NationStates Jolt Archive

Rosa Parks challenged the accepted norms of society; she refused to sit in the back of a bus when such was the law at the time. Was she a criminal? By definition, yes. However, her actions were by no means morally wrong -- they were simply illegal. The same principle applies to a modern-day political figure who is a strong proponent of freedom and individual rights. Any guesses who? Foley. This man also challenged what our society normally accepts are correct behavior. He was on a crusade to give more rights to children, even though his actions may have been illegal. There should be no minimum age of consent -- even a 10-year-old should be able to legally consent if he/she so desires. All that is required to stop a sexual act is a word to that effect. Children should not be prevented from having sex or having conversations of a sexually explicit nature with an older man or woman as long as they are not being coerced. If they wish to terminate the act, all that is necessary is an order to "stop" which will readily be issued if the children are uncomfortable. This is necessary if we wish to give freedom to everyone, the same way giving people the right to sit anywhere on the bus was necessary if we wanted to expand our freedoms. As such, Foley is a pinnacle of individual rights and is a modern-day Rosa Parks. I salute him.

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Rosa Parks challenged the accepted norms of society; she refused to sit in the back of a bus when such was the law at the time. Was she a criminal? By definition, yes. However, her actions were by no means morally wrong -- they were simply illegal. The same principle applies to a modern-day political figure who is a strong proponent of freedom and individual rights. Any guesses who? Foley. This man also challenged what our society normally accepts are correct behavior. He was on a crusade to give more rights to children, even though his actions may have been illegal. There should be no minimum age of consent -- even a 10-year-old should be able to legally consent if he/she so desires. All that is required to stop a sexual act is a word to that effect. Children should not be prevented from having sex or having conversations of a sexually explicit nature with an older man or woman as long as they are not being coerced. If they wish to terminate the act, all that is necessary is an order to "stop" which will readily be issued if the children are uncomfortable. This is necessary if we wish to give freedom to everyone, the same way giving people the right to sit anywhere on the bus was necessary if we wanted to expand our freedoms. As such, Foley is a pinnacle of individual rights and is a modern-day Rosa Parks. I salute him.


HAHAHAHAHAHA

Ohh my, I eagerly await your public lambasting:cool:

Ohh my, I eagerly await your public lambasting:cool:

And I await your exile from the Forum for trolling. That's a really fine line you're treading.

Haha! Bloody genius!

I must admit, I've been unimpressed with your efforts so far. You know, the quality of trolls is so much higher here on NSG. I thought you were vaguely average. I came into this post expecting to tell you to give up, to tell you that you were just one more in a line of trolls and that these people will grow tired of you as soon as the next puppet came along. You know, as much as we love trolls we're a fickle bunch but you proved me wrong. Congratulations

And I await your exile from the Forum for trolling. That's a really fine line you're treading.


You don't mean me surly?

Rosa Parks challenged the accepted norms of society; she refused to sit in the back of a bus when such was the law at the time. Was she a criminal? By definition, yes. However, her actions were by no means morally wrong -- they were simply illegal. The same principle applies to a modern-day political figure who is a strong proponent of freedom and individual rights. Any guesses who? Foley. This man also challenged what our society normally accepts are correct behavior. He was on a crusade to give more rights to children, even though his actions may have been illegal. There should be no minimum age of consent -- even a 10-year-old should be able to legally consent if he/she so desires. All that is required to stop a sexual act is a word to that effect. Children should not be prevented from having sex or having conversations of a sexually explicit nature with an older man or woman as long as they are not being coerced. If they wish to terminate the act, all that is necessary is an order to "stop" which will readily be issued if the children are uncomfortable. This is necessary if we wish to give freedom to everyone, the same way giving people the right to sit anywhere on the bus was necessary if we wanted to expand our freedoms. As such, Foley is a pinnacle of individual rights and is a modern-day Rosa Parks. I salute him.

Each and every kid toucher deserves to be locked in a small room with an armed parent. Oh, and I know Rosa Parks' legacy. It's in every Chevrolet truck. At least that's what the new Chevy commercial leads me to believe.

