts and circumstances.

 

“It is a question of capacities, which are too variable in the human condition to write laws navigating through them. Some arbitration is necessary in the interest of upholding order.”

Which is why I suggested earlier it should be scaled back to just making “rape” in general illegal, kicking out the “statutory rape” part (or even downgrading it to age 14), and letting the parents be the deciding factor along with the child who have their own desires. That addresses the variabilities to a reasonable extent.

“18 is not a bad age to draw the line. It allows a reasonable amount of time for someone to develop enough mental capacity to make reasoned, informed decisions on their own.”

Generally true, but I’ve already addressed why it may not be unreasonable to lower that number. I’d just be repeating myself if I brought up those points again. But I can add one thing I didn’t bring up before. How do we know laws such as this, and the societal norms that have spawned from, and been built upon, such laws haven’t had a detrimental effect on society? For instance, coddling a child too much ultimately makes them less independent in their later years; and laws such as those encourage, and increase the likelihood of, that happening to the average child. 18 may only sound like a good age to draw the line simply because we’ve been trained to think that way because of conclusions drawn from flawed studies that we take for granted regardless (more on that later). Been trained so much that many react violently to just even discussing the alternative, as anyone can see from the responses the OP has gotten.

“Arguing minority possibilities is not sufficient to strike down the current accepted (in most states, by law) standard age of consent.”

Ah, the accusation of the “small number statistics” fallacy. That would be a good point, if there were statistics to back your position. Plus that same argument you just made could be used during the 1960s civil rights movement when it came to giving rights to minority blacks. Or even further back, minority Japanese, or minority Irish. Except in this case it applies to all children of all races.

Plus you base that accusation upon the “bandwagon” and the “appeal to tradition” fallacy. Using tradition/cultural belief as the basis for the argument. I’m more interested in the arguments and studies used to reach those standards, because I’ve seen cases (not necessarily related to age of consent laws) where such standards were set due to faulty studies and arguments. One only has to look at the Hays Code, or even aspects of climate science, let alone certain historical events, to show how that line of reasoning can be faulty.

“Aberrations surrounding the law’s application fall under due process. Cases go to court and they are adjudicated based on their evidence, facts and circumstances.”

You need me to point out cases where those who were falsely accused still got sentenced and punished, for crimes they didn’t commit? For reasons similar, if not entirely related, to age of consent laws?

 

You’re looking for justification to enable predatory behavior. You don’t think so but that is what would happen if your ideas were to become implemented.

Bad ideas like this will cause much harm to people that could have been avoided.

https://upmic.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/lf8-argument-from-incredulity.png

 

Well now it seems you’ve run out of ways to attack my position in a logical manner. You’re utilizing the following fallacies:
* Slippery slope

* Argument from incredulity: denying my claim because you refuse to believe it could ever be true under any circumstance.

* Appeal to consequences: the assumption that my premise is false because of the alleged harmful consequences that may follow, even though I have mentioned how current age of consent laws have their own harmful consequences.

* Argumentum ad baculum: attempting to incite fear over what may happen should one carry this line of thought.

* Argumentum ad populum: you’re appealing more to sentiment than to reason at this point.

* Begging the question: justifying elimination/downgrading of age of consent laws will cause more harm than good. But would the elimination of such laws actually make things worse, considering how things were pre-1920s?

* Composition: incorrectly assuming that elimination of age of consent laws will increase the number of child predators nation-wide, when in fact other factors independent of that law do exactly that (illegal immigration).

* Confirmation bias: ignoring facts I brought up so you can make a case based on your own personal beliefs.

* Excluded Middle (aka Black & White): Implying my propositions can only lead to predatory behavior.

* Straw Man: Misrepresenting my argument to be pro-predatory, when I have explained I am against rape and taking advantage of someone to their detriment.

 

 

 

 

PS: There’s a chance this post might get updated, should the conversations continue, or if a new one starts.  Though if there’s too many, that would be cause to create a new post altogether.  Regardless, anyone wants to challenge my position, feel free to do so.

