Roast Busters

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Nothing

Let's think about about GT's argument a bit more carefully

I've skim read ten or so words across your post; and what a lot of twaddle I see if those small number of words.

Let me try to be clear again:

1. Teenagers can understand possible consequences in the very specific and simple situation here (choosing to be high on drugs in an unsafe place), and;

2. I truly don't care at all if a teen later comes to regret what happens to them when they have chosen to be high on drugs in such a situation.

[fixed_truth]

[exo]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I've skim read ten or so words across your post; and what a lot of twaddle I see if those small number of words.

Let me try to be clear again:

1. Teenagers can understand possible consequences in the very specific and simple situation here (choosing to be high on drugs in an unsafe place), and;

2. I truly don't care at all if a teen later comes to regret what happens to them when they have chosen to be high on drugs in such a situation.

Teenagers are mentally not all there, they do stupid things without comprehending the full weight of any consequences from their actions.

Children/teenages need to be protected, no one should have their childhood ruined.

[Lightspeed]

So basically GT is saying "Girl drunk or high? Rape time."

This is the guy who apparently runs a team referred to as "GT's girls".

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Nothing

CCS: Livin' up to expectations since who knows when.

Goes double for you, dick.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by exo

Teenagers are mentally not all there, they do stupid things without comprehending the full weight of any consequences from their actions.

I never said they were feature-complete did I? I spoke only of one ultra specific and very simple situation; one not all that different in difficulty to safely crossing-the-road. In this specific case anyone who has attended school has received layer upon layer of education on this topic from their very first year of school. The same topic is covered by thousands of hours of TV that most children will have watched. Indeed it's covered in the media fairly regularly too and case in point on the front page of tabloids at the moment. Further in many cases children will have seen first-hand displays of what happens acted out regularly by their stupid parents.

There's always a percentage of people who can't be helped on any given topic.
We see in this very thread where there seem to be people who have only a young child's mastery of reading comprehension. Similarly there are teens who can't cross the road safely by themselves and others who will very definitely come unstuck if drugs are provided to them; the issue here is not that they are teens it is that they have a developmental issue that won't improve with aging.

The main problem here is that the topic is sex and this topic is taboo, subject to extreme religious constraints, and each generation hold essentially irreconcilable views who should have access to sex and in what ways.

It's not possible to have a rational conversation on religion and given this topic is covered by religion it's not possible here either. The sex component here is actually not even relevant - this is only one of many possible negative consequences of choosing to consume drugs to the point of stupefaction. I imagine the religious nut jobs on my ignore list will have been drawn out here since these folk always want to deny access to sex outside of procreation attempts by married heterosexuals.

[?>Superman]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

So basically GT is saying "Girl drunk or high? Rape time."

This is the guy who apparently runs a team referred to as "GT's girls".

I wonder what 'GT's Girls' thinks about GT's views on raping drunk girls

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

...

GT is telling us about the bubble he lives in. The white male in power bubble, one of the best around really.

While he makes no points that make Roast Busters actions seem any less rapey, I think there is some merit to this:

The main problem here is that the topic is sex and this topic is taboo, subject to extreme religious constraints, and each generation hold essentially irreconcilable views who should have access to sex and in what ways.

Religion is only part of the picture and not the primary reason for sexual taboos. It provides a method for implementing taboos, but is not the source of the taboos themselves. The reality is sexuality is difficult, weird and often frightening. Everyone has to go through it and we cope in a spectacularly diverse manner of ways.

It's only what, 100 years ago since we thought that women did not experience sexual pleasure? ("We" of course being men of authority at the time.) Which was kind of handy cause we learnt how the psyche can be repressed and suppressed, and how it expresses these unexpressed phenomena. But mostly just fucked up. And it's still all a bit fucked up.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I've skim read ten or so words across your post; and what a lot of twaddle I see if those small number of words.

Let me try to be clear again:

1. Teenagers can understand possible consequences in the very specific and simple situation here (choosing to be high on drugs in an unsafe place), and;

2. I truly don't care at all if a teen later comes to regret what happens to them when they have chosen to be high on drugs in such a situation.

Ah, GT:

1) False. Teenagers CANNOT understand the possible consequences in the very specific and simple situation here. Because they are not adults. This has been proven by science (peer reviewed articles, multiple studies, etcetc). This is where your argument fails.

2) Not relevant to the actual argument, but thanks for telling us your views anyway.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Jodi

Ah, GT:

1) False. Teenagers CANNOT understand the possible consequences in the very specific and simple situation here. Because they are not adults. This has been proven by science (peer reviewed articles, multiple studies, etcetc). This is where your argument fails.

Your argument is a strong one - a teen can't understand something because they're not an adult; this is the stuff of any of the major journals right here.

