OMG_blackmage OMG_blackmage

Pirating/emulators, and all that good stuff.

▼

Pirating/emulators, and all that good stuff.

from Demigod Forums

Ya, ya; a lot of us yell pirating is wrong (even though some of us are hypocrites who have pirated stuff, you know who you are.) But, is it so wrong to pirate and use emulators for games that are 1. no longer being made or sold, and 2. games for console not even being made anymore?

604,542 views 228 replies
Reply #126 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting DariasDruss, reply 124
I remember the US version of Sacred was edited so it didn't have monsters being decapitated and spurting blood. Drifted pretty far off topic now but whatever

 

The Witcher and Indigo Prophecy were also edited to meet American guidelines.
End of DariasDruss's quote

Guidelines, not laws. There is a difference. If the publisher wants a certain rating, they'll edit it. No one forces them to do that, and they can sell the game if they don't.

Reply #127 from Sins Forums Top

Which leads me to Modern Warfare 2. They ended up with a 18 due to one level when the rest of the game would have been a 16. However, upon realising that it would have to be an 18, why didn't they either: a) remove the airport scene to make it a 16, or b) up the realism/goriness or whatever to make the game a proper 18, rather than what is effectively an 18-rated 16.

Just my thoughts, even though I hardly ever played mw2 anyway...

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

ZehDon, I think you confused "point by point rebuttal" with "quote random blocks of text followed by insults of the poster and unfounded aggression"

You also failed to make a single legitimate point...

Please, for the love of god, stop posting.  You clearly have no understanding of anything you're saying or any of the subject matter you're talking about.  Every word you're typing makes the rest of dumber.  Please,please, stop.
End of quote

See, you need to actually make a point in a point by point rebuttal; not just "shut up shut up lalalala"

The Australian OFLC bans - not censors - video games.  Big, big difference.
End of quote

Oh how silly of me... banning objectionable speech isn't censorship, its just the banning of objectionable speech.

Although, you are clearly referring to IN LINE censorship (aka, the removal of specific words from a work) as if it is the only form of censorship. I am well aware of that definition and I am well aware that it is not the only definition. Banning an entire work rather then removing specific words and then publishing it with those is still censorship.

Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Nesrie, reply 126

Quoting DariasDruss, reply 124I remember the US version of Sacred was edited so it didn't have monsters being decapitated and spurting blood. Drifted pretty far off topic now but whatever

The Witcher and Indigo Prophecy were also edited to meet American guidelines.

Guidelines, not laws. There is a difference. If the publisher wants a certain rating, they'll edit it. No one forces them to do that, and they can sell the game if they don't.
End of Nesrie's quote

Exactly, meeting a private guideline voluntarily because stores will not sell it otherwise where it is perfectly LEGAL for them to sell it if they chose to is very different then the government telling them to make changes or it will be ILLEGAL to sell.

Reply #130 from Sins Forums Top

I have to say this once...

This thread is rated R (aaarhhhh) for pirate violence!!!!!!!!!

Reply #131 from Demigod Forums Top

Ok, enough; lets keep this civilized and forum friendly. Do the stuff synn wouldn't do!

Reply #132 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting ZehDon, reply 121

The Australian OFLC bans - not censors - video games.  Big, big difference.
End of ZehDon's quote

I admit I am confused by this statement, as to ban a work is to carry out the censorship of that work. It is not the only form of censorship, and I have no idea how to find out how common a form it is relative to the other forms of censorship, but it is without a doubt a form of censorship. They are not one in the same, but one is a form of the other. To say that the OFLC does not censor video games is, at best, misleading.

 

On a different note, I am against the opinion that some people have expressed here that because something is the law, it is right.

Fuzzy Logic said:

"Piracy is theft, and theft is against the law. That's the only language you need to know."

But I believe there were a few others posts nearly as overt.

I'm going to be ignoring the debate of whether piracy = theft, which makes both sides look like jerks, and talk about what Fuzzy has said here in regards to the law as being the be-all and end-all. This, I believe, is wrong. Laws are not inherently right or ethical. And neither is a society's definition of morals concrete. I hardly have to give an example of an unethical law, or a law that is no longer ethical. A society's ethical standard evolve, usually a society's laws follow suit. Sometimes laws are too slow to change, and sometimes they are ignored and forgotten entirely. (For example, it is illegal here in British Columbia to serve a pint of beer, due to conflicting legal definitions of the term. Needless to say, this is a law that most are ignorant of, and the rest ignore.)

My example above points out what we should already know intrinsically: that law is drafted by people, individuals, each with their own ideals, passions, beliefs and faults. Individuals who are capable of making mistakes or even of willfully doing harm for their own gain. Of course, the democratic system used by our host countries does not place all that responsibility within the hands of individuals. But a sub-committee, or a committee, or even a house of legislature is still merely the sum of its parts, and if an individual to make a mistake, than it follows that a group of them can also make a mistake.