Entertainment Industry Nostalgia: April 1990

The “Ha!” comedy Channel on cable TV begins transmitting.  Wrestlemania VI, Ultimate Warrior fights Hulk Hogan.  World’s largest bunny hop at Radio City Music Hall (NYC).  Madonna starts her controversial Blond Ambition Tour in Tokyo, Japan.  Hubble space telescope is placed into orbit by shuttle Discovery.

 

Music

Honorable mention to the soundtracks that have their fans but that I can’t personally get into: The Lightning Seeds: Cloudcuckooland; Fleetwood Mac: Behind the Mask (I was never into this band, though it was difficult to get through the 90s without hearing them mentioned); Suzanne Vega: Days of Open Hand (won a Grammy); Lou Reed and Jon Cale: Songs for Drella; Barry Manilow: Live on Broadway (eventually reached Platinum status); A Tribe Called Quest: People’s Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm; The Dead Milkmen: Metaphysical Graffiti; Hunters & Collectors: Ghost Nation; The Afghan Whigs: Up in it.

En Vogue: Born to Sing

This is the type of music you would expect to hear in those gangsta teenage/adult flicks that have a romantic main plot or subplot to it.  Decent music to fit those type of films where they couldn’t think of something better to play over the opening or closing credits of a 90s film.  But in all seriousness, this did make Platinum, so it has to be up there for consideration.  It may not be my type of music, but this is some definitive 90s hip-hop, soul, and r&b.  “Strange” is the track that stood out for me.

 

Public Enemy: Fear of a Black Planet

Now while I usually don’t prefer giving significant mention to rap groups (because rap isn’t really my kind of music), when we’re dealing with Public Enemy, and with the album that released the track Fight the Power, I kind of have to make an exception.

 

Green Day: 39/Smooth

Yep.  The debut album from Green Day.  You know their name.  And as far as debut albums go, this is a pretty damn good one.  Top song pick: I Was There.

 

That Petrol Emotion: Chemicrazy

This was supposed to be the “make or break” album, their “do or die” attempt.  Some say it is the best stuff the band has ever put out, and is one of the best hidden gems of music out there.  Which pretty much says all you need to know as to whether or not the Irish alternative rock band made it.  They didn’t.  But there is this stuff to look back on and remember them by.  And I have to admit, this album isn’t half bad.

 

Death Angel: Act III

A band that attempted to be the next Metallica, and many would argue they succeeded when they released this album.  Considered their magnum opus.  Unfortunately, they would break up soon after this album’s release, but reunite during the next decade to release some more albums.  Personally, I think the album is just ok.  No single track is fantastic or terrible.  The whole thing is consistent, and decent.

 

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds: The Good Son

Huh.  I’m honestly at a loss for words for this one.

 

Johnny Gill: Johnny Gill

So this isn’t an album I would listen to.  But, this is one of those albums whose style screams 90s.  Well ok, so it’s more like mid-80s to early 90s, which is basically when this style of music called New Jack Swing burst onto the scene, but it was definitely prevalent during much of the time period.  It had 4 hit singles: “Rub You the Right Way,” “My, My, My,” “Wrap My Body Tight,” and “Fairweather Friend.”  While I wouldn’t purchase the album to listen to, I would eat up these songs when they play in a movie or 90s tv show.

 

Warrior Soul: Last Decade Dead Century

Fairly good grunge rock album before Nirvana came along and popularized the genre.  A pity they ended up not catching on to popularity.

 

Consolidated: The Myth of Rock

This one is interesting.  That’s all I’ll say.  This is one of those strange hip-hop, hard-rock, and industrial mash-up styles.

 

Fugazi: Repeater

Interesting punk-rock style, which basically has some genre titled post-harcore.  Well whatever you want to call the style, the album itself, it’s not bad.

 

Beats International: Let Them Eat Bingo

Some damn infectious funky stuff.  If you should ever seek this album out, try to get the out of print Japanese 2-disc release.  Otherwise, it might either be missing a couple songs, or trimmed down a few.

But anyway, the album of the month for me would have to be, undoubtedly:

 

Bathory: Hammerheart

Now this is more like my kind of metal.  And not just metal, but Viking Metal!  In fact, one could argue they created the genre, starting in 1988 with their album Blood Fire Death; only to completely define the genre here with this album.  Just listen to this epic masterpiece (assuming it’s your kind of music, like it is for me).