Let have these studies of yours out on the table. The nature of science and especially in this type of domain is that there are arguments for and against. Lets see both sides. I see only two major problems you'll have doing this though: First, getting articles for this very specific scenario won't be possible - I'll settle for something materially similar though, and second finding articles for the positive side of the scenario will be very difficult since so few who are neutral or enjoying themselves will come forward to be studied; its a bit like doing a piece on incest - it's easy to find victims and neigh on impossible to find those enjoying themselves.

Still go for it - you're implicitly claiming you can do something balanced here and I'm happy to see you do so. I personally think you've about a googolminex chance of succeeding but lets see all the same.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by ?>Superman

I wonder what 'GT's Girls' thinks about GT's views on raping drunk girls

I've not shared my views on this - you've a pretty basic reading comprehension disability if you think otherwise. Think of the bell curve - you're somewhere several standard deviations to the left of the mode I suspect.

[mpx]

Jodi is talking about literature, hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed, evidence based studies about the developmental abilities of adolescents. There's no, "they're too scared to come forward", because we're not talking about rape, however misleading a young person and coercing them or preying on young persons who have had an unfortunate upbringing that leads to them being rape can be put in this bracket.

These are common studies in developmental stages of children in certain brackets (or even single ages). This is literature from experts in the field, peer reviewed by other experts and agreed that it may be published as evidence. Experts who - and I'm just taking a wild stab in the dark here - are much more learned in the field than you, and can make such claims and have such studies published.

Has it become clearer yet, GT? Because this is the fourth or fifth time someone has brought up this topic and you, somehow, manage to find an argument within a simple statement put to you that wasn't even there in the first place.

You have decide that these studies are all about rape victims having no weight placed on them because they're kids and the kids that enjoy it won't come forward? They don't NEED to come forward because the evidence squarely places them in a bracket that suggests they are unable to be completely independent in thought and are heavily influenced by adult issues and outside influences.

Think of a circle, a huge circle where studies are carried out in developmental stages of young persons, and within that circle will be a smaller circle, that will be the suggested evidence put forward for young persons who are victims of rape. That evidence can be inside that circle, because it is part of that circle. It cannot be outside the circle as an individual statement as you seem to think it can be, if we are talking about developmental abilities we are talking about every-single-child. It just so happens that - unfortunately - some of those are exposed to sexual violation through a myriad of ways, but to say that the evidence is flawed because the kids who said they enjoyed it haven't come forward suggests nothing about the literature or the evidence itself - in fact it would lend more weight to the evidence you seem to be so firmly against.

Doesn't it seem weird to you that pretty much everyone here, the evidence, the literature and the historical facts are going against your opinion? You are almost quite literally by yourself on this one. Does that not strike you as odd in any way?

[exo]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I never said they were feature-complete did I? I spoke only of one ultra specific and very simple situation; one not all that different in difficulty to safely crossing-the-road. In this specific case anyone who has attended school has received layer upon layer of education on this topic from their very first year of school. The same topic is covered by thousands of hours of TV that most children will have watched. Indeed it's covered in the media fairly regularly too and case in point on the front page of tabloids at the moment. Further in many cases children will have seen first-hand displays of what happens acted out regularly by their stupid parents.

There's always a percentage of people who can't be helped on any given topic.
We see in this very thread where there seem to be people who have only a young child's mastery of reading comprehension. Similarly there are teens who can't cross the road safely by themselves and others who will very definitely come unstuck if drugs are provided to them; the issue here is not that they are teens it is that they have a developmental issue that won't improve with aging.

The main problem here is that the topic is sex and this topic is taboo, subject to extreme religious constraints, and each generation hold essentially irreconcilable views who should have access to sex and in what ways.

It's not possible to have a rational conversation on religion and given this topic is covered by religion it's not possible here either. The sex component here is actually not even relevant - this is only one of many possible negative consequences of choosing to consume drugs to the point of stupefaction. I imagine the religious nut jobs on my ignore list will have been drawn out here since these folk always want to deny access to sex outside of procreation attempts by married heterosexuals.

I'd expect any of your children not to get into drunken situations, and be educated/brought up to know better.
I don’t think they'd be able to comprehend the consequences fully.

Different possibly less fortunate children who aren't given the same education and up-bringing can be exposed to different situations and dangers; some kids really do need to be protected from "themselves" and dodgy others.

Until the age of about 17 children don't have the ability to see things from someone else’s point of view or perspective.
Younger than that they don't understand comparative non literal/concrete theory’s or ideas.
While it's true what you say about some people never grow up to be "normal", and there are plenty of fully grown idiots, their perspective on life and (limited)ability to think is developed to be the same as yours.

To use your crossing the road analogy, these guys driving are slowing down to let people cross, then running them down.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by mpx

they are unable to be completely independent in thought and are heavily influenced by adult issues and outside influences.