Erm... that above paragraph doesn't really please me, so let me put it more plainly: If people are not always perfect, it stands to reason that neither are laws.

Thus we change laws, reworking them, adding and subtracting from them over time until we have a set that works. And as time goes by we sometimes discover that a law that worked yesterday doesn't work today, and we either begin the process over again, or we scrap the law entirely. and sometimes a new facet of society creates the need for additional laws. We've been doing it for thousands of years, and, I pray, we will continue doing it. We must always question whether our laws are still relevant. If we blindly accept the laws as they exist, we impede legal progress. I think we owe it to ourselves and each other to do better than that.

Nerie, I think, touched on the fact that a rather substantial part of society engages in piracy. It is illegal, though it certainly doesn't seem to carry the same social stigma as, say, shoplifting, or vandalism, or even smoking pot, which is, for all intents and purposes, essentially decriminalized here. (Legally, it isn't, but largely it is politely ignored.) And if you look the headlines about legal action being taken against pirates you will see a bigger demographic than just "collage-aged young people." Pirates clearly come from all walks of life. This suggests to me that societal ethics may be shifting, or are about to. And as laws evolve to suit ethics, we may very well see the laws that surround this debate change. In fact, I'm certain they will.

If pirates really are all made up of (mostly) "college-aged young-people," as someone had earlier said, let's not forget that they are the political, social, and corporate leaders of tomorrow. It would be far too general a statement to argue that the pirates of today will all amount to nothing.

 

Edit: I guess I could have condensed that all to something like: If most people are opposed to the law as it stands, it wont be law very long. I realize that pirates don't form a majority, but they are not insignificant in number, and their ranks aren't exactly shrinking.

Reply #133 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting louist, reply 132

Quoting ZehDon, reply 121
The Australian OFLC bans - not censors - video games.  Big, big difference.
I admit I am confused by this statement, as to ban a work is to carry out the censorship of that work. It is not the only form of censorship, and I have no idea how to find out how common a form it is relative to the other forms of censorship, but it is without a doubt a form of censorship. They are not one in the same, but one is a form of the other. To say that the OFLC does not censor video games is, at best, misleading.

 

On a different note, I am against the opinion that some people have expressed here that because something is the law, it is right.

Fuzzy Logic said:

"Piracy is theft, and theft is against the law. That's the only language you need to know."

But I believe there were a few others posts nearly as overt.

I'm going to be ignoring the debate of whether piracy = theft, which makes both sides look like jerks, and talk about what Fuzzy has said here in regards to the law as being the be-all and end-all. This, I believe, is wrong. Laws are not inherently right or ethical. And neither is a society's definition of morals concrete. I hardly have to give an example of an unethical law, or a law that is no longer ethical. A society's ethical standard evolve, usually a society's laws follow suit. Sometimes laws are too slow to change, and sometimes they are ignored and forgotten entirely. (For example, it is illegal here in British Columbia to serve a pint of beer, due to conflicting legal definitions of the term. Needless to say, this is a law that most are ignorant of, and the rest ignore.)

My example above points out what we should already know intrinsically: that law is drafted by people, individuals, each with their own ideals, passions, beliefs and faults. Individuals who are capable of making mistakes or even of willfully doing harm for their own gain. Of course, the democratic system used by our host countries does not place all that responsibility within the hands of individuals. But a sub-committee, or a committee, or even a house of legislature is still merely the sum of its parts, and if an individual to make a mistake, than it follows that a group of them can also make a mistake.

Erm... that above paragraph doesn't really please me, so let me put it more plainly: If people are not always perfect, it stands to reason that neither are laws.

Thus we change laws, reworking them, adding and subtracting from them over time until we have a set that works. And as time goes by we sometimes discover that a law that worked yesterday doesn't work today, and we either begin the process over again, or we scrap the law entirely. and sometimes a new facet of society creates the need for additional laws. We've been doing it for thousands of years, and, I pray, we will continue doing it. We must always question whether our laws are still relevant. If we blindly accept the laws as they exist, we impede legal progress. I think we owe it to ourselves and each other to do better than that.

Nerie, I think, touched on the fact that a rather substantial part of society engages in piracy. It is illegal, though it certainly doesn't seem to carry the same social stigma as, say, shoplifting, or vandalism, or even smoking pot, which is, for all intents and purposes, essentially decriminalized here. (Legally, it isn't, but largely it is politely ignored.) And if you look the headlines about legal action being taken against pirates you will see a bigger demographic than just "collage-aged young people." Pirates clearly come from all walks of life. This suggests to me that societal ethics may be shifting, or are about to. And as laws evolve to suit ethics, we may very well see the laws that surround this debate change. In fact, I'm certain they will.

