McD

What more proof do we need? Yguy is a waste of time. He did not respond to a thing anyone said because he couldn't. His morality is arbitrary and rather than debate an issue, he insults and insists that he is right.

He did not address the young lady who said that she used to do exactly what that girl did to me. He did not address the 'stolen car' analogy. He did not address the accusation leveled at him 5 or 6 times that he objects to the premarital sex, not the sex with a minor.

Message to yguy: Everyone here sees your evasions as evasions.

The only question I have is: You can ignore people on this forum??? COOL!!!

yguy

Who do you think you're kidding? I responded to plenty of things you said, and you ignored those responses. If you didn't see any value in them, fine, but to say I responded to nothing anyone said is a brazen lie, a sign of defensive hostility which only serves to reinforce what I thought from the beginning.

Hedwig

You seem to be misreading him.

I really am curious...would you put the guys away that I managed to fool as well?

SimplyAtheistic

And yet you have failed to make one valid point throughout this entire thread. Are you the only one missing this? Everyone else seems to notice..
Jake

yguy

As God is my witness, I find this POV incomprehensible.

Sure. A month in the slammer for them, and a month in a juvenile detention facility for you.

Hedwig

That's okay. People have been finding you incomprehensible for a while now.


But why should they go to jail? They thought I was legal. I told them I was legal. When I was younger I even had documentation to the effect. I entered their world to look for guys because I didn't like the guys my age. It was not their fault. How were they supposed to know?

And for the record, I'm not pleased by what I did. I don't approve of lying like that.

yguy

Yeah, Einstein had the same problem.

The underlying assumption here is that they were justified in taking your documentation at face value. I think it's proper for the law to impose a higher standard of responsibility on the adult in recognizing the possibility of fake ID, etc. If it were strictly enforced, it seems the end result would be that at least people would get to know each other a little before they copulated. What would be so horrible about that?

Which is why I'm not having the sort of acrimonious dicussion with you that I did with McDuffie.

McD

1st challenge to yguy: Please copy and paste one single word that I posted that would indicate that I approve of what this girl did or that I am proud of the fact that it happened, How dare you imply that you have been hard on me because I have not shown the same sort of remorse as Hedwig.

I can only laugh at the fact that yguy wants the government to have an interest in how long people wait between first meeting and first coitus. What do you want to bet that he is a republican who hates big, intrusive government?

2nd challenge to yguy: address the 'stolen car' analogy. Suppose a guy walked onto a car dealership where there is a logical presumption that every car there was legitimate. The guy purchases a car he likes. This car was stolen, but the person who sold it to the dealership cleverly forged the appropriate documents to the point that the dealership rep was fooled.

The guy brings the car home and later is arrested for receiving stolen property. By the letter of the law, he is guilty of a crime. Is he morally guilty also? Did he do something wrong?

He logically inferred that the car was legitimate because it was on the lot of a dealership. I logically inferred that 'Chrissy' was legitimate because she was in a bar.

The guy in the car analogy was put in a position in which it was impossible for him to make an informed decision and yet the nature of the conspiracy was such that he thought that he was making an informed decision. I, likewise, thought that I was making an informed decision. It appeared as if I had all of the information I needed to make an intelligent choice.

Whoever it was who submitted the car analogy, I thank you.

I still cannot believe that yguy is anything but a troll who is not interested in intelligent discussion. I can't reconsile making such an arbitrary and inflammatory implication as the one quoted above with a desire to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

yguy

Since I never claimed that you did either, I see no reason to cite any evidence.

You think I'm judging you unfairly? I'm not judging you at all. I'm just saying what I think.

Possibly, if he thought he was getting something for nothing. Is that not where the saying, "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is" comes from?

In any case, I'm not sure that the sexual act can be legitimately compared with the purchase of an inanimate object.

Feel free to disengage at any time.

Fred Flintstonensis

This statement by yguy, the many others like it, the attitude that produced it and his silence in response to the accusations leveled at him indicate that, indeed, it is the premarital sex aspect that he finds objectionable. Unlike McDuffie, yguy doesn't give a damn that the sex was with an underaged girl. He is offended by the sex.

I don't have words to say how this ad hoc statement makes me feel. I already told you that he isn't jumping up and down with glee that he got away with something. Apparently, judging by the way he says he behaved from that day to this, the event was cathartic.

Not only that, after reading your comment, I reread every relevant post in this thread and I simply could not see where he may have been proud or even non-remorseful and couldn't find it. I suspect neither could you. I think you just said that to justify your behavior and shitty attitude thoughout this entire exchange and to deflect attention from the fact that you have only addressed ancillary points of the posts. You have yet to address the salient points.

Funny how in your "liar" post you cut a quote from McDuffie, in which he said that you haven't addressed the points and you commented that he was lying and that you had, but he listed 3 or 4 points--the most salient, relevant and powerful points--which you didn't address. Not only did you not quote him listing those points, you also didn't address them.

Address the main points. Address the car analogy. Just say--right now--that it is the sex part you object to, or tell us why we are wrong to think so. Write a real post, which explains your position. Don't just quote part of someone's post and write a stupid comment. I shouldn't be giving you another chance, but I want to kick this issue around, but I can't as long as you insist on being dishonest. I think I am right. I might not be. I want to kick this issue around a little to find out. Will I be forced to conclude that I must be right because the only people holding the opposing view are evasive dishonest people who hurl arbitrary insults like ticker tape in a Macy's Day parade?