|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 22:17:38 GMT
(i) the persons can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to, what if they're mute, deaf and limbless? If someone is incapable of communicating linguistically or via some linguistic equivalent, they're incapable of consent.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 11, 2018 22:34:39 GMT
I can say, by the way, that when I was nine, I fooled around with a fellow nine-year-old (well, or close to it--we were in the same grade, not sure exactly when her birthday was or what time of year this would have been), a girl who was a friend of mine. Did we have sex? Not exactly, although the boundaries of that for our fooling around, which happened a number of times, were pretty fuzzy. I certainly consented to what we were doing as well as I could consent at the time (I don't know if I could have met my criteria or not--there's no way I can remember my thought process that well, and of course I hadn't formulated my consent criteria back then). And as far as I know, the girl I was friends with and fooled around with consented as well as she could at the time, too. Even if we couldn't have met my criteria, though, I don't think that much should have happened to us--it was certainly something we wanted to do. I first entered into what I'd consider the "same" (nominalistic clarifications aside) as an adult relationship, which involved regular sex, too, when I was 13, just about to turn 14. I had a long-term (non-monogamous) relationship with the girl in question, and we're still very good friends. And when you were nine you felt comfortable exploring your body with a peer... Which is why sports and other activities are usually divided by age ranges. Because you don't but an 8 year old football prodigy non matter his talent to play with 30 yearl old football athletes. Even academic geniuses (children in colleges) feel out of place and isolated. When you put children and adults in certain situations the adults want the child to play on their level and do not let them grow at their own pace. Your criteria would do nothing more then confuse children and put pressure on them to say they had consented to somehting that was over their heads and make them feel guilty if they hadn't said no oughtright. Goodness gracious even rape victims feel guilty thinking "i should have done more, fought, screamed" and you expect children to be able to distinguish between coercion, force, manipulation, by adults?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 22:39:57 GMT
I can say, by the way, that when I was nine, I fooled around with a fellow nine-year-old (well, or close to it--we were in the same grade, not sure exactly when her birthday was or what time of year this would have been), a girl who was a friend of mine. Did we have sex? Not exactly, although the boundaries of that for our fooling around, which happened a number of times, were pretty fuzzy. I certainly consented to what we were doing as well as I could consent at the time (I don't know if I could have met my criteria or not--there's no way I can remember my thought process that well, and of course I hadn't formulated my consent criteria back then). And as far as I know, the girl I was friends with and fooled around with consented as well as she could at the time, too. Even if we couldn't have met my criteria, though, I don't think that much should have happened to us--it was certainly something we wanted to do. I first entered into what I'd consider the "same" (nominalistic clarifications aside) as an adult relationship, which involved regular sex, too, when I was 13, just about to turn 14. I had a long-term (non-monogamous) relationship with the girl in question, and we're still very good friends. And when you were nine you felt comfortable exploring your body with a peer... Which is why sports and other activities are usually divided by age ranges. Because you don't but an 8 year old football prodigy non matter his talent to play with 30 yearl old football athletes. Even academic geniuses (children in colleges) feel out of place and isolated. When you put children and adults in certain situations the adults want the child to play on their level and do not let them grow at their own pace. Your criteria would do nothing more then confuse children and put pressure on them to say they had consented to somehting that was over their heads and make them feel guilty if they hadn't said no oughtright. Goodness gracious even rape victims feel guilty thinking "i should have done more, fought, screamed" and you expect children to be able to distinguish between coercion, force, manipulation, by adults? One thing at a time. I'll pick what to start with unless you want to start with something different. If part of the criteria is to be able to present an explanatory paraphrase of just what's being consented to, then how, exactly, would it appear that someone is consenting to something that's over their head? A propositional way to state what I'm asking there is this: If x is over S's head, then S is not going to be capable of stating an explanatory paraphrase of x.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 22:50:44 GMT