If pirates really are all made up of (mostly) "college-aged young-people," as someone had earlier said, let's not forget that they are the political, social, and corporate leaders of tomorrow. It would be far too general a statement to argue that the pirates of today will all amount to nothing.

 

Edit: I guess I could have condensed that all to something like: If most people are opposed to the law as it stands, it wont be law very long. I realize that pirates don't form a majority, but they are not insignificant in number, and their ranks aren't exactly shrinking.
End of louist's quote

Just found my favorite post of the day.

Reply #134 from Elemental Forums Top

I'm not sure whether that is a compliment or a snipe... Or if you are laughing at fact that It took me at least half an hour to put into words what really only needed 2 sentences....

Reply #135 from Demigod Forums Top

Mark Twain would not approve. College Board, on the other hand, would be eating out of your hand. I think you're spot on though.

Reply #136 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 128
ZehDon, I think you confused "point by point rebuttal" with "quote random blocks of text followed by insults of the poster and unfounded aggression"...
End of taltamir's quote

If you return to my earlier posts and read them carefully, you'll notice I addressed each comment you made and explained, in some detail, why it was incorrect - namely, you ommited certain details or pieces of information to skew the facts to suit your own personal point of view.  That was my point; you lied, amended facts and thus your conclusion is idiotic because you lied to reach it.
As for the unfounded aggression, I'm an Australian citizen and don't take kindly to having my entire country insulted by an uneducated, unintelligent internet dweller who's opinion is formed through censoring the facts to skew them; ironic, given the context of the argument.


Quoting taltamir, reply 128
The Australian OFLC bans - not censors - video games.  Big, big difference.

Oh how silly of me... banning objectionable speech isn't censorship, its just the banning of objectionable speech.
End of taltamir's quote

If the OFLC was running through every Video Game, Movie and Book and clipping out pieces - say, anything anti-Australian or anything that promotes rebellion, such as the practice in China - then I'd be far more inclined to listen and even agree with you.  However, as it stands, the OFLC doesn't do this; they don't censor.  They, infact, merely rate Movies, Books and Games according to their guidelines.  Movies that are for adults are rated as such, however games - which were, at the time of the creaton of the ratings, considered solely for children - cannot be rated for adults.  The banning of such violent games, which is done because they cannot be rated R18 because Australia doesn't have an R18 rating for games, is a by-product of an out-dated understanding of Video Games (that games are only for children) and was prevented from being updated by the former A-G of South Australia who lost his position because he was voted out by people who wanted the change, thus demonstrating that the majority of Australians, well technically South Australians, are not in favour of this.  The bannings are not a ploy by the Australian Government to remove certain materials, certain themes, certain ideals or certain beliefs from circulation thus cannot really be considered censoring in its strictist definition.  Its a failure to adapt to change in social understandings, not a malicious attempt to 'censor' freedom of artistic expression.

Reply #137 from Sins Forums Top

Banning is censoring, even if it is just because it is refused a rating; it doesn't matter if there is malicious intent or not.

Reply #138 from Demigod Forums Top

Censorship is preventing people from seeing things. A government that bans a work of art, a song, or a video game is preventing people in that country from seeing it. I can see no way how the outright banning of a published material is not a form of censorship.

 

The bannings are not a ploy by the Australian Government to remove certain materials, certain themes, certain ideals ...

End of quote

What is banning intended to do then?

Reply #139 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting louist, reply 132

My example above points out what we should already know intrinsically: that law is drafted by people, individuals, each with their own ideals, passions, beliefs and faults. Individuals who are capable of making mistakes or even of willfully doing harm for their own gain. Of course, the democratic system used by our host countries does not place all that responsibility within the hands of individuals. But a sub-committee, or a committee, or even a house of legislature is still merely the sum of its parts, and if an individual to make a mistake, than it follows that a group of them can also make a mistake.

Erm... that above paragraph doesn't really please me, so let me put it more plainly: If people are not always perfect, it stands to reason that neither are laws.

Thus we change laws, reworking them, adding and subtracting from them over time until we have a set that works. And as time goes by we sometimes discover that a law that worked yesterday doesn't work today, and we either begin the process over again, or we scrap the law entirely. and sometimes a new facet of society creates the need for additional laws. We've been doing it for thousands of years, and, I pray, we will continue doing it. We must always question whether our laws are still relevant. If we blindly accept the laws as they exist, we impede legal progress. I think we owe it to ourselves and each other to do better than that.
End of louist's quote

Unfortunately our legal system, and more importantly the people who run it, don't think that way. Or rather they do think that way and in fact know the "right way" to do things, but they don't because the Legal System makes money. Lots of money. That's the real problem. Even here in the United States where our legal system is Supposed to be Free. To quote a bunch of cops off TV, "If you can not afford legal counsel a court appointed lawyer will be provided for you". That doesn't work...at all. You know why? Because that Lawyer works FOR the Court and the Legal System. He doesn't work for the person he's Supposed to be defending. He makes his living getting paid to make sure people Go To Jail and Stay There. The more people who are in jail the more Job Security he has. If he actually Defends all his clients and makes sure they don't go to jail the jails would be empty and his job wouldn't be as necessary. The Legal Counsel provided by the state isn't going to be the same Quality Defense as if say you were to pay $250,000 for Johnnie Cochran (if he were still alive).