Wow. Just, wow.

You don't mean me surly?

No, no. And don't call me surly. :p

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg

--snip
Oh, it's not like anyone's getting exercised over this thing. If people were really getting pissed, that'd be one thing, but the OP in this case is like the Cirque de Soleil of trolling--it's fascinating in its utter bizarreness. Appreciate it for the work it is. ;)

Oh, it's not like anyone's getting exercised over this thing. If people were really getting pissed, that'd be one thing, but the OP in this case is like the Cirque de Soleil of trolling--it's fascinating in its utter bizarreness. Appreciate it for the work it is. ;)

Post-modern trolling?

Sorry, Foley is going to help bring the Democrats into power. Starting another pedo thread isn't going to change that.

Trilby63;11821069']Post-modern trolling?

Could be. This may be the way of the future in trolling. We should be honored and proud to attend its birth. :D

Trilby63;11821069']Post-modern trolling?

I was thinking more like Dada, but post-modern works as well.

I was thinking more like Dada, but post-modern works as well.

Could we call this one The Persistence of MeansToAnEnd?

Rosa Parks?

Rosa Parks?

Rosa Parks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_parks)

Dada
Mentioning this name in a thread about a gay sexual predator raises the stakes of pun absurdity to beyond previous levels. Kudos.

Rosa Parks challenged the accepted norms of society; she refused to sit in the back of a bus when such was the law at the time. Was she a criminal? By definition, yes. However, her actions were by no means morally wrong -- they were simply illegal. The same principle applies to a modern-day political figure who is a strong proponent of freedom and individual rights. Any guesses who? Foley. This man also challenged what our society normally accepts are correct behavior. He was on a crusade to give more rights to children, even though his actions may have been illegal. There should be no minimum age of consent -- even a 10-year-old should be able to legally consent if he/she so desires. All that is required to stop a sexual act is a word to that effect. Children should not be prevented from having sex or having conversations of a sexually explicit nature with an older man or woman as long as they are not being coerced. If they wish to terminate the act, all that is necessary is an order to "stop" which will readily be issued if the children are uncomfortable. This is necessary if we wish to give freedom to everyone, the same way giving people the right to sit anywhere on the bus was necessary if we wanted to expand our freedoms. As such, Foley is a pinnacle of individual rights and is a modern-day Rosa Parks. I salute him.


isnt there some figure from literature or mythology that we could liken mark foley to?

in one personality he was fighting the fight against adults preying on children online; in the other personality he was preying on children. he IS the thing he was fighting against.

there must be some classic figure that fits this description. any ideas?

Mentioning this name in a thread about a gay sexual predator raises the stakes of pun absurdity to beyond previous levels. Kudos.
And it was completely unintentional. I swear, my subconscious is way smarter than my conscious is.

I was thinking more like Dada, but post-modern works as well.

Dada? The only Dada I know is Idi Amin Dada. Do you mean him or someone else?

Dada? The only Dada I know is Idi Amin Dada. Do you mean him or someone else?

Dada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada)

Dada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada)

ty

Oh, come on people!
Means put a lot of effort into his trollish attempt here.
The least we could do in appreciation is fake a bit of shock-horror at the OP and throw a few insults at him.
Considering the enjoyment he's given us, it's the least we can do.

Rosa Parks challenged the accepted norms of society; she refused to sit in the back of a bus when such was the law at the time. Was she a criminal? By definition, yes. However, her actions were by no means morally wrong -- they were simply illegal. The same principle applies to a modern-day political figure who is a strong proponent of freedom and individual rights. Any guesses who? Foley. This man also challenged what our society normally accepts are correct behavior. He was on a crusade to give more rights to children, even though his actions may have been illegal. There should be no minimum age of consent -- even a 10-year-old should be able to legally consent if he/she so desires. All that is required to stop a sexual act is a word to that effect. Children should not be prevented from having sex or having conversations of a sexually explicit nature with an older man or woman as long as they are not being coerced. If they wish to terminate the act, all that is necessary is an order to "stop" which will readily be issued if the children are uncomfortable. This is necessary if we wish to give freedom to everyone, the same way giving people the right to sit anywhere on the bus was necessary if we wanted to expand our freedoms. As such, Foley is a pinnacle of individual rights and is a modern-day Rosa Parks. I salute him.