I think it is time you did that re your consent criteria because in my pinion all your replies to island Mur on this point were indeed waffle about basically restating that you don't like age based criteria and making up new tortuous ways to prove consent etc etc etc. Just fyi, I had posted my consent criteria in the other thread a few days ago. But here it is again: What I require for consent (and keep in mind that this is not at all just about sex): Of their own "free will", and not due to the direct or indirect force initiation of another agent or criminal threatened force from another agent, (i) the persons can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to, (ii) they can and do say, "Yes, I'd like to do that" (again verbally, or in writing, signing, etc.), or an equivalent, regarding those actions, and can demonstrate (by at least attesting to the fact) that they so agreed, (iii) In the situation at hand, the persons would be/would have been capable of but doesn't/didn't say "No" either linguistically or via body language, including (re consensual physical interaction) a la attempting to push or fight off etc. the person doing whatever they initially agreed to above, and where we're not talking about a formal, legally binding contract the person entered into. (In the case of formal, legally binding contracts, the person is legally obliged to hold up their end of the bargain as they agreed/consented to in the contract.) (iv) the consenting parties are able to state some of the commonly accepted beliefs about potential physical, psychological and situational risks and consequences of consenting to the act at hand, at least comparably to the average person (where that's not age-specific. education-specific, etc.). * If any of the above conditions can not be met for any reason then consent isn't possible. * If any of the above conditions are not met, for any reason, then consent wasn't given. * Forcing someone to do something they couldn't or didn't explicitly consent to wouldn't be consent obviously. * I'd have no age of consent, including for contracts. However, note that for all contracts, I'd limit the maximum duration to n*1.5 the length of the previous contract with that same party, with the first contract maximum being 1 year. So a first contract can't be longer than 1 year, a second contract 1.5 years, a third contract 2.3 years, a fourth 3.4 years, a fifth 5.1 years, etc. There would be an exception made for contracts involving single projects that would take longer than the duration otherwise allowed by the contract, in which case, the contract would be over at the conclusion of the project. * For contracts and consent in general, fraud would still be fraud--you can't "sneak something in" that the person isn't explicitly consenting to (without threat of being prosecuted for fraud). * And yes, I'd hold children responsible for murders and other crimes just like adults. I'm in favor of sentencing reform, however, and I'd even change the core structure of imprisonment/the social separation of criminals. * Consent violation for physical interaction, such as sex, in order to be successfully prosecuted after the fact, requires evidence of a consent violation--at least evidence of physical violence, where physical violence isn't a documented aspect of what was consented to. In other words, this means that if you're consenting to violent interactions with someone else, and you want to make sure that you can't be double-crossed and successfully prosecuted later, you need to make sure that you have documentation (notarized, etc.) of the involved parties consenting to violent interaction. I left that thread as it was an inappropriately placed argument. I see your criteria as merely new tortuous ways of achieving very little. What do you see as the benefits of this regime? Who benefits, how and why?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 22:56:00 GMT
Just fyi, I had posted my consent criteria in the other thread a few days ago. But here it is again: What I require for consent (and keep in mind that this is not at all just about sex): Of their own "free will", and not due to the direct or indirect force initiation of another agent or criminal threatened force from another agent, (i) the persons can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to, (ii) they can and do say, "Yes, I'd like to do that" (again verbally, or in writing, signing, etc.), or an equivalent, regarding those actions, and can demonstrate (by at least attesting to the fact) that they so agreed, (iii) In the situation at hand, the persons would be/would have been capable of but doesn't/didn't say "No" either linguistically or via body language, including (re consensual physical interaction) a la attempting to push or fight off etc. the person doing whatever they initially agreed to above, and where we're not talking about a formal, legally binding contract the person entered into. (In the case of formal, legally binding contracts, the person is legally obliged to hold up their end of the bargain as they agreed/consented to in the contract.) (iv) the consenting parties are able to state some of the commonly accepted beliefs about potential physical, psychological and situational risks and consequences of consenting to the act at hand, at least comparably