The very second the Legal System became a Business was the very second any Real Justice went flying out the window. Here in Florida Incarceration makes more money then Tourism. A State with tons of World Famous theme parks (Disney World, Sea World, Epcot), the worlds most famous party beach (Daytona), the second Capitol of Racing (for Nascar), the Sunshine State where millions of the elderly flock to so they can retire in comfort, one of the Headquarters for the United States Space Program (Nasa)......The very same State makes more money off keeping people in jail then it does off All those things combined.

I caught this on the news just a few nights ago. It's a story involving a bunch of kids that ALL go to the SAME Highschool. Two of them just so happen to be 18 and both seniors, but the bottom line in My eyes is they are ALL kids. Anyway here's the story copy/pasted from this website on local news.

LAKELAND -- Two high school baseball players face felony charges after they were caught in a car engaged in sexual activities with two girls.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said the two girls were on a Friday night double date. Judd said they were parked on the side of a road behind a Lakeland subdivision engaged in makeout sessions with their boyfriends.

Polk County Sheriff's Office Spokeswoman Donna Wood said there was sexual penetration. Judd said that conduct is illegal.

"This is a slam dunk," Judd said. "It is a clear felony of the second degree."

The two males, Eric Arce and Kyle Wohlfarth-Simmons, are 18-year-old seniors at Lakeland High School. The girls are minors, 14 and 15 years old.

A Polk County deputy found the four in the car and told the students' parents what happened, and the girls' parents decided to press charges.

Judd said cases similar to this one are common, but that most parents opt to hand down their own punishments and sign waivers declining formal charges.

If parents want to prosecute, Judd said they have the legal right to do so.

"As a daddy, if my 14-year-old little girl is engaged in that conduct with an 18-year-old man, the safest place he could be is in the county jail," Judd said.

Wohlfarth-Simmons is charged with lewd battery and Arce is charged with lewd battery and lewd molestation.

Arce and Wohlfarth-Simmons are suspended indefinitely from their school's baseball team.

According to Bay News 9's newspaper partner, the Lakeland Ledger, Arce is projected to be a second round pick in this summer's major league baseball amateur draft.

Note: It wasn't stated in this particular story, but, both girls have stated that everything that happened was consensual.

My personal views....THAT is INSANE!!! They are about to RUIN these two BOYS lives forever. For What?!?!?! All they did was the same thing every other Highschool Student is doing. The same thing every guy reading this Right Now has probably done, and we all know it. Of course if you give the parents the choice they're going to press charges. If any of those parents happen to be fathers do you really think they're going to be able to handle the fact that "Daddy's little angel" is putting out? Hell No!!! They're going to Completely Forget about all the girls they slept with when they were in Highschool. They aren't going to think about all the things they did with girls when they were in school even after the fact that they turned 18 and were Still in Highschool. To those Dads those BOYS are evil monsters that took advantage of a little girls innocence.

When I saw this on the news I saw the interview with the Sheriff. When he said "This is a slam dunk, It is a clear felony of the second degree." this prick had a big toothy smile and acted like he was proud of him-self for taking two dangerous pedophiles off the streets. Where's the so called "Romeo and Juliet" act here that's supposed to protect highschool kids from stuff like this? No-where in sight, that's where. The State is ignoring it's own guidelines so it can make some money ruining these BOYS lives and making them Sex Offenders so it can keep making money off them for the rest of their lives. On top of that any futures these boys had is now gone. No Major League Baseball contracts. No draft picks. No college, and no job will ever hire them because they're now considered pedophiles and monsters in the eyes of society.

The Laws are set up to make money, not to protect society. The "Protect and Serve" part when flying out the window when money started being made and someone had the bright idea that if there were more laws that could be broken they could make more people into criminals and hence make more off prosecuting them.

(Sorry to get so far off topic with something else involving legal matters but this whole thing just pisses me off to no end)

Reply #140 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Splitshadow, reply 138
Censorship is preventing people from seeing things. A government that bans a work of art, a song, or a video game is preventing people in that country from seeing it. I can see no way how the outright banning of a published material is not a form of censorship.
End of Splitshadow's quote

Hmm, that's a good point - I'll conceed; banning something is technically censoring.  I was going under the ideal of blocking only the parts that are not agreed with; blacking out sections of a book, or cutting sections out of a film rather than just banning the whole thing.

