StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:57 PM) Why have any law denying anyone from having consensual sex? If Im 12 and a hot 18 year old wants a piece of me, whats wrong with that? Im usually the last person to defend statutory laws, I think that as soon as you get rid of mens rea you lose a lot of legitimacy on a criminal conviction. That being said, you cant just change the rules for hot teachers, or for boys. The rules are the rules, so if its okay for adults to have sex with kids, its okay. If its not, its not. Bad facts make for bad law, and "hot teacher" makes for bad facts. Personally I think the law should be changed and most statutory crimes erased. But Id guess Im in the severe minority. But there's not, right? By legal definition, minors can't consent.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:52 PM) I think the physical loss of virginity and pregnancy is the real difference. To me it's pretty dumb to have a law denying a 16/17 year old boy from doing what 16/17 year old boys dream about doing every night. If it's a situation where someone is taking advantage of someone or making them do something they don't want to do, then I agree. But if it's just straight up consensual sex, I don't get the beef. If you're old enough to drive a car and get a job, you're old enough to decide if having sex with a hot Bengals cheerleader is a bad thing. Who's to say 16/17 year old girls are dreaming of sleeping with hot 20 yo's? Who's to say they're virgins and not fully consenting? What about a 26 male teach and a 16/17 male student?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:39 PM) I am agreeing with you, just pointing out how key the 1998 El Nino is to all of this. That's really the monster that stands out on every plot. To reiterate, they know this, and yet they continue to lie. That's why there's such a disparity between what the public believes and what scientists who actually study this believe, and it's the reason why this country won't do anything about this problem.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:26 PM) That's different. If there are numbers and the school budget allows it then absolutely that is a great idea. Fact is however, that extra teams frequently can not fit into budgets or generate enough interest from kids and coaches. If kids want instruction you can create after school activities to provide it. Frankly, kids who have little to no experience in a sport should not be expected to be able to compete with kids who have worked hard to make themselves already good and/or are just gifted at it. What you did sounds like a perfect solution. There's been some efforts to study the impact of Title IX on both male and female sports opportunities. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/201...-title-ix_N.htm

I wouldn't call him a hack, but those last several episodes of Lost were just terrible and exposed his claims that they had this whole story planned from the beginning to be a lie. I did enjoy Super 8 this summer. They had a fantastic show with Lost for several seasons, but then abandoned the whole first half of the show in favor of the jacob plotline that left almost everything unresolved and/or meaningless.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:19 PM) But what about it making it more liberal with a hot piece of ass? Seriously though, if I'm on that jury, I'd have to hear a boatload of majorly aggravating circumstances before I'd vote to convict. What if it's an attractive male teacher sleeping with 16/17 year old students?

Here's a little longer article that says she was teaching freshman English, but that doesn't mean it was one of her students.

But that's rasslin', and we all know that doesn't take skill like basketball or baseball does. edit: that's pretty impressive, though!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:10 PM) Frankly, I don't know about the 16 part, but having it be stricter where the more senior person is in a position of authority over the younger person makes a ton of sense to me. The more troubling part was the "parent"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:07 PM) In Ohio, the age of consent is 16 unless the other person is a teacher/parent/administrator/coach/something like that with the person, in which case the age of consent is 18. Yeah with something like that there's a whole power/authority issue that comes into play, so even if its not statutory rape there's still some potential moral issues there, similar between a college prof and a student but worse because of the younger age.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:06 PM) Isn't 17 legal now? This hot piece of ass did nothing wrong. QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:06 PM) The comments in the article certainly hint at the "victim" being 17. Will County is 17 IIRC but there may be an upper limit on the age. I saw the comments but I have no idea where they're getting that info.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) So what is the age where cool becomes child molestation? I'm not sure where the idea that the student was 17 is coming from, I don't see it in the article.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) J.J. Abrams is very impressive when you're willing to give him every benefit of the doubt and basically do all of the work for him. Otherwise, he's a hack that throws s*** at a wall and people think he's the cleverest person in history because of his glasses or some s***. I gave him every benefit on Lost and then he proved all of the critics correct with the terrible last season.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:44 PM) Yeah, and so are a lot of things. Get over it. I also use the term "dick" for when people are being a jerk. So I am an equal opportunity offender. Cool, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be getting over though? NSS brought it up and I agreed that, yes, it is sexist.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) Absolutely not. But 99% of the time it is always about how girls/women are being slighted for not being allowed to participate. You almost never hear it from the other side. It's ok for girls to jump on to the football team, or wrestling squad or baseball team. But the second a guy wants to try out for volleyball, field hockey or softball it's no longer okay. Right, the group that's usually the one discriminated against is the one you hear about.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) Oh please. To a few posters that post quite often in the Buster, maybe in your never-ending quest to become perfect, politically correct and omniscient human beings, you could get over yourselves for a long enough time to stop criticizing every little thing everyone else does and focus on your own failings. I have some great workout routines I could recommend. QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) OMG. The political correctness police is a perfect example of what people were b****ing complaining about on the last page. I don't know about the others but when I made the horrendous reference that is being discussed it wasn't meant to be directly about this particular case, but more about an overall direction our society is heading. People just like to complain and feign offense just for the sake of it. As for this particular case, if there is no female alternative I think it is discriminatory and should not be allowed to take place. However, if there is, there is nothing wrong with the decision that took place. Purposefully or not, the article does not make mention of the situation so based on that article alone we do not know what the exact case is. Using slang terms for female genitalia as an insult is sexist. It has nothing to do with being omniscient or perfect.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) It is sexist to believe females should not be allowed to play alongside males in sports? Yes, but that wasn't what I was address. It's sexist to use a slang term for female genitalia as a euphemism for being weak, cowardly, etc