to the average person (where that's not age-specific. education-specific, etc.). * If any of the above conditions can not be met for any reason then consent isn't possible. * If any of the above conditions are not met, for any reason, then consent wasn't given. * Forcing someone to do something they couldn't or didn't explicitly consent to wouldn't be consent obviously. * I'd have no age of consent, including for contracts. However, note that for all contracts, I'd limit the maximum duration to n*1.5 the length of the previous contract with that same party, with the first contract maximum being 1 year. So a first contract can't be longer than 1 year, a second contract 1.5 years, a third contract 2.3 years, a fourth 3.4 years, a fifth 5.1 years, etc. There would be an exception made for contracts involving single projects that would take longer than the duration otherwise allowed by the contract, in which case, the contract would be over at the conclusion of the project. * For contracts and consent in general, fraud would still be fraud--you can't "sneak something in" that the person isn't explicitly consenting to (without threat of being prosecuted for fraud). * And yes, I'd hold children responsible for murders and other crimes just like adults. I'm in favor of sentencing reform, however, and I'd even change the core structure of imprisonment/the social separation of criminals. * Consent violation for physical interaction, such as sex, in order to be successfully prosecuted after the fact, requires evidence of a consent violation--at least evidence of physical violence, where physical violence isn't a documented aspect of what was consented to. In other words, this means that if you're consenting to violent interactions with someone else, and you want to make sure that you can't be double-crossed and successfully prosecuted later, you need to make sure that you have documentation (notarized, etc.) of the involved parties consenting to violent interaction. I left that thread as it was an inappropriately placed argument. I see you criteria as merely new tortuous ways of achieving very little. What do you see as the benefits of this regime? Who benefits, how and why? I'm not really proposing it because I think it's benefiting anyone in particular. I'm proposing it because the idea of hinging consent on age is ridiculous in my opinion. I'm instead analyzing what consent amounts to functionally, where I'd base the law of consent on that instead. If I had to come up with a benefit, I suppose I'd simply say that the benefit is that consent would in no way hinge on age, but it would hinge on ability instead. Thus you're not prohibited from doing anything merely because you're a particular age (and you're also not a candidate for doing anything merely because you're a particular age, either). As long as you're capable of consenting per the criteria, you are legally allowed to consent. (And then it's just a matter of whether you did consent to whatever it is.)
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 22:58:15 GMT
Oh dear! Emotional personal anecdotal evidence is brought to bear on this topic. You lose. You see the trouble with your argument ( and in a sense it is a fundamentalist argument in that you state that consent should be within your own criteria and an absolute in the sense of always applying not in the objective sense ) ...is that the devil is in the detail. YOU are making the point that sex between consenting young teens is OK butt unfortunately in society we have to codify legal matters and there is the famous old slippery slope argument ie matters of degree. In answer to my last post you said that an adult male would not be having sex with a consenting baby because you implied that a baby was incapable of consent. It is great for fundamentalists and faux intellectuals to pontificate what the 'ought' ought or ought not be, butt we have a society dealing with the precious young lives and bodies of children who, like it or not, need protection from predators, and even themselves sometimes because having sex is a responsibility that on a sliding scale, children are not ready for biologically and emotionally (that dirty word you hate again) They get pregnant and diseased and lives can be ruined. If underage sex of an adult with a child is illegal we need to codify how, why and set limits categories and penalties. As a society it is our duty and obligation. To just sit back and say as you do ... I don't believe in that...I think children can decide for themselves and consent according to my personal criteria... is ridiculous. You're going back to your telemarketing script there without discussing anything systematically. In a nutshell, your argument here seems to be "I'm deferring to common sentiment on this, because I'm a deferring to the norm kind of gal." What if the norm works on a practical and legal level as it has evolved over many decades and adjusted to current societal norms? I already asked you what the differences are in your regime and why they are an improvement. I await your reply. To sum up what is the gain in adopting your criteria over the status quo? Also why is the status quo failing? or is it in your view? What benefits to either adults or children are achieved?
