Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

16 yo & wanting to research

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Ahh! Righto!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by KragDragon View Post

      That was a sarcastic reference to all the left wing SJWs, right wing bible thumpers, and armchair experts who think they know what's right for everyone. ;-)
      Lol, you guys are entertainment, that's for sure. Actually you are, by definition, the armchair "expert who think(s)" he knows what right for the OP. You gave your opinion, right? And that's all you gave while sittin' on your ass.

      I've always wondered what kind of arrogance leads a person to always think of themselves as above the issue, while name calling from on high, casting shade on anyone who points to some body of knowledge, other than, well, you and your opinion. Apparently you see yourself as the expert opinion, whatever sort of chair you're sitting in. I'd suggest you try to get past the limitations of your own ego. When I post, I post from my education and my background of experience, and when it's available, I try to post a link to a 3rd party as confirmation. When I don't, anyone not lazy can look up what I've said online to confirm it. It's all pretty basic. Some of what I say you can confirm with your PCP.

      Now me, in this thread, I made a general reference to several 3rd party agencies, a body of clinical philosophy, and a body of law, out of concern for someone else here, and for the group he currently belongs to. I didn't refer to your armchair opinion, or mine, I referred to actual experts in various fields, and that got to ya, apparently. Too real?

      So again, what did you refer to? You. Not 3rd parties, but you. And you did it with no concern for the protection we can offer here. We really should offer some protection to the potentially vulnerable if we're able to, right? No? So it's the hell with minors, let 'em sink or swim (or worse)? That's what you said.

      Don't people like you see their own arrogance, not to mention their own small reflection, when they try to call someone a pejorative which they themselves clearly have just been, ie "arm chair expert"? How blind, how ignorant of this world, do you have to be to do that? Just go back and read what you've posted. To you "social" is everything (in fact it's almost nothing) and you haven't even been that to the OP, let alone an effective resource for him or this forum. And what's funny is, while it's all about "social" for you, you've lost some standing even in that limited area. You've as much as said "F you" to the kids who show up here. Your little buddy Rico will give you a pixel'd pat on the back for it, but do you think anyone else will, and mean it?

      See what I mean by "entertainment"?
      Last edited by Reality; 02-13-2018, 04:37 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Reality View Post
        So I ask again, don't people like you see their own arrogance, not to mention their own small reflection, when they try to call someone a name which they themselves clearly have just been? How blind do you have to be to do that? Don't think you have? Just go back and read what you've posted. Are you totally gone as an effective resource for this forum (or maybe just not that great an intellect)? If it's all about "social" for you, then you've lost some standing even in that limited area, haven't ya. You've as much as said "F you" to the kids here. Your little buddy Rico will give you a pixeled pat on the back, but do you think anyone else will, and mean it?
        I think I've mentioned my giant ego several times in past posts. Maybe you can go find one and copy/paste it here to prove I'm full of myself?

        In any case, if suggesting that someone trust their own discretion over some anonymous person on the internet is what you call "thinking I know what's best for him"... well, you're one a hell of a mental gymnast.

        Egotistic as I am, I don't think I've ever claimed to be an expert on anything. All I do is encourage people to think for themselves, and that gets right under the skin of the true armchair experts who cannot tolerate having their self-appointed authority undermined.

        I will admit though, it is a dangerous game encouraging free thinking. Perhaps he'll freely think his way into believing circumcision is a good thing. If that happens I may wish I'd have told him what's best for him, lol.

        But it doesn't matter anyway. He appears to have left. Hell of a welcoming committee we are.

        Comment


        • #19
          You just don't get it, I assume because you don't have it in you. Don't have kids, please.

          Comment


          • #20
            You guys are PA-FUKKIN-THETIC! For fucks sake, drop it already.

            Comment


            • #21
              What happened to the Reality who was raged out because I "spoon fed" someone the other day?

              And parsec, why don't you join us? It's fun! Go on a rant and tell us how we're both full of shit.

              Comment


              • #22
                Nope. Done feeding trollish behaviour.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Reality View Post
                  Parsec answered the OP's question specifically (it's a good link), but it would seem that the website's Terms of Service preclude anyone under the age of 18. This is an issue for the website owner, though.

                  And I can't advise "lots of google" because of all the crap and nonsense out there regarding so-called foreskin restoration, some of it decidedly harmful, and of course unprotected. This is why I suggested a canned message (https://foreskinrestoration.vbulleti...derage-members) which gives very general and conservative information. Wanna know why?

                  If government and its appropriate agencies, Federal, State, and local, see 16 as underage; and if US Law generally sees 16 as underage; and if general adolescent psychology sees 16 as underage; and if the accepted understanding of human brain development sees 16 as latent; and believe me, everyone I've mentioned does in fact see 16 year old as needing protection, then we should too. In other words, think about the 16 year old individual and his protection, and not you, and what you think is appropriate. Yet again, this is clearly not a "social media"-level issue.

                  If everyone followed a more conservative path with children and juveniles, there would be very little need for so-called foreskin restoration.
                  Being a 17 year old I can say that this would be entirely superficial. It's also technically illegal to watch porn if you're under 18 and yet teenagers seem to be the biggest consumers of porn. You could ban anyone under 18 from joining, but they'd just put in a fake birth date. The only way you can actually enforce this is by requiring their birth certificate or ID Card, which would mean that almost no one would join.

                  that said, these rules act more as a form of plausible deniability than anything else, which is good to have, but this idea that you're going to "protect" 16 year olds is just nonsense. They'll do whatever they want- this can only protect the website owners from liability, and can never do anything else.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X