You have truly reached a new level in sickness. I thought it was bad when you suggested Genocide and usage of American Colonists to take over the Mid-East. But this.....goes beyond the boundaries.

No, no. And don't call me surly. :p

Can I call you Shirley? :eek: OR TRACEY!?

Too much methinks

isnt there some figure from literature or mythology that we could liken mark foley to?

in one personality he was fighting the fight against adults preying on children online; in the other personality he was preying on children. he IS the thing he was fighting against.

there must be some classic figure that fits this description. any ideas?
The Batman villain, Two-Face.

Oh, come on people!
Means put a lot of effort into his trollish attempt here.
The least we could do in appreciation is fake a bit of shock-horror at the OP and throw a few insults at him.
Considering the enjoyment he's given us, it's the least we can do.

It only encourages him.

If you don't feed trolls, they crawl away. Or, so I've been told.

Dada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada)

From the article:
A reviewer from the American Art News stated that "The Dada philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man." Art historians have described Dada as being, in large part, "in reaction to what many of these artists saw as nothing more than an insane spectacle of collective homicide."[1] Years later, Dada artists described the movement as "a phenomenon bursting forth in the midst of the postwar economic and moral crisis, a savior, a monster, which would lay waste to everything in its path. [It was] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization...In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege."[1]
Sounds like MTAE to me. :)

And I should know on account of I'm a New Yorker and I own a toothbrush.

According to Tristan Tzara, "God and my toothbrush are Dada, and New Yorkers can be Dada too, if they are not already."

We are, Tristan. Ask Man Ray.

It only encourages him.

If you don't feed trolls, they crawl away. Or, so I've been told.
Dada never crawls, except when it crawls, which it does every day, religiously because religion makes men crawl.

MTAE is no mere troll. He is art, performance, literature. He does not need us to feed him. He feeds himself. I am beginning to believe that if he fell down in a forest but nobody was there to hear him, he would still make a sound. Something like a fart.

But we should be careful because he's the kind of treacherous trap-layer who can get people banned for getting angry with him. I propose a rule that no MTAE thread should be participated in for more than 4 pages.

It's nice to see some quality trolling on the forum for once. This one is genuinely imaginative and quite clever, at least in comparison to My Nordland's efforts.

Why do all you liberals and some conservatives assume I am trolling? Are you so fascist and against personal freedoms that you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that the rights of children should be expanded? That they should have a say in which actions they choose to partake? That greater civil liberties are necessary in our society? I am a staunch advocate of liberty; therefore, I support Foley, I support Iraq, I support Bush, and I support the GOP.

The Batman villain, Two-Face.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, maybe?

The original Robert Louis Stevenson version, that is.

Why do all you liberals and some conservatives assume I am trolling? Are you so fascist and against personal freedoms that you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that the rights of children should be expanded? That they should have a say in which actions they choose to partake? That greater civil liberties are necessary in our society? I am a staunch advocate of liberty; therefore, I support Foley, I support Iraq, I support Bush, and I support the GOP.

The harm caused by a sexual relationship is too great; a child is not qualified for that decision and is WAY too easily influenced.

There are a lot of things I am all for a child having a say on

A sexual relationship is absolutely not one of them

Edit there is no way you support freedoms and bush … the idiot that is COMPROMISING freedoms

This is starting to boarder on performance art.

Edit there is no way you support freedoms and bush … the idiot that is COMPROMISING freedoms

The idiots who are compromising our freedoms are those liberals who are publicly lambasting Foley, the man who sought to expand the rights of children by treating them like adults. Bush is also giving us more freedoms by giving us the freedom to live free and prosper. We need not fear terrorism with Bush as president, nor pseudo-communists who seek to make it harder to be successful in the US, and who'll tax you out of your mind if you do become successful.