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) Oh I do, for the most part. The idea that, if you focus on an 8 year period, the temps seem to have leveled, while a true fact, is obviously and grossly missing the big picture. Probably on purpose. Plus, even if they are right, and temps stay level for a while - we are still far higher than we were decades or centuries ago. That is the biggest issue. There's no point in presenting both sides if one side is intentionally dishonest because it's really all they have. 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the last 10 years. They know this, but they'll lie anyway.

It's pretty terrible and really inhumane. There's no real way to defend his actions there. It's also not an issue in a Presidential election.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:29 PM) Seems they think the reaction to this is about being a "p****", which I think is sad and more than a little sexist considering the context. But regardless, it is their view. It's 100% sexist regardless of context.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 12:35 PM) You are missing the point here, by thinking this is not true. I know it has been studied, deeply and often. And as I said, I am fairly convinced. However, when you are talking about the relationship between human behaviors and climate, you cannot possibly say anything with 10o% certainty, or even 99%. There are far, far too many dynamics and variables involved. Nothing in science is 100% provable. Nothing in climate science is 100% settled or established, and that's why thousands of scientists work on this issue and publish every year, digging deeper and examining more and more factors. This is markedly different from the stark denialist claims to do absolutely nothing about the issue, that call it a "hoax" designed to get scientists wealthy with grant money or enact a new world order or some other nonsense. And that's the view pushed by one of the two major political parties in this country, and that's why the reaction to such terrible pieces like the WSJ editorial is so harsh. Please join me in mocking the WSJ and the Daily Mail pieces which made the claim that global warming has stopped.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 12:08 PM) I of course do not agree with your premise that both sides shouldn't be aired. But there aren't two co-equal "sides" here. There's one side, which is the actual science. That's it. It's the same "teach the controversy" crap that tries to get creationism into classrooms under the guise of there being anything less than an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. Hell, they use the same "more and more scientists are rejecting [...]" language. If there's legitimate scientific disagreement to be had, let's have it. Papers critical of or downplaying AGW are published from time-to-time, and then they're vigorously taken apart for the bad science that they are or it's pointed out that the press releases accompanying the papers have seriously overstated the conclusions of the paper. There is rigorous discussion. In scientific journals and communities and reports. Not on the pages of the WSJ, where they publish articles that merely repeat zombie arguments that have been beaten down again and again and again.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 12:36 PM) Seriously. Kid sports at 6 or 7 are mostly chaos. Bernstein was commenting on his son's b-ball game the other day. The final score of a 40 minute game was something like 6-10. But we need to focus on the "competition" at this age, otherwise we're p*****s.

Americans are "p*****s" because the hyper-competition seen in kids' sports is correctly recognized as inadequate adults with failed dreams and failed lives living vicariously through their children and that this often comes at the expense of the children themselves.

Kids aren't cut from school and parents generally don't get into fist fights over 2nd grade math tests.