 

Now for my highlights for films of the month.

Movies

Honorable mention to a film called Spaced Invaders.  Not because it’s good, but because it’s a notorious piece of shit.  And there’s this horror film called The Guardian which has a bit of a cult status, but I personally didn’t think much of it.  Some people who like Ernest will likely enjoy Ernest Goes to Jail, but I didn’t find that movie all that appealing; but it does highlight kiddie 90s humor at some of its most extreme.  With that out of the way…

Cry-Baby

The only real reason to mention this movie is because this was Johnny Depp’s performance that put him in the spotlight.  Otherwise, the film itself is a lesser version of Grease, and just meh overall.

 

Mister Johnson

While I don’t personally enjoy this movie myself, it has become revered as a classic that isn’t all that well known.  It’s about a black African who was more or less raised as a British person, and how both those cultures end up clashing with each other in the worst ways.  He embodies the best and worse traits of both, which inevitably leads to a tragic albeit fitting conclusion.  A film misunderstood back in the day, and deserves a chance.

 

Q&A

An interesting enough police procedural, with Nick Nolte giving a great performance.  That is all.

 

Miami Blues

Bit of a cult classic, with a role that Alec Baldwin is actually good in (because he plays an asshole).  Sort of like Payback in that you get ready to root for the bad guy.  And this film doesn’t beat around the bush with his character, he stays villainous, with only small slivers of good that temporarily peek though, until the very end.  And this film had the plot of a criminal stealing the identity of a police officer before that show Banshee did it decades later.

 

I Love You To Death

This is one of those movies I wouldn’t enjoy so much, if I didn’t know that it was based on a true story, and some of the most insane events that take place during the film’s second half actually happened.  Truth is stranger than fiction.  This would be the most criminally overlooked film of the month if not for…

 

Backtrack (aka Catchfire)

I reviewed this film.  A misunderstood masterpiece that has been crippled by a theatrical cut, only for the Director’s Cut (the way it is meant to be seen) to pass by largely unnoticed, only given a VHS release.

 

Now for my highlights for videogames of the month.

Games

There was sort of a sequel to Metal Gear called Snake’s Revenge that came out on the NES, but that’s one of those Metal Gear titles everyone would like to forget about.  There was also a Fist of the North Star release for Game Boy, the system’s first fighting game.  But it didn’t seem all that great, despite the existence of a few people who seem to enjoy it.

 

NAM-1975 (April 1990; Arcade, Neo Geo)

Gotta point out the first major Neo Geo game.
Galaxian 3 (April 1990; Arcade)

This wasn’t just an arcade game.  This was a motherfucking 90s event!
Ivan “Ironman” Stewart’s Super Off Road (April 1990; NES)

Oh yes.
Phantom Fighter (April 1990; NES)

Pinbot (April 1990; NES)

 

 

Tecmo World Wrestling (April 1990; NES)

Some call this the greatest wrestling game of all time.  Eh, I don’t know about that, but many loved it back then.
Super C (April 1990; NES)

The sequel to Contra.  And it was better.

 

 

WCW World Championship Wrestling (April 1990; NES)

Well, they weren’t going to let Tecmo have all the fun.  So here’s the other good NES wrestling game:

Wrath of the Black Manta (April 1990; NES)

Despite just about every video reviewer bitching about this game today, it holds a lot of nostalgia for many, who still proclaim this game to be good for a Shinobi knockoff.  It may be inferior to Shinobi and Ninja Gaiden, but it had its fans.

Xexyz (April 1990; NES)

Oh lord yeah!

Air Diver (April 1990; Sega Genesis)

Well, the Sega Genesis had to have at least one decent one.  The system was still just getting going.  It would get better titles and be more capable of competing with Nintendo down the road.  Until then, this was their Top Gun (more like Firefox, the Clint Eastwood film).

Nemesis (April 1990; Game Boy)

Basically an inferior port of Gradius.  But everything on the Game Boy was inferior, so…

 

 

Heiankyo Alien (April 1990; Game Boy)

This game is unique and weird, and that’s all I’ll say.