In either case, the OFLC isn't actively seeking to ban any one ideal or belief; they simply have no choice in the matter due to the legislation in place.  They can't rate it R18+, so they have to Ban it as the legislation dictates.  The process for amending this legislation has already begun.

Quoting Splitshadow, reply 138
What is banning intended to do then?
End of Splitshadow's quote

In this situation, it's not intended to do anything since refusing classification doesn't prevent someone from owning that item under Australian law unless it's because that item is illegal (such as child pornography) - it's simply not allowed to be sold in stores.  This is part of the reason for the push for the R18 rating; if we had an R18 rating we could prevent children from accessing the games in question because if they weren't 18 it would be illegal for them to have it, however since those games have been refused classification there are no restrictions - anyone can legally own it regardless of age.  Obviously, the system is both outdated and is full of contradictions; hence the push for reform.

Reply #141 from Demigod Forums Top

The age of consent should be dropped to at least 15. As we age our insecurities develop and we tend to over-emphasize the importance of experience and wisdom-through-age in a narcissistic attempt to prove our superiority over our children out of a Freudian fear that our children will be better than us. People need to believe that their years of experience haven't been wasted and has given us some sort of wisdom. 

Reply #142 from Demigod Forums Top

In my opinion, children should be allowed to be children and play with childish things.  The loss of innocence happens to everyone, and it's a sad moment in everyones lives; we shouldn't be in a hurry to speed that up.

Reply #143 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting ZehDon, reply 142
In my opinion, children should be allowed to be children and play with childish things.  The loss of innocence happens to everyone, and it's a sad moment in everyones lives; we shouldn't be in a hurry to speed that up.
End of ZehDon's quote
The loss of innocence comes harder and at a much greater cost to a sheltered child to know who is allowed to grow at their own rate. The phrase you just used is nothing more then saying "I shelter my child from reality."

Reply #144 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting synnworld, reply 143
The loss of innocence comes harder and at a much greater cost to a sheltered child to know who is allowed to grow at their own rate. The phrase you just used is nothing more then saying "I shelter my child from reality."
End of synnworld's quote

The point of childhood is to develop; if they are not allowed to develop at their own pace we encounter what we have today; 12 year old drug dealers and thugs crawling the streets at all hours of the night.  I'm not talking about locking up your children till their 18 and making them think that the world is a magical place filled with rainbows and eskimos - I'm talking about allowing a child to grow over time - span out their induction into the harsh reality we call life from the moment they're born till they turn 18.  Don't just buy them an xbox, hand them the most hardcore, violent game you can find and say Happy 10th Birthday.

Reply #145 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting ZehDon, reply 144

The point of childhood is to develop; if they are not allowed to develop at their own pace we encounter what we have today; 12 year old drug dealers and thugs crawling the streets at all hours of the night.  I'm not talking about locking up your children till their 18 and making them think that the world is a magical place filled with rainbows and eskimos - I'm talking about allowing a child to grow over time - span out their induction into the harsh reality we call life from the moment they're born till they turn 18.  Don't just buy them an xbox, hand them the most hardcore, violent game you can find and say Happy 10th Birthday.
End of ZehDon's quote

While this is true, those two girls, both 14 and 15, were "allowed to grow at their own rate". They weren't doing something out of the ordinary for girls their age, quite the contrary in-fact. Does that mean they must have had bad parents or they were being forced at gunpoint or being drugged and raped? No. They were dating popular baseball players, most likely the envy of the other girls in their school, and they were doing the very same thing all their peers are doing.

The sad fact of the matter is that normal development in today's world means that both boys and girls see sex or sexual situations on TV and in the media on a daily basis. All their "role models" are girls like Brittany Spears, and Shakira, and Pink, who are walking sex symbols them-selves. Their role models are popular for acting like sluts while they try to portray a innocent facade and girls know this.

Those two girls were doing what comes natural to all girls at that age surrounded by guys at that age. That sounds pretty normal to me, my friend.

Reply #146 from Demigod Forums Top

Ok, now we're really getting off topic.