The idiots who are compromising our freedoms are those liberals who are publicly lambasting Foley, the man who sought to expand the rights of children by treating them like adults. Bush is also giving us more freedoms by giving us the freedom to live free and prosper. We need not fear terrorism with Bush as president, nor pseudo-communists who seek to make it harder to be successful in the US, and who'll tax you out of your mind if you do become successful.

Then why did Mark Foley disguise his crusade to expand children's rights by sponsoring legislation that would punish adults with whom those very children might have sexual relations? You'd think he'd be more open about his true purpose.

From Saxondale: "Rosa Parks, who stood up to the white man by... err... refusing to stand up for a white man..."

Rosa Parks challenged the accepted norms of society; she refused to sit in the back of a bus when such was the law at the time. Was she a criminal? By definition, yes. However, her actions were by no means morally wrong -- they were simply illegal. The same principle applies to a modern-day political figure who is a strong proponent of freedom and individual rights. Any guesses who? Foley. This man also challenged what our society normally accepts are correct behavior. He was on a crusade to give more rights to children, even though his actions may have been illegal. There should be no minimum age of consent -- even a 10-year-old should be able to legally consent if he/she so desires. All that is required to stop a sexual act is a word to that effect. Children should not be prevented from having sex or having conversations of a sexually explicit nature with an older man or woman as long as they are not being coerced. If they wish to terminate the act, all that is necessary is an order to "stop" which will readily be issued if the children are uncomfortable. This is necessary if we wish to give freedom to everyone, the same way giving people the right to sit anywhere on the bus was necessary if we wanted to expand our freedoms. As such, Foley is a pinnacle of individual rights and is a modern-day Rosa Parks. I salute him.

The idiots who are compromising our freedoms are those liberals who are publicly lambasting Foley, the man who sought to expand the rights of children by treating them like adults. Bush is also giving us more freedoms by giving us the freedom to live free and prosper. We need not fear terrorism with Bush as president, nor pseudo-communists who seek to make it harder to be successful in the US, and who'll tax you out of your mind if you do become successful.

MTAE, this is trolling. Period. PLEASE stop. It really is getting beyond a joke.

Then why did Mark Foley disguise his crusade to expand children's rights by sponsoring legislation that would punish adults with whom those very children might have sexual relations? You'd think he'd be more open about his true purpose.

He would not be able to get re-elected if he refused to abide by the general precepts of the current public social expectations. Thus, he employed a more subtle and effective approach. After all, if he lost the battle for re-election, his noble campaign would come to a screeching halt. He is a master at skillful maneuvering -- this is simply an instance of that.

From Saxondale: "Rosa Parks, who stood up to the white man by... err... refusing to stand up for a white man..."

Mark Foley, who stood up for children by ... erm ... going down on children? Maybe it's just me but that doesn't really work.

And yeah, I know, he didn't actually have sex with any.

MTAE, this is trolling. Period. PLEASE stop. It really is getting beyond a joke.

A joke? Who said anything about a joke? The rights of children worldwide is not a laughing matter. Of course, I am speaking more specifically regarding the US, but the principle applies everywhere and anywhere.

Why do all you liberals and some conservatives assume I am trolling? Are you so fascist and against personal freedoms that you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that the rights of children should be expanded? That they should have a say in which actions they choose to partake? That greater civil liberties are necessary in our society? I am a staunch advocate of liberty; therefore, I support Foley, I support Iraq, I support Bush, and I support the GOP.

Because you are out of your head, or you are trolling.
Children should have only them rights that keep them safe, you cannot treat a child like an adult, because they are not adult enough. If you don't realise this not only are you a trolling pervet, but you are indeed as thick as two bricks.

Greater civil liberties should be had yes, I agree, but these will not come about by supporting the war in iraq, nor that president monkey. Unless you are talking of Christian liberities?

A joke? Who said anything about a joke? The rights of children worldwide is not a laughing matter. Of course, I am speaking more specifically regarding the US, but the principle applies everywhere and anywhere.

You know what I mean. However, I will reiterate my previous statement:

Please stop trolling.