Flipull (April 1990; Game Boy)

Man, just when I thought the Game Boy had no more surprises in it, we get this unique little puzzler.  There’s a Famicom version with better graphics.

 

 

 

TV Shows

Afterdrive (April 1, 1990?; Ha!)

The Ha! channel before it became Comedy Central.  They had this little show with Dennis Leary and Billy Kimball.  Never saw it, but people seem to remember it for Dennis, the theme song, and a couple comedy sketch bits that they retained in their memories over the years.

 

Marshall Chronicles (April 4 1990; ABC)

Only ran for one season.  Many loved this show, but it never had enough viewers to keep it maintained.  The fans claimed it had a great combination of intellectual and slapstick comedy.

 

 

Shannon’s Deal (April 16, 1990 – May 21, 1991; NBC)

Shannon's Deal (1990)

Another short lived 2 season series that had its fans who wished the show ran longer, or at least got a legit video release.  About a lawyer/gambler.  I mean, seriously, there are fans of this show who legitimately love it and consider it one of the best ever.  And I never heard of it until doing research for this month.

 

 

Cartoon All Stars to the Rescue (April 21, 1990; 4 major TV networks)

Gotta inform the kiddies about the war on drugs.

 

 

 

And now for the big 3:
Wings (April 19, 1990; NBC)

Famous comedy series that ran for 8 seasons.  Though the show did decline in quality during the last 2 seasons.

 

 

In Living Color (April 15, 1990 – May 19, 1994; Fox)

Of course, who can forget one of the best skit-comedy shows that is probably only topped in terms of popularity by Saturday Night Live?  Not to mention all the celebrities who were made famous because of this (again, like SNL).  Watch how long it takes before the anti-PC jokes start to fly.

 

 

Twin Peaks (April 8, 1990 – June 10, 1991; ABC)

Undoubtedly the most influential prime-time television series of the year, let alone of the month.  The show that broke ground of having an ongoing story progress from episode to episode, as opposed to having most episodes be stand-alone events (like sitcoms).  Everyone was in a frenzy over the first season, to the point where even news broadcasts would ask the question, “Who killed Laura Palmer?”  Unfortunately, the second season answered that question, and many have mixed opinions about it, mostly negative.  But then we got a third season in more recent years that is far more difficult to approach for casual viewers.

What is censorship in the face of sensitivity?

So I originally had this as a blog post on boardgamegeek.com.  I suspected it would be too hot for it to handle.  Sure enough, before the day was over:

admin message

“Your blog has been deleted due to multiple severe violations of site rules, including defending sexism and objectification, dismissiveness to concerns about inclusiveness, personal attacks, and antagonizing.”

And when they mean “blog,” they don’t just mean this post that I’m basically going to mirror on this site.  They mean EVERY post that I have ever made under the “Board Game Philosophy” blog title, which is roughly 30 blog posts I think.  Jesus suffering Christ, that’s overkill isn’t it?  Considering all my other posts weren’t anywhere near as bad as this one in terms of arguments against inclusion.  Granted, I’ve evolved a bit since my earlier posts, but I referred to them every now and again for an introspective.  My thoughts on what I thought about dice rolling, solo gaming, critiquing games objectively, etc.  Basically the only surviving posts from that series are my rant against Gloom of Kilforth, and then my apology for the rant.  I mean, fuck man.  Those EU articles about Internet censorship must really be fucking them in the ass if they want to fuck users who have legit grievances about board game news up the ass that hard.

Dismissiveness to concerns about inclusiveness?  Could’ve just said “dismissive.”  But anyway, that was the whole point.  The whole point of the blog was an argument against inclusiveness!  Bunch of hypocritical cocksuckers these admins, especially when they’ve got exclusive groups on their inclusive site.

rainbow bggers
I’m feeling the inclusiveness from this forum doesn’t apply for straight people.

I’ve heard about how restrictive this site was, how hypocritical and selective the admins were about what comments they would allow and which they wouldn’t.  But now I see how bad it really is.  Honestly, after seeing this, it’s worse than I thought.  So bad that you can’t even argue about how the community would be better without inclusiveness.  So bad that they don’t even practice what they preach!