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 11, 2018 23:00:08 GMT
And when you were nine you felt comfortable exploring your body with a peer... Which is why sports and other activities are usually divided by age ranges. Because you don't but an 8 year old football prodigy non matter his talent to play with 30 yearl old football athletes. Even academic geniuses (children in colleges) feel out of place and isolated. When you put children and adults in certain situations the adults want the child to play on their level and do not let them grow at their own pace. Your criteria would do nothing more then confuse children and put pressure on them to say they had consented to somehting that was over their heads and make them feel guilty if they hadn't said no oughtright. Goodness gracious even rape victims feel guilty thinking "i should have done more, fought, screamed" and you expect children to be able to distinguish between coercion, force, manipulation, by adults? One thing at a time. I'll pick what to start with unless you want to start with something different. If part of the criteria is to be able to present an explanatory paraphrase of just what's being consented to, then how, exactly, would it appear that someone is consenting to something that's over their head? A propositional way to state what I'm asking there is this: If x is over S's head, then S is not going to be capable of stating an explanatory paraphrase of x. Who gives witness to these consent? You still want to put children on an equal footing with adults, I have no idea why. A child of 4 may consent to a foot race with an adult, he knows all about running and even knows he will loose however emotionnally he will still be crushed when he does. All your criteria is, is a reworking of how things where worked out that achieved the age of consent. Age of consent was not picked out of thin air.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 23:02:48 GMT
You're going back to your telemarketing script there without discussing anything systematically. In a nutshell, your argument here seems to be "I'm deferring to common sentiment on this, because I'm a deferring to the norm kind of gal." What if the norm works on a practical and legal level as it has evolved over many decades and adjusted to current societal norms? I already asked you what the differences are in your regime and why they are an improvement. I await your reply. To sum up what is the gain in adopting your criteria over the status quo? Also why is the status quo failing? or is it in your view? What benefits to either adults or children are achieved? I'm not sure what "working on a practical and legal level" would really amount to. I mean, if we were to execute anyone who jaywalked, that could easily work on a practcal and legal level, but I sure wouldn't agree with doing it. One of the differences is that folks wouldn't wind up legally punished, imprisoned, etc., just because they had a relationship where one person is 19 and the other is 15.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 23:03:32 GMT
And when you were nine you felt comfortable exploring your body with a peer... Which is why sports and other activities are usually divided by age ranges. Because you don't but an 8 year old football prodigy non matter his talent to play with 30 yearl old football athletes.
Even academic geniuses (children in colleges) feel out of place and isolated. When you put children and adults in certain situations the adults want the child to play on their level and do not let them grow at their own pace.
Your criteria would do nothing more then confuse children and put pressure on them to say they had consented to somehting that was over their heads and make them feel guilty if they hadn't said no oughtright. Goodness gracious even rape victims feel guilty thinking "i should have done more, fought, screamed" and you expect children to be able to distinguish between coercion, force, manipulation, by adults? One thing at a time. I'll pick what to start with unless you want to start with something different. If part of the criteria is to be able to present an explanatory paraphrase of just what's being consented to, then how, exactly, would it appear that someone is consenting to something that's over their head? A propositional way to state what I'm asking there is this: If x is over S's head, then S is not going to be capable of stating an explanatory paraphrase of x. How the hell do you not understand what she just said??.... No questions are really necessary. This is basic human understanding. Gonna go straight to the point that I think you are trying to make with your dumbass questions... Because, God knows we'll be here for a week waiting for you to get to your fucking point: You do realize that there is a difference between two Ss getting together and working throw their inexperience and some A (hole) with a full understanding of x exploiting an S's ignorance and nativity... Right? Well... You don't... because you're a fcuking idiot.... But, sane people do. "IF A CHILD CAN EXPERIMENT WITH ANOTHER CHILD, THEN WHY, AS AN ADULT, CAN'T I FUCK IT?".... is not a sane rational argument.... by any stretch of the imagination. ...and the fact that you think it is... to the point where you think that you can "teach" people with your idiotic endless questions would be astoundingly laughable.... if it wasn't just sooooooooooo fucking creepy.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 11, 2018 23:05:06 GMT