*snip* But we should be careful because he's the kind of treacherous trap-layer who can get people banned for getting angry with him. I propose a rule that no MTAE thread should be participated in for more than 4 pages.

We're on the fourth page now, so enough, folks.

We're on the fourth page now, so enough, folks.

It's only the second for me, so applause for the entertaining trolling.

This is just a joke right?

Rosa Parks sat down where she wanted to, in order to make the statement that no one race is better than any other.

And somehow the OP suggest, that because of her courage, it should be legal for adults to engage in sexual acts with children.

This is a crappy joke. Rent some George Carlin or something for Gods sake!

This is just a joke right?

Rosa Parks sat down where she wanted to, in order to make the statement that no one race is better than any other.

And somehow the OP suggest, that because of her courage, it should be legal for adults to engage in sexual acts with children.

This is a crappy joke. Rent some George Carlin or something for Gods sake!

Don't feed the troll, folks!

Don't feed the troll, folks!

Exactly--just sit back and admire it. :D

Rosa Parks wants me to buy a Chevy Silverado.

http://www.slate.com/id/2151143/?nav=ais

Exactly--just sit back and admire it. :D

I nominated this thread on the New Seven Wonders thread. :p

A joke? Who said anything about a joke? The rights of children worldwide is not a laughing matter. Of course, I am speaking more specifically regarding the US, but the principle applies everywhere and anywhere.



hahahahahaha

The rights of children worldwide to have sex with whosoever they choose. That was top of my list of rights when I was ten years old....

I nominated this thread on the New Seven Wonders thread. :p

FFS, it's not that good. It's no Japanese pride.

I honestly think that the best thing the republicans can do in response to the foley scandal is to follow MTAE's lead, and all become card-carrying members of NAMBLA. That's sure to win them the elections.

[/deception]

Woe to the forum, for the mods care not about trolls.

Woe to the forum, for the mods care not about trolls.

I posted in Moderation about an hour ago, but it doesn't appear any Mods have been on.

Woe to the forum, for the mods care not about trolls.

Trolling? Just because I don't adhere to the majority consensus doesn't mean that I'm a troll, any more than Gallileo was a troll for spouting blasphemy. Let me clarify my statements, because quite a few people seem to have gotten the wrong impression. I think that older men having sex with young children is gross and repulsive. I also think that homosexual sex is gross and repulsive. Am I against gay sex? No, I may not understand it, and I may not agree with them, but I'll defend their right to do it. The same applies to sex with minors. Perverted? Maybe -- only very few people can understand it. But just because we can't understand it doesn't make it wrong; nobody's getting hurt. Both parties agree to it. It should be legal lest we let our own personal bias interfere with legal decisions.

Trolling? Just because I don't adhere to the majority consensus doesn't mean that I'm a troll, any more than Gallileo was a troll for spouting blasphemy. Let me clarify my statements, because quite a few people seem to have gotten the wrong impression. I think that older men having sex with young children is gross and repulsive. I also think that homosexual sex is gross and repulsive. Am I against gay sex? No, I may not understand it, and I may not agree with them, but I'll defend their right to do it. The same applies to sex with minors. Perverted? Maybe -- only very few people can understand it. But just because we can't understand it doesn't make it wrong; nobody's getting hurt. Both parties agree to it. It should be legal lest we let our own personal bias interfere with legal decisions.

The inherant problem with your logic is that consent is based on more than... giving consent. It's also based on understanding what you are consenting to, and the possible consequences of this. Children (well, almost all children) are not capable of understanding the fact or the implications of consenting to sex. It's not wrong because it's gross and repulsive, it's wrong because it's rape. In Foley's case, where he held power over those boys in more than one sense (both as a senator for their country, and effectively as one of their bosses) it was wrong. Foley was drawing them into a power game they didn't fully understand, one in which he may have been very capable of getting them to do things they would have rather not if it were not for the power he held over them.

MeansToAnEnd, at first I thought you were a horrible person that believed the stuff you spin. Now, I see the truth: you're just out to be funny! I now know, without a doubt...THAT MEANS TO AN END IS ACTUALLY LUNATIC GOOFBALLS!