You don't see the irony in this?
You're chastising him for projecting his ideals and thoughts as an adult, onto them, yet you (and the rest of the coutnry) are doing the same. Right or wrong, you're telling these kids they should feel bad and prosecute accordingly. Police mismanagement aside.

[mpx]

I've got no idea what you're talking about?

Neither of us have any direct relation to these kids, we're merely discussing ideas such as whether a young person can consent without any outside influence when they are still very young. In fact I'm not even sure how the studies showing their developmental progress would make them feel bad - in my experience (and I have a fair amount), when a young person learns that they don't have to be an adult just quite yet, and that they don't need the responsibility of an adult due to their learning progressing, a feeling of weight falls off their shoulders and they become much more responsive and honest in answers to questions.

I'm not chastising GT (by him I assume you mean GT), I'm simply arguing his belief. As far as I'm aware he hasn't gone out of his way to make any kid feel bad about their actions due to how he feels about the topic.

[aR Que]

(*Police mismanagement aside).
There have been no 'victums*' and no 'rape*', no one has come forward to say, 'hey, these guys raped me*'. Other people, who have nothing to do with them, are saying, these girls are victums of a horrible crime*!
Gang raped? Not until proven.
Gang fucked? Prehaps.

The problem i see is adults inforcing their belief that a girl having multiple men enter her at the same time has to be rape.

[Macca@Work]

1. Teenagers can understand possible consequences in the very specific and simple situation here (choosing to be high on drugs in an unsafe place

No they can't.It has been proven that males between the "approximate" ages of 16-24 think with the "impulse" part of thier brain which explains why a lot of young males get drunk,drive cars and crash-or get girls drunk and take advantage of them.From about 25 years on the "think of what Im doing" part of the brain starts to mature.
I believe the time scale is slightly different for females.I don't buy into the "well they got drunk so they deserve it" scenario.So if you get a mixture of impulsive males with drunk young impulsive females well it's not good.
Is GT telling us he'd be happy for his sons/daughters to be in that mix?

[ChaosWulf]

Originally Posted by aR Que

(*Police mismanagement aside).
There have been no 'victums*' and no 'rape*', no one has come forward to say, 'hey, these guys raped me*'. Other people, who have nothing to do with them, are saying, these girls are victums of a horrible crime*!

Actually several of the girls filed formal complaints to the police about it. But that aside, if a 13 year old girl is "gang fucked" as you so politely put it, it is still "gang raped" as she is under the age of legal consent.

[Lightspeed]

Also contributing to someone's intoxication so that you can have sex with them could also be construed as rape, regardless of the person's age.

[Trigga*happY]

Originally Posted by aR Que

(*Police mismanagement aside).
There have been no 'victums*' and no 'rape*', no one has come forward to say, 'hey, these guys raped me*'. Other people, who have nothing to do with them, are saying, these girls are victums of a horrible crime*!
Gang raped? Not until proven.
Gang fucked?
.

My understanding is that there are under aged teens being abused. This being the case, consenting or not,rape is implied in the 'fucking' Ar Que.

*edit* beaten to it!

[Ab]

Get ready for "what? it was just showing off on Facebook! we made it all up! and you fell for it, lol YHBT"

[mpx]

Originally Posted by aR Que

(*Police mismanagement aside).
There have been no 'victums*' and no 'rape*', no one has come forward to say, 'hey, these guys raped me*'. Other people, who have nothing to do with them, are saying, these girls are victums of a horrible crime*!
Gang raped? Not until proven.
Gang fucked? Prehaps.

The problem i see is adults inforcing their belief that a girl having multiple men enter her at the same time has to be rape.

You might want to go back and read my and other posts with regards to specific sections in the Criminal Act 1961 to deal with your assertions. What the 13 year old has alleged to have happened, is by definition sexual violation to a young person aged 12 - 16.

Furthmore, this was discussed a while ago - everything you've said has already been covered in this thread. Not to mention the facebook posts of one of them actually claiming to have become a rapist, as well as widely publicised discussions between the then-13 year old and a possible co-accused who said, "you are 100% right" when she called him on what he had done to her.

I'm not sure why you're bringing this argument back up, it's already been covered in the thread.

[Lightspeed]

I think RQ might be referring to the age of the guys as well. Do we really automatically assume when a 15yr old and a 13yr old are having sex that the 15yr old is a rapist?

[mpx]

I thought they were 17 and 18 respectively?

At any rate, I still fail to see the irony in his original message, though I've only had one cup of coffee today

[aR Que]

^^LS Pretty much. had sex with a few gfs back when i was sub 16. Sometimes we even went to parties, got drunk and then had sex.