Your life is trite and jaded
Boring and confiscated
If that’s your best, your best won’t do

Whatever, here’s my damn blog post that got me a stern talking to (and worse).  I did add in some fuck-bombs though, for this site (along with some images and vids).

Continue reading

Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire is pissing me off.

“Being humiliated doesn’t bother me that much; I’ve been raised on humility.  It’s the risk of not being humiliated enough that worries me.”

— The Anomalous Host

There are times in my life, amidst my searching for jobs and thinking about my purpose in life, I start to reflect on the things I enjoy the most in life.

I enjoy watching movies and shows, yet find many of the films and shows today lacking in what I enjoy seeing.  In fact, most movies and shows today contain things that I find to be downright stupid and insulting, just like the viewers they were intended for.

I enjoy board games, yet I have a hard time remaining focused on creating my own (same applies to video games).

I enjoy lectures on certain topics, but I find myself unwilling to participate in-person (ie outside of typing) because I have a hard time getting my words straight and not sounding like an idiot when reading from a script.  I’ve tried making sound recordings in the past, and I never end up liking the way I sound.  And when I try to wing-it (not using a script), I tend not to be all that focused, and I wander around the topic more than I do on my average blog post.  And on top of all that, I find my own voice a bit annoying.  I frequently get brain farts and draw a blank and wander to some other subject when I try making video responses.  That is, unless I go by a script.  And I’ve learned that I can’t just talk what I write the way I’ve written it.  It doesn’t sound natural for starters.  And even worse, I have a hard time using the right tone of voice for certain words and sentences when I’m reading from a script.  Hence to say I would be terrible at acting on stage.

I tried writing a book a couple times, and after reaching 100 pages and looking back on it, despite some sections I found to be good, most of it just seemed like trash.

I know putting an actual voice out there could let me be more widely known; but even assuming I could make a decent video and make it sound the way I want (with the right tone and emphasis on the right words and the right sentences), there’s the other problem to consider.  What if the video, successful or not, ends up getting me the sort of attention I don’t want?  What if it makes me lose any chance of having a decent job in the workforce?  What if the thought-control fanatics decide that I’m not someone capable of separating my personal political/theological/philosophical thoughts from the job (which I know I’m capable of doing, because I’ve done so successfully in the past)?  What if they don’t care (most likely)?  It’s hypocritical, when considering the type of people out there who do manage to get employed, who seem less capable of keeping their emotions and personal feelings in check than me; but that’s the reality of things.

On the other hand, it’s not like I want to live forever.  What kind of a man would I be if I were to let fear of backlash from those more rich and powerful and numerous be enough to silence a voice that has legit concerns and grievances about the state of things?  What kind of man would I be if I didn’t throw my hat into the ring to challenge their ideals, and challenge them to do the same?  They can kill the idealist, but they can’t kill the idea.

I wouldn’t feel the urge to do this if those I follow, those I respect, those I rely on for news/opinions/information didn’t say something I know is wrong.  I wouldn’t feel the urge if I didn’t felt I know better than them on that topic.  With Andrew Klavan bitching about white nationalism and confusing it for white supremacy, and Ben Shapiro seeming to have misconceptions regarding what Julian Assange has done in the past (plus Shapiro is very overrated), and Michael Knowles having a piss-poor argument against the use of marijuana.  So I’m going to respond, in an audio/video format.  I just don’t know if this is going to turn into a regular thing or not, especially since I know for a fact I don’t sound as great in reality as I envision myself in my head (which I guess makes me possess an alter-ego when I’m typing).  Because it’s really fucking hard for me to do this.

Ultimately, when I think back on the past, the thing I find I’ve always enjoyed doing the most, from middle school and onwards, is critiquing critics, challenging the views and opinions of others, and daring them to attack mine.  This aggressive nature has proved a bountiful source of knowledge that has changed my outlook on life at times, especially when someone eventually comes along and actually manages to destroy a position I’ve held for years.  It’s liberating, but also dangerous.  I always find myself walking that fine line between wanting a debate for the sake of challenging the opinions of others and encouraging them to do the same to me; and forming a pride-filled ego making me think I’m better than them.  It’s easy to fall into that trap, and I have done so on occasion.  But if it didn’t come with its own set of risks, what fun would that be?

