Coreece

I have a close friend who needed 25 years before she could talk about the man who raped her. Deciding whether or not to talk about it, is not the same as deciding whether or not it was rape.

Hi Coreece, No. Jerry Baumchen Well that doesn't really help much in building your profile and improving communication. So far all I have is: - Not the one woman man type - Lacks a sense of humor Good thing this isn't a dating profile. . .

What sound does blowing smoke make? Hear, listen to it for yourself:

Sounds like Biden blowing smoke up his own arse, lol: “I think I have a much higher IQ than you, I suspect. I went to law school on a full academic scholarship — the only one in my class to have full academic scholarship. The first year in law school, I decided I didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class. And then decided I wanted to stay and went back to law school and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits; you only needed 123 credits. I would be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours, Frank.”

Hi Coreece, Why ask a question when you seem to know everything? Not everything. I've haven't been able to figure you out yet. . .not that I've been trying. Can you please provide examples of things you find funny so that I can properly tailor my responses to your amusement?

One of his sons died in May of 2015. That may have affected his decision on whether or not to run in 2016. It's kind of pointless, but sometimes I wonder what the country would look like if McCain had won. It's doubtful the right would've eventually gotten pissed off enough to even consider nominating Trump, nor the left desperate enough to nominate Hillary. Perhaps they would've given Obama another shot in 2012 or 2016, but who knows? If things went well under McCain, maybe Palin would be president right now. But then again, Palin was likely the reason McCain lost in the first place. Scary how one silly decision like that can change the course of history.

Yes, of course. My point was that it really shouldn't be a messy legal issue for a 17 and 18 year old to have sex, even if the parents get involved and/or pressure her into playing the victim. Also, seems kind of shady to "decide" that the sex wasn't consensual after the fact. Sounds like something one should decide before choosing to have sex. And if they didn't choose, then they don't need time to mull it over and have a family discussion about whether or not it was consensual.

Hi Coreece, Please expand on why you feel this way? I do not. Jerry Baumchen Not the one woman type are ya? It's ok - we can dream. Edited to Add: Deleted, too much information - but I'll be sure to bring it up next time we have another thread about circumcision.

They do now. That's what the change accomplished. I thought that was just the part about being labeled a sexual offender. From what I've read, the age of consent for sex is still 18 with no spread. So while many won't take issue with a 17 and 18 year old, can't it still become a messy legal issue if the kids parents don't approve and he-she suddenly becomes "confused" about whether it was actually consentual, or just a slick sorority frat girl-boy taking advantage of her-him?

Agreed. The law now allows for the judge to consider whether the 27 year guy should be labeled as a sex offender (depending on the circumstances) and the law now allows him to register the 24 year guy as a sex offender. Again, nothing about that has changed. What has changed NOW is that if your 18 year old daughter goes to college, goes through an experimental phase, and has sex with a 17 year old freshman woman who said she was 18, the judge can decide to not permanently label her as a sex offender. And that's a good thing. Ya it's all just dumb. They have a 10 year range to give a 24 year old convicted sex offender an opportunity to explain why he shouldn't be on a sex offender list for having sex with a 14 year old, but they apparently have no range for the 17 and 18 year old when it comes to consensual sex. Why not just give something like a 4-5 year spread starting at 15-16 respectively - that way they don't have to be lumped in with the creepy 24 year old and bothered with any of this nonsense? As an aside, I think gowlerk's "half your age plus 7 years" is a good rule, but the 4-5 year spread is reasonable enough I suppose - but we all know from experience that abstinence before marriage is best . . .

?? Do you mean "is it right that two people so far apart in age should have sex?" Plenty of examples of that (including Trump.) No, I said the longest range I saw was 4-5 years starting at the age of 16. So like a 16-year old little miss can't be wrong driving off to some college frat party and falling in love with Johnny Fever at ΣΑΕ. I still think 10 years is a bit much. 17 and 27 may be one thing, (and that's a big MAYBE) but a judge shouldn't have to waste time listening to arguments over a 14 and 24 year old. I mean wtf could they possibly say, that "she's wise beyond her years and that as a sexually mature woman she has the right to choose her lover? It's her body - she can have a baby and even abort it without parental consent, but she can't choose who the father might be? Outrage!" I mean I know it's ridiculous, but things are different in this ever changing progressive landscape - young aspiring home makers are hip to women's rights these days. . .they catch on quick!

I agree. Now, let's say your 19 year old daughter was found having sex with her 17 year old friend (who claimed she was 18.) Should she have to register as a sex offender? But a 10 year spread? Is that right? I don't ever remember reading anything like that. The most I've seen was like like a 4-5 year spread typically starting at around the age of 16.

That's how I understood Olof, but figured John was likely pointing out the patient vs doctor angle. But still, even the researchers processing the data aren't aware until everything is final, then the results are revealed, right? This is all really beside the point that merely saying you're a scientist and adept to pointing out bias is no way a substitute for actually doing it. All this crap about bias and my career in advertising are just attempts at deflection. Ya, that's the problem - apparently you don't think that the limitations of reaching net zero by 2050 are worthy of discussion, and that any such naysers must be biased.

That reminds me of this:

Confusing medicine with science. Who, Olof? Let's see what he has to say about that: Hey Olof, John thinks you're confusing medicine with science - but I'm sure that's ok since you're a scientist and have all the credentials to prove it.

Seriously? Then what's the point of having a double blind study, to increase bias?

It's pretty relevant if the discussion is knowledge of bias. In a discussion of primarily science-related debate ("green new deal equals magical thinking") it's especially relevant. But in this case you're just using John's accomplishments to avoid discussion. Groups of scientists that actually explain their reasoning, rather than some arrogant wannabe on the internet hiding behind their credentials.

Appeal to irrelevant authority. Because even in a controlled setting scientists can't be trusted with their own bias, let alone some internet forum.

I doubt very much you will get him to answer that. Often he just uses one of his default hotkey replies: "Reading comprehension problem?" "weasel weasel weasel" "I will not feed the trolls" (then feeds perceived troll, lol)

Are you body shaming? Nobody wants to see that. . .

Justice! I can almost hear the rioters in the back ground - "yeah, and fuck Grimace too, that purple ass motherfuka!"

Those who throw the most bricks often score the most points. . .

Elliott Ouch

This is the only video I could find for that one. It says he was waiting for Melania and telling her to watch out for the puddle, but that part was apparently edited out.

Many people are saying they were torpedoed by an Antifa submarine. Was it yellow?