Quoting Raven, reply 145
...That sounds pretty normal to me, my friend.
End of Raven's quote

And I won't argue to the contrary because I agree; children are like spounges and love to mimic what they see, thus they love to act older than they are.  Lower the age of consent to 15 and you lower the room for development and advance the generational desensatisation that we're seeing; what happens when 10 year olds want to act like 15 year olds?  Ask any Human Development teacher from your local high school - children's bodies develop faster than their minds; a commonly known fact.  They don't have the mental, societal or developmental understanding of their actions - especially since they're exposed to so much sexualised content to skew their understanding it;  their hormones are telling them what to do, and nothing more.  If you honestly think 14 and 15 year olds have the mental capacity to make significant choices that are going to impact the rest of their lives, I have to question your understanding.  Changing the law to abolish statutory rape, for example, enables older boys to prey on younger girls without consequence - be it because they're popular baseball players and sleeping with them will make the girls the envy of all of the others girls in school - which in and of itself is disgusting behaviour for teenage girls to be practicing -  or otherwise.  Do I agree that all instances of underage sexual activity should be considered rape? No, obviously the law does require amendment, but the age of the consent certainly isn't the part that requires amending.

Reply #147 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting ZehDon, reply 146
And I won't argue to the contrary because I agree; children are like spounges and love to mimic what they see, thus they love to act older than they are.  Lower the age of consent to 15 and you lower the room for development and advance the generational desensatisation that we're seeing; what happens when 10 year olds want to act like 15 year olds?  Ask any Human Development teacher from your local high school - children's bodies develop faster than their minds; a commonly known fact.  They don't have the mental, societal or developmental understanding of their actions - especially since they're exposed to so much sexualized content to skew their understanding it;  their hormones are telling them what to do, and nothing more.  If you honestly think 14 and 15 year olds have the mental capacity to make significant choices that are going to impact the rest of their lives, I have to question your understanding.  Changing the law to abolish statutory rape, for example, enables older boys to prey on younger girls without consequence - be it because they're popular baseball players and sleeping with them will make the girls the envy of all of the others girls in school - which in and of itself is disgusting behavior for teenage girls to be practicing -  or otherwise.  Do I agree that all instances of underage sexual activity should be considered rape? No, obviously the law does require amendment, but the age of the consent certainly isn't the part that requires amending.

End of ZehDon's quote

I know we're way off topic even continuing the discussion on this, but..

I agree mostly with what you say above. At 15 years old though, I was having lots of sex. Most guys my age were (or they were lying about it). Who are 15 year old guys sleeping with? Girls they know and go to school with. This continues the whole way through school. So one day when the guys are 17 years old they are just innocent boys dating girls in their own age range and no-one thinks nothing of it if the girl is a couple years younger. It would be naive to think that if they wanted to have sex they'd let a law stop them, especially if they're both minors. But then, suddenly a Day passes and they are 18. Are they suddenly supposed to Stop being sexually attracted to the same girls they've been dating and been sexually active with up to that point? No. It's stupid to think that when suddenly someone turns 18 they go from "Normal Boy dating girls in his own age range" to suddenly being "perverted child molesters" who should be taken off the streets and have their lives ruined.

All of us as a society need to wake and and realize things aren't the same as they were 10 or 20 years ago. Human evolution is always moving forward and people mature much faster today then they did 20 years ago, both physically and mentally. People also need to realize that "laws" aren't going to stop teenagers from having sex. Teenagers are going to have sex and for the most part I'd they say they are plenty mature enough to make that decision. They do it because they want to and nothing anyone can say is going to stop them. Being ignorant of that as a human being, parent or not, will only lead to these laws getting worse and worse just as the laws are with online piracy and the control of information.

Bottom line though is a male doesn't go from being a "Normal Teen dating girls" to being a "older boy who preys on younger girls" just because one day he is 17 and the next he is 18. Those are the Same girls he's been dating his whole life and he's still the same guy. The difference is society has attached a number to it so when the time comes they can say it's "wrong". The courts and law makers know this and they design the laws to take full advantage of it as the case above shows.

(See, I even managed to throw in one scentence that was On Topic ;) )

Reply #148 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Raven, reply 147
...All of us as a society need to wake and and realize things aren't the same as they were 10 or 20 years ago. Human evolution is always moving forward and people mature much faster today then they did 20 years ago, both physically and mentally. People also need to realize that "laws" aren't going to stop teenagers from having sex...
End of Raven's quote

Now, this is where I have to stop and disagree.  Ignoring the fact that human evolution has produced no discernable effects over the last 500 years or so of recorded medical human history and many debate that the invention of medicine and our combined technologies have stunned human evolution significantly as we've allowed the weak to survive and all that jazz, you're arguing that we've evolved to a point over the course of 20 years where a 15 year old human's mental understanding is now equal to that of an 18 year old from 20 years ago?  I really hope you're joking.