So… here I go:

Text response:

@Klavan You either don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re completely ignorant as to what white nationalism actually is; or you do know what you’re talking about, and thus you’re not as reasonable and level-headed of a man as I thought you were. I’m hoping for the former, because that can be forgivable in the long-run.

“I think white nationalism is bad because it’s stupid and wrong to make moral judgments about people according to their race rather than by their actions, ok. […] You don’t violate rule 1 because you don’t want it done to you. The golden rule. Everybody knows he’s an individual responsible for himself. He’s not responsible to everybody who’s the same color he is, whether he comes from the same country he is. You know, you can’t say, ‘Oh, white people held slaves, therefore you’re responsible because you have the same color as those white people.’ And it wasn’t white people holding slaves, it was some white people holding slaves, while other white people of course were fighting to free them. You can’t say, ‘Black people commit crimes, black people are muggers,’ because it’s some black people, it’s not the guy you’re talking to at that moment. He feels himself as an individual, you want to feel yourself as an individual, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Breaking rule 1 is wrong.”

First of all, that’s whole statement is made under the partial assumption that race does not equal causation when it comes to general crimes/personalities/IQ, etc. There have been many books written by those holding phd’s which state otherwise, from books like The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray in 1994, to A Troublesome Inheritance by Wade in 2015, to The Diversity Delusion by Mac Donald in 2018. Average IQ has been linked by genetics. It’s not the only factor, but it is a big enough one to where it can’t be ignored. And considering that blacks commit considerably more crime on average compared to whites (statistics by government and non-government sources support this), I’d say there’s enough reason to believe that having a desire for nationalities based on race isn’t exactly a bad thing, that segregation has been given a bit of a bad rap over the years, though it’s ironically making a return by those who tout inclusion.

Second of all, regarding the other part of that assumption, the idea that white nationalism (or even black nationalism, brown nationalism, etc.) is bad because it breaks the golden rule of “do unto others” and sacrificing the notion of individualism is false. White nationalism is the idea that white people want to be proud of their race and their accomplishments (they are responsible for a great many inventions, from various technologies to the U.S. Constitution), and have whites remain. To have white groups, to have white towns, etc. Many whites only want to hang out with whites because they have more in common with them on both a physical and mental level (for those who argue how looks aren’t everything, you would second-guess yourself if you took into consideration what kind of actors and actresses have been the most popular and the most in-demand over the many decades, not to mention the porn factor). And you can’t convince me that black people don’t feel the exact same way, in general. That’s not to say we should be against interracial relations, I’d imagine those people would want to have their own community to thrive in as well. But not at the expense of those wanting racial purity in their groups and their communities.

You say white nationalism breaks rule 1. I say anti-nationalism break rule 1, because white nationalists respect the decisions of other races to be themselves in their own communities, and would expect those communities to do the same for white communities. White nationalism doesn’t break the golden rule, it encourages the golden rule. Don’t confuse white nationalism with white supremacy. Despite what those ass-hats in the MSM may say, those are two very different ideologies.

Video/audio response:

Critique of Black Pilled’s video regarding Arbuckle, and the sexual nature of films.

I gave Black Pilled an opportunity to respond to my comments on his video.  He hasn’t.  It could be because he gets so flooded with comments he doesn’t have time to read them all (understandable), or that he doesn’t care enough, not even on Gab.com.  I said I would post my youtube response on my blog site if he didn’t respond.  So that’s what I’m doing.  The below paragraphs were the comments I left on his video.  I primarily critique the first 8 minutes of the video, “Pawnbreaking Our Culture.”

This is the first video you’ve made that I take issue with, particularly the righteous attitude that, while admirable at points, can become misguided. I challenge your standards of decency.

First off, the whole thing about sexual situations being alluded to in the 40s, and even in the 50s, rather than being shown. This statement seems to be made under the assumption that these sexual situations weren’t anymore explicit prior to that time period. This is not the case. In 1915, that is when the first stag films were being made. Granted, it was more of an underground market where you had to go to “gentlemen’s clubs” to see them, but they were there. And they continued to be in circulation all the way through the 1960s until porn decided to go a little more mainstream in the 70s. There’s always been an audience for it. It was only inevitable that audiences would want to see this sort of thing in more mainstream films. The problem was that, back then, there wasn’t a rating system. There wasn’t anything to give warning as to what they were about to see at the cinema. It wasn’t until the MPAA was formed in the 60s that a rating system was setup.