But, hey now, this is no time for pondering questions, we got pitch forks and [st]torches[/st] faggots to attend.

edit: i see we're back to specifics again, drift on then off. I give up, FUCK THEM CUTNS FOR RAPISTS RAHHH< LETS KILL THEM AND ANYWAY ELSE, LEGISLATION RAH./

[blur^]

Originally Posted by mpx

I thought they were 17 and 18 respectively?

At any rate, I still fail to see the irony in his original message, though I've only had one cup of coffee today

the complaint was from 2011, so the guys were 15 and 16

[mpx]

Originally Posted by aR Que

^^LS Pretty much. had sex with a few gfs back when i was sub 16. Sometimes we even went to parties, got drunk and then had sex.

But, hey now, this is no time for pondering questions, we got pitch forks and [st]torches[/st] faggots to attend.

edit: i see we're back to specifics again, drift on then off. I give up, FUCK THEM CUTNS FOR RAPISTS RAHHH< LETS KILL THEM AND ANYWAY ELSE, LEGISLATION RAH./

I'm still not sure why you find my post ironic? I've never spoke about inciting a public riot and I actually believe that the media storm can do nothing but HURT the Court case if one were to arrive. All we've been talking about here is GT's skewed views on child psychological development - unless you're speaking about other people in this thread, which would confuse me even more about speaking about my so-called irony.

[Lightspeed]

Probably not so much about your specific post but rather the general situation where there's some hyper-awareness around how undeveloped a young girl's judgement is, but there's little awareness about how the same would be true for these boys.

[mpx]

It's not just girls who are undeveloped, it's young persons as a whole. The frontal lobe of the brain isn't even completely connected yet, neural insiluation isn't complete until you're in your 20s. If my posts came off as saying that it's only specific to girls, it absolutely is not the case.

I think it was this thread where I expressed my opinion that while the boys should absolutely be held responsible for what they did (if they have found to have done such acts), but rather than minimising the punishment, they should focus on mitigating features such as their age, development progress and put in place rehabilitative steps rather than something like restrictive like imprisonment or a correctional facility - which is why I say all this publicity can hurt such a trial. If they're found guilty it could well be argued that they've experienced enough anguish being in the public eye and the punishment (in this case rehabilitation) could be significantly lessened. They don't need imprisonment, they need rehabilitation and teaching.

IMO.

/edit: Can you tell it's a slow day at work?

[Ab]

Wow I've never had sex with someone under the age of consent, I feel like I'm missing out on an essential part of kiwi manhood.

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

Wow I've never had sex with someone under the age of consent, I feel like I'm missing out on an essential part of kiwi manhood.

It's alright Ab - just means you are not a Pedo...

[mpx]

Originally Posted by Ab

Wow I've never had sex with someone under the age of consent, I feel like I'm missing out on an essential part of kiwi manhood.

I hear there's a club you can join if you want to get into it now, Boast Rusters or something...

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Wow I've never had sex with someone under the age of consent, I feel like I'm missing out on an essential part of kiwi manhood.

I think the gender bias is misplaced here...

I remember my Mum grumbling about my step-brother's older girlfriend. I think it was 15/17? Clearly pedo-rape.

[aR Que]

oh man, dated this 17(?) yo when i was 14 (?) or w/e. She was thick as shit, but i was just happy to have someone touching my pee pee. The amount of convincing i ahd to do to hit that shit was redic. 'Oh! But the stat rape.' lulz.

where was i, oh yea, police need to protect the victums! prosecute regardless of complainant participation.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by aR Que

oh man, dated this 17 yo when i was 14

[fixed_truth]

Doesn't Aussie have a thing where how close the ages are is relevant? So a 14yo with a 16yo is fine. Which is probably a good thing but you do have to draw the line somewhere.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

Ah trial by media. Increasing the chances of a dismissal due to tainted jury pool since ages ago.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Roast...07896?fref=tck

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by StN

It's alright Ab - just means you are not a Pedo...

Most people don't know what that word means though. From Wiki: As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).

I'm not sure what the right word is for a person who is sexually attracted to a pubescent teen. Perhaps there is no specific word just as there are no words for those attracted to early twenties or late eighties.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Let's face it people - GT is a sub-human with no moral compass whatsoever. And he enjoys it. He's there, right now, rolling around in all the shit that we've hurled at him with a huge grin on his face. It's like the more that's thrown at him, the more he eats it up and feels the need to act out. Even now this comment I have made has made him more powerful in the land of trolls than we will ever know...
I'm imagining him as that the Goblin King from The Hobbit. And not the David Bowie version...

But we all know this...

Hahah, that's good imagery.

Although he does have a moral compass, it's rock solid, always pointing north. With GT sitting at the North Pole.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I'm not sure what the right word is for a person who is sexually attracted to a pubescent teen.

I thought that went by the name "catharsis" around here.