Things have changed, absolutely.  Brainless Blonde women are now famous for being... famous, and this is who young girls are taught to look up to on the basis of exposure and popularity.  Society as a whole worships youth, attractiveness, fame and money.  Celebrity reporting magazines, TV shows and 'newspapers', and I use that term losely, are literally guilty of inventing their own cover stories to sell more copies or make more money.  They then produce countless issues that flood the mainstream with inane nonesense that has engrained into the heart of society that Celebrities are better than us because they're famous and that we all need to aspire to be Brad Pitts, George Clooneys, Paris Hiltons and who every else are the "it" people of the moment not because of their intelligence, their maturity, their humanity or even their actions - but because their faces are plastered on billboards and tvs across the globe.  Things have changed, but it's not for the better.  Teenagers today are taught through over-exposure that shows like 'The O.C.' are representative of teenage life and that this is the normal behaviour; sleeping around and doing drugs with overally dramatic lives and events ripped from hollywood movies, which is of course utter bullshit.  The escapism has become the reality we're attempting to escape - and we wonder why teenagers today are violent, drug addicted, confused and mixed up individuals.  It's not because we as a species have evolved and that our children are more mature then we were at their age - it's because over-sexualised content and over-exposure to the mass media phenonenom that drives our lovely modern world has them chasing fame and fortune from the moment they can read.

Quoting Raven, reply 147
...It's stupid to think that when suddenly someone turns 18 they go from "Normal Boy dating girls in his own age range" to suddenly being "perverted child molesters" who should be taken off the streets and have their lives ruined...
End of Raven's quote

I agree completely - and the law needs to change to reflect this.  If everyone involved - and I'm not just talking about some 14 year old girl who thinks she's in love with the most popular boy in school, I'm talking parents as well - is ok with it, then I honestly don't think we have a right to tell them it's wrong.  Their choices are their own.  Having said that, there also needs to be a cut off point - I believe it's 16? - other wise the system is open to abuse.  In some extreme cult societies, eight year old girls are married off and have 'consensual' sex with older men with the blessings of their parents.  This, regardless of where in the world it happens, is unacceptable to me.

Reply #149 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting ZehDon, reply 148

Now, this is where I have to stop and disagree.  Ignoring the fact that human evolution has produced no discernable effects over the last 500 years or so of recorded medical human history and many debate that the invention of medicine and our combined technologies have stunned human evolution significantly as we've allowed the weak to survive and all that jazz, you're arguing that we've evolved to a point over the course of 20 years where a 15 year old human's mental understanding is now equal to that of an 18 year old from 20 years ago?  I really hope you're joking.

Things have changed, absolutely.  Brainless Blonde women are now famous for being... famous, and this is who young girls are taught to look up to on the basis of exposure and popularity.  Society as a whole worships youth, attractiveness, fame and money.  Celebrity reporting magazines, TV shows and 'newspapers', and I use that term loosely, are literally guilty of inventing their own cover stories to sell more copies or make more money.  They then produce countless issues that flood the mainstream with inane nonsense that has ingrained into the heart of society that Celebrities are better than us because they're famous and that we all need to aspire to be Brad Pitts, George Clooneys, Paris Hiltons and who every else are the "it" people of the moment not because of their intelligence, their maturity, their humanity or even their actions - but because their faces are plastered on billboards and tvs across the globe.  Things have changed, but it's not for the better.  Teenagers today are taught through over-exposure that shows like 'The O.C.' are representative of teenage life and that this is the normal behavior; sleeping around and doing drugs with overally dramatic lives and events ripped from hollywood movies, which is of course utter bullshit.  The escapism has become the reality we're attempting to escape - and we wonder why teenagers today are violent, drug addicted, confused and mixed up individuals.  It's not because we as a species have evolved and that our children are more mature then we were at their age - it's because over-sexualised content and over-exposure to the mass media phenonenom that drives our lovely modern world has them chasing fame and fortune from the moment they can read.
End of ZehDon's quote

Indeed, here I have to say I agree and disagree. Seeing as how there hasn't been any significant sign that evolution has effected Humans in almost the last 2000 years. Something like this would be more physical evolution like a new eye or a bigger brain, or, maybe, if our average life expectancy were to go down then we as a species would need to start reproducing at a younger age to stay alive. We haven't had a serious evolutionary change in a long time. How will we even know when the next evolutionary change comes if it isn't something we can see with our eyes? Seriously though I don't think that kind of evolution has anything to do with it.

If you take a 15 year old from todays world and a 18 year old from the world 20 years ago, I'll put my money on the 15 year old in terms of actual "Knowledge". Our children today Are smarter then the past generations. They learn more in school and they learn more from seeing and living in a more technologically advanced society. When it comes to sex, well, when I was 15 and having sex I was mature enough to make the decision to have sex, though I might not have been mature enough to handle the consequences. The consequence being pregnancy. I wasn't ready to be a father at 15, but I was ready for sex and wanted it constantly. I was mentally mature enough to know I wanted to have sex and who I wanted to have sex with. Hell half the time it didn't matter who she was so long as I was getting it...lol. In today's world it's no longer just teenage guys that think this way. Teenage girls think that way too and if we think they don't, again, we're being naive.