And that whole thing of child porn as you call it, with 1978’s “Pretty Baby,” which I haven’t seen yet (but thanks for giving me knowledge of another film to check out), you also went too far down the road for when this was a thing. There is a film called “Child Bride” from 1938, which beat out Pretty Baby by 40 years. And it did so under the guise of being an independent “educational” film to warn of the dangers of child marriage (which was still sort of a thing back then in some areas). The film shows a girl swimming completely nude, with not much left to the imagination (you see tits and ass in all their glory). The actress, Shirley Olivia Mills, was also 12 years old at the time the film was made. And in her later years, people were coming up to her asking about her being exploited for that film. But the thing is, to her dying day, she claimed she never was, and never felt exploited, at all, during the entire filming endeavor. Not even during the controversial swimming scene. In fact, she felt she was getting more harassed and exploited by the people who wanted her to admit she was exploited during filming. In any case, that kicks you theory of women and girls being “exploited” during the 60s and onwards at the latest right in the keister.

It also doesn’t seem like you’re too familiar with the time period that many would call the Jazz Age of cinema (let alone some silent films like Intolerance which also had its fair share of topless women), which was basically between 1927 and 1934, when sound went mainstream. There were several films that not only went a bit far with female nudity (the last one of the era likely being 1934’s Tarzan and his Mate, which also had a nude swimming scene, shot underwater), but also had films about women using their sensuality to exploit men. The main example of the latter can be found with the 1933 film Baby Face, which is all about a woman sleeping her way to the top of the corporate ladder with the goal of gaining wealth.

And when Will Hays (who’s arm was basically twisted by Joseph Breen, and the government along with religious groups) finally got the Hay’s Code to be enforced in 1934, those films depicting women who were capable of doing that largely went away. That subject matter was off-limits. And plenty of films suffered for it because that subject matter was too risque. For example, 1932’s Rain had Joan Crawford’s character criticizing the nature of the Catholic church, how they’re too narrow minded and not as caring of what other people feel as they claim (in that they rely too much on the “my way or the highway” mentality without taking other factors into consideration; it’s an argument for how context can change the appropriate answer/response). The Hay’s code prohibited more than just sexual decency and dress codes and foul language, it prohibited forms of criticism.

And newsflash, an argument can be made for pornography being a form of art. An easy example to support such an argument can be found in the film Shame, directed by Steve McQueen, starring Michael Fassbender, from 2011, about a man whose sexual addiction harms his ability to connect with others on a deep emotional level, making him incapable of forming a bond that can lead to love. And this is shown through the sexual acts, how he is disconnected from such relationships during those acts, contrasted with the one time where he tries to have a serious relationship with someone during the act of lovemaking. Sex scenes, when filmed correctly, can be used as character and plot development, let alone for metaphorical/thematic purposes. It’s no different than the argument that a film like The Passion of the Christ can use acts of violence (which many would dismiss as torture porn) to make such points. The way some cause violence, how some enjoy it, how some are revolted by it, how the blood symbolizes the washing away of humanity’s sins, and thus much must be shed in order to cleanse the world of those sins. It’s all about the context, and a simple dismissal of the idea that porn (either sexual or violent) should never be allowed because it has no artistic merit and will lead to a degeneration of society is complete and utter bullshit.

This isn’t to make an excuse for cast and crew who acted depraved behind the scenes by sexually exploiting some member of the cast. Of course those people should be decried for those acts. Of course some form of punishment should be had towards them for doing that. But that doesn’t mean that automatically applies to every cast or crew member of every film that has “pornographic” depictions. As much as you would hate to believe this, sometimes these films are made without any ruckuss or unwanted exploitation behind the scenes. But many wouldn’t want to accept that possibility, which is why this whole Michael Jackson “Leaving Neverland” condemnation is a thing, which is literally kicking a dead horse. Go watch Razorfist’s videos which debunk that bullshit.