MeansToAnEnd, at first I thought you were a horrible person that believed the stuff you spin. Now, I see the truth: you're just out to be funny! I now know, without a doubt...THAT MEANS TO AN END IS ACTUALLY LUNATIC GOOFBALLS!

Nooo, don't you see? It's all a trick, that's what he wants you to think. Because the truth is, MTAE isn't lunatic goofballs at all. He is...in fact....

Max Barry.

Children (well, almost all children) are not capable of understanding the fact or the implications of consenting to sex.

Are you telling me that a 13-year-old doesn't understand the implications of having sex? Give me a break. And if they don't, they could easily terminate the engagement by saying "stop" once the realize that they don't like it. They are never committed to carrying it through and can back out at any point. If children do enjoy it, however, it should not be impossible for them to perform the act. If they don't like it, they don't have to do it.

MeansToAnEnd, at first I thought you were a horrible person that believed the stuff you spin. Now, I see the truth: you're just out to be funny! I now know, without a doubt...THAT MEANS TO AN END IS ACTUALLY LUNATIC GOOFBALLS!

Nooo, don't you see? It's all a trick, that's what he wants you to think. Because the truth is, MTAE isn't lunatic goofballs at all. He is...in fact....

Max Barry.

I'd believe both of those before believing he was doing anything other than trolling.

And we really ought to let this one fade, you know.

Are you telling me that a 13-year-old doesn't understand the implications of having sex? Give me a break. And if they don't, they could easily terminate the engagement by saying "stop" once the realize that they don't like it. They are never committed to carrying it through and can back out at any point. If children do enjoy it, however, it should not be impossible for them to perform the act. If they don't like it, they don't have to do it.

If I had a dummy account, I think I'd be you.

Nooo, don't you see? It's all a trick, that's what he wants you to think. Because the truth is, MTAE isn't lunatic goofballs at all. He is...in fact....

Max Barry.

No, no - you've both got it wrong - MTAE is really Preem Palver, and the Second Foundation is actually located on Trantor, not Tazenda. And Max Barry is not the First Citizen of the Galaxy, either.

Are you telling me that a 13-year-old doesn't understand the implications of having sex? Give me a break. And if they don't, they could easily terminate the engagement by saying "stop" once the realize that they don't like it. They are never committed to carrying it through and can back out at any point. If children do enjoy it, however, it should not be impossible for them to perform the act. If they don't like it, they don't have to do it.

The ability to say "stop" does not account for the inherant coercion that being a child involves, while dealing with adults. The average 13 year old can be very easily manipulated. A child will typically assume that an adult will act in their best interests. Someone looking for sex from a child is very rarely looking out for that child's best interests.

But yes, I am telling you that almost all 13 year olds do not understand the implications of having sex. I didn't when I was 13, and I would bet that neither did you. Sex is not so simple as you would make it out to be.

isnt there some figure from literature or mythology that we could liken mark foley to?

in one personality he was fighting the fight against adults preying on children online; in the other personality he was preying on children. he IS the thing he was fighting against.

there must be some classic figure that fits this description. any ideas?

Jekyll and Hyde springs to mind. *though the Batman Elsewords story with the Joker works a bit better for that, especially if you're talking the original Jekyll and Hyde*

Comparing kid toucher Mark Foley to Rosa Parks.

Someone has actually managed to outdo UN abassadorship.

Wow.

Oh and rumor has it Foley's going to record a duet with Chamillionaire.

The song is gonna be called "Writin' Dirty."

They're gonna catch me writin' dirty... They're gonna catch me writin' dirty...

Comparing kid toucher Mark Foley to Rosa Parks.

Someone has actually managed to outdo UN abassadorship.

Wow.

Well, Mark Foley refused to resign as a stance for his rights... wait...

It doesn't help MTAE's argument that, even if the children involved had been of legal age, Foley's relationship with them would be highly inappropriate, because of the power he holds over them.

of the power he holds over them.

I may be mistaken, but he isn't thier boss, is he? He doesn't cash their pay-checks, does he? How is he in a position to coerce them, aside from being well-known and famous?