Quoting ZehDon, reply 148

I agree completely - and the law needs to change to reflect this.  If everyone involved - and I'm not just talking about some 14 year old girl who thinks she's in love with the most popular boy in school, I'm talking parents as well - is ok with it, then I honestly don't think we have a right to tell them it's wrong.  Their choices are their own.  Having said that, there also needs to be a cut off point - I believe it's 16? - other wise the system is open to abuse.  In some extreme cult societies, eight year old girls are married off and have 'consensual' sex with older men with the blessings of their parents.  This, regardless of where in the world it happens, is unacceptable to me.
End of ZehDon's quote

There actually used to be a "Age of Consent" on the books here in Florida, it was 16. There was also a "Statutory Rape" charge that someone could be charged with Without being a convicted Sex Offender afterward. They Got Rid of Both those laws in the early 90s and replaced them with the stricter laws we have now without as many "loopholes". Personally I think they did this so they could make more money off of it once they saw how often someone was going through the system for being 18 and having a 15 or 16 year old girlfriend. Either way here in Florida there is No "Age of Consent" anymore, 18 is it, if you're caught having sex and you're under the age of 18 you're breaking the law regardless of if it's with another minor or a adult.

The extreme cult, 8 year old thing...yeah that's just gross. If someone actually wanted to do that then they don't ever need to get out of prison....ever.

Reply #150 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Raven, reply 149
...If you take a 15 year old from todays world and a 18 year old from the world 20 years ago, I'll put my money on the 15 year old in terms of actual "Knowledge". Our children today Are smarter then the past generations. They learn more in school and they learn more from seeing and living in a more technologically advanced society...
End of Raven's quote

Now, this is currently a point of interest of mine.  Intelligence, as in raw intelligence, is lower today than it was 20 years ago and lower than it was 100 years ago, at least statistically.  Some of this can be accounted for in the lack of funding our public schools receive.  However, it can also be accounted to us relying on technology so much that we forget to use our own brains for the most basic of problems.  Ask anyone in Accounting (my profession) what's on their desk and they'll answer: phone, pens and a calculator.  Ask them to add 56 and 119 and watch what they reach for first - my money's on the calculator rather than the pen.  We're not smarter than we were, and neither are our children.  We just have technology to hide this fact.  The 15 year old in your example may know more about sex, drugs, crime, etc. than the 18 year old in your example, but from a general intelligence point of view they're lacking significantly.  And I haven't touched on items such as common sense and general manners.

Quoting Raven, reply 149
...I was mature enough to make the decision to have sex, though I might not have been mature enough to handle the consequences. The consequence being pregnancy. I wasn't ready to be a father at 15, but I was ready for sex and wanted it constantly. I was mentally mature enough to know I wanted to have sex and who I wanted to have sex with. Hell half the time it didn't matter who she was so long as I was getting it...lol. In today's world it's no longer just teenage guys that think this way. Teenage girls think that way too and if we think they don't, again, we're being naive...
End of Raven's quote

Now, this is exactly what I was referring to.  Saying you were mentally mature enough to have sex, but not mature enough for the consequences is a contradiction of itself because they are one in the same.  Now, as you pointed out, let's not be naive and think it's just boys wanting sex - of course teenage girls want sex, they're teenagers and their bodies hormone levels bounce around like a pinball.  However, they're only physically mature enough for sex - the issues of disease, emotional impact, children, etc. don't enter the picture.  Ask any mature adult, and they'll tell you about safe sex.  This is part of being mentally prepared for sex, and this is why schools have sex education as apart of the mandatory ciriculum; they're not ready for it, but they're going to do it anyway.  The repercussions of sex, such as emotional impact - and we all know how emotionally irrational teenagers are anway without adding sex to the mix - are outside of the average teenager's ability to comprehend because - as you yourself said - they don't care as long as they're getting some.  Is that really being ready for sex?  It's about applying an average.  The average 15 year old isn't mentally mature enough for sex, while the average 15 year old is physically mature for sex.  The average 18 year old is mature enough for both (although this could be debated ;))


Quoting Raven, reply 149
Either way here in Florida there is No "Age of Consent" anymore, 18 is it, if you're caught having sex and you're under the age of 18 you're breaking the law regardless of if it's with another minor or a adult.
End of Raven's quote

Now, this is stupid.  As we've discussed already, it's going to happen.  As you said, turning 18 doesn't automatically make you a predator for having sex with someone under that age.  If it's consensual for all parties involved, and isn't a groteseque abuse like the cult example I gave, I see nothing wrong with it.  That Law needs to change.

Quoting Raven, reply 149
If someone actually wanted to do that then they don't ever need to get out of prison....ever.
End of Raven's quote

Amen.