This isn’t a shift in the culture, this is culture being let loose from restrictions and letting people have what they want on the big screen. Considering how much the mid-late 30s all the way to the early 60s deprived audiences of stuff they were starting to get during the pre-Hays code days, it’s no wonder this whole “pornographic” era as you call it of the late 60s to the 70s exploded when it did. People were sick of being hindered. It’s especially infuriated considering how often the Catholics, those who called for decency in cinema, were the ones banging the kiddies behind the scenes (roughly 18% of Catholic priests from what I understand). Society didn’t become depraved, it was always depraved. And if that’s not enough of a reality check for you, consider that the legal age of marriage during the 1880s was as young as 10 years. That’s right, during the 1880s, it was legal to marry a 10 year old.

Regarding the alleged rape of Virginia Rappe by Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, you appear to state that incident under the impression that that is exactly how it happened. And I call bullshit on that too. There are at least 2 books written on the subject that go in-depth with the coverage of all that, along with the historical context surrounding the incident. “The Day the Laughter Stopped” by David Yallop (1976), and “Room {1219}” by Greg Merritt (2013), which lay out a convincing case that Arbuckle didn’t rape Virginia, that it’s far-fetched at best that he did. Considering how Virginia’s “friend” Maude Delmont was the main person who made that claim in the first place, and has been known to blackmail rich men in the past for their money, and likely made that claim for the sake of blackmailing Arbuckle, and considering the prosecution didn’t think her a solid enough witness to have as a witness during the 3 separate trials (the first 2 were mistrials, the 3rd had Arbuckle acquitted), that’s already enough to cast doubt on the whole incident. And when Arbuckle was finally acquitted, not only did the jury acquit him, but they also wrote a statement which basically stated that “Acquittal is not good enough for Arbuckle.” In that he deserved more than acquittal. He deserved apologies from everyone involved, and maybe even compensation for having his name and finances dragged through the muck during this whole ordeal, especially by both the papers (mainly by William Randolph Hearst) and the religious organizations. But he didn’t get that. Even during the time of the trial, Hollywood was looking to make an example out of Arbuckle to sooth the mobs who wanted something done about the controversies that were coming out about Hollywood at the time. Which involved deaths, murders, drugs, orgies, and booze (which was outlawed due to prohibition at the time). And after the trial, they made Arbuckle’s life hell. He couldn’t get any real acting gigs after that, and his career was finished, despite the not guilty verdict. Quite the justice system we have hear, especially when someone like you, in this day and age, is still willing to give the dead guy shit about it when it’s more likely he didn’t do it. Do some friggin’ research before making statements like that why don’t you? The only people who were bribed were the studios and William Hays, who was approached by some executives from Paramount studios to get him to announce Arbuckle being blacklisted from Hollywood.

As for the religious organizations bringing pressure on Hollywood to force them to implement the Hay’s code, it’s not that simple. You’re leaving out a huge chunk of context. The Great Depression was in swing during that time period, leaving many without much cash in hand. Hollywood was able to keep afloat of this for a while, but eventually even they started to feel the financial burn, with less people (and thus less cash) flowing into the cinemas. Combine this with the fact that the Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, in 1915, that films were not protected by the first amendment, and Hollywood would be under pressure not just from religious organizations for alleged moral reasons, but also from federal and state forces which could shut them down at their leisure. Especially when many in government were of a religious influence and had connections with these religious groups. So it wasn’t just the pressure from those arguing for morality, it wasn’t just pressure from federal and local governments, it was also the pressure of losing money by having less customers who were less willing (if not altogether unable) to shell out cash to see films because there wasn’t much cash to go around during the Great Depression. Not to mention the guy who was putting pressure on Hays himself to implement this code, Joseph Breene, who arguably had more influence than Hays did in his position, was a religious person himself who was practically in bed with the religious organizations. Hay’s didn’t force the film industry to follow the code because most audiences demanded it, Hay’s convinced them to do so in order for the film industry to survive. It was for both monetary reasons, and to avoid the risk of the government coming in and regulating films themselves, which they attempted to do at earlier points in history.

Bottom line, both the Catholics and Jews are assholes. It was just the Catholics who were assholes first.