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, i will use one to comment on what this thread is:

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/185000/185271ChJG_w.jpg

Rosa Parks challenged the accepted norms of society; she refused to sit in the back of a bus when such was the law at the time. Was she a criminal? By definition, yes. However, her actions were by no means morally wrong -- they were simply illegal. The same principle applies to a modern-day political figure who is a strong proponent of freedom and individual rights. Any guesses who? Foley. This man also challenged what our society normally accepts are correct behavior. He was on a crusade to give more rights to children, even though his actions may have been illegal. There should be no minimum age of consent -- even a 10-year-old should be able to legally consent if he/she so desires. All that is required to stop a sexual act is a word to that effect. Children should not be prevented from having sex or having conversations of a sexually explicit nature with an older man or woman as long as they are not being coerced. If they wish to terminate the act, all that is necessary is an order to "stop" which will readily be issued if the children are uncomfortable. This is necessary if we wish to give freedom to everyone, the same way giving people the right to sit anywhere on the bus was necessary if we wanted to expand our freedoms. As such, Foley is a pinnacle of individual rights and is a modern-day Rosa Parks. I salute him.

Don't equate the civil rights movement with old homos that try to get it from teen boys.

I don't much have an opinon on the legal age of consent issue, but I do know that you are definetely not mature enough to handle sex when you're 10, 12, or even 15 years old. For some people, it's even longer.

So when a 40 something man tries to get it from a teen, whether the teen is male or female, it's predatory and immoral.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, i will use one to comment on what this thread is:

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/185000/185271ChJG_w.jpg

cannot be found.

I suggest you correct your link, mate.

I may be mistaken, but he isn't thier boss, is he? He doesn't cash their pay-checks, does he? How is he in a position to coerce them, aside from being well-known and famous?
If he wanted to, he could certainly get them fired. He also is the one who tells them what to do in their workplace. They basically are there to assist him, and he has ample ability to take advantage of that. And besides that, he is a U.S. Senator, a position of power capable of intimidating plenty of people, especially young people who work under him.

cannot be found.

I suggest you correct your link, mate.
um. there is no link. I used an IMG tag.

So, are you at all interested in a serious answer MTAE? You never seem to be otherwise.

But to put it simply: Rosa Parks did what she did to protest the injustice.

Foley did what he did to gratify his urges, not to fight for any cause whatsoever. And you're putting words in his mouth. Leave the poor man alone.

If he wanted to, he could certainly get them fired. He also is the one who tells them what to do in their workplace. They basically are there to assist him, and he has ample ability to take advantage of that. And besides that, he is a U.S. Senator, a position of power capable of intimidating plenty of people, especially young people who work under him.

Actually a Representative, but the point is well taken.

Rosa Parks challenged the accepted norms of society; she refused to sit in the back of a bus when such was the law at the time. Was she a criminal? By definition, yes. However, her actions were by no means morally wrong -- they were simply illegal. The same principle applies to a modern-day political figure who is a strong proponent of freedom and individual rights. Any guesses who? Foley. This man also challenged what our society normally accepts are correct behavior. He was on a crusade to give more rights to children, even though his actions may have been illegal. There should be no minimum age of consent -- even a 10-year-old should be able to legally consent if he/she so desires. All that is required to stop a sexual act is a word to that effect. Children should not be prevented from having sex or having conversations of a sexually explicit nature with an older man or woman as long as they are not being coerced. If they wish to terminate the act, all that is necessary is an order to "stop" which will readily be issued if the children are uncomfortable. This is necessary if we wish to give freedom to everyone, the same way giving people the right to sit anywhere on the bus was necessary if we wanted to expand our freedoms. As such, Foley is a pinnacle of individual rights and is a modern-day Rosa Parks. I salute him.
Then he shouldn't have been on that committee working to do exactly the opposite.

Your reasoning here is weaker than in the millionaire thread. By a lot. I'm admittedly one of the first guys to argue alongside 5 castes in his pedo threads, but not in this one. You just haven't made any credible points.

FFS, it's not that good. It's no Japanese pride.

Japanese pride?