I left that thread as it was an inappropriately placed argument. I see you criteria as merely new tortuous ways of achieving very little. What do you see as the benefits of this regime? Who benefits, how and why? I'm not really proposing it because I think it's benefiting anyone in particular. I'm proposing it because the idea of hinging consent on age is ridiculous in my opinion. I'm instead analyzing what consent amounts to functionally, where I'd base the law of consent on that instead. If I had to come up with a benefit, I suppose I'd simply say that the benefit is that consent would in no way hinge on age, but it would hinge on ability instead. Thus you're not prohibited from doing anything merely because you're a particular age (and you're also not a candidate for doing anything merely because you're a particular age, either). As long as you're capable of consenting per the criteria, you are legally allowed to consent. (And then it's just a matter of whether you did consent to whatever it is.) Ability does not grow on trees. And for most activities, physical and mental readiness is part of the equations. What consent amounts to, has been analized by the ones who drew up the age of consent.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 23:05:25 GMT
One thing at a time. I'll pick what to start with unless you want to start with something different. If part of the criteria is to be able to present an explanatory paraphrase of just what's being consented to, then how, exactly, would it appear that someone is consenting to something that's over their head? A propositional way to state what I'm asking there is this: If x is over S's head, then S is not going to be capable of stating an explanatory paraphrase of x. Who gives witness to these consent? You still want to put children on an equal footing with adults, I have no idea why. A child of 4 may consent to a foot race with an adult, he knows all about running and even knows he will loose however emotionnally he will still be crushed when he does. All your criteria is, is a reworking of how things where worked out that achieved the age of consent. Age of consent was not picked out of thin air. I don't know why you won't address one thing at a time and why you won't follow up on anything. Anyway, re "A child of 4 may consent to a foot race with an adult, he knows all about running and even knows he will loose however emotionnally he will still be crushed when he does"--are you proposing to make that illegal? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 23:08:38 GMT
One thing at a time. I'll pick what to start with unless you want to start with something different. If part of the criteria is to be able to present an explanatory paraphrase of just what's being consented to, then how, exactly, would it appear that someone is consenting to something that's over their head? A propositional way to state what I'm asking there is this: If x is over S's head, then S is not going to be capable of stating an explanatory paraphrase of x. How the hell do you not understand what she just said??.... No questions are really necessary. This is basic human understanding. Gonna go straight to the point that I think you are trying to make with your dumbass questions... Because, God knows we'll be here for a week waiting for you to get to your fucking point: You do realize that there is a difference between two Ss getting together and working throw their inexperience and some A (hole) with a full understanding of x exploiting an S's ignorance and nativity... Right? Well... You don't... because you're a fcuking idiot.... But, sane people do. "IF A CHILD CAN EXPERIMENT WITH ANOTHER CHILD, THEN WHY, AS AN ADULT, CAN'T I FUCK IT?".... is not a sane rational argument.... by any stretch of the imagination. ...and the fact that you think it is... to the point where you think that you can "teach" people with your idiotic endless questions would be astoundingly laughable.... if it wasn't just sooooooooooo fucking creepy. "Full understanding" is a nonsensical phrase. Of course, your response to that will simply be "everyone else understands it, so I don't have to even begin to justifying that the idea isn't nonsense." But that's your response simply because you have no idea how to begin justifying that the idea isn't nonsense. Either that's because you lack the linguistic skills, which is why you just resort to a stock of insults, or it's because you lack the mental skills, so there's not even anything there for you to try to put into language.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 11, 2018 23:09:20 GMT
What if the norm works on a practical and legal level as it has evolved over many decades and adjusted to current societal norms? I already asked you what the differences are in your regime and why they are an improvement. I await your reply. To sum up what is the gain in adopting your criteria over the status quo? Also why is the status quo failing? or is it in your view? What benefits to either adults or children are achieved? I'm not sure what "working on a practical and legal level" would really amount to. I mean, if we were to execute anyone who jaywalked, that could easily work on a practcal and legal level, but I sure wouldn't agree with doing it. One of the differences is that folks wouldn't wind up legally punished, imprisoned, etc., just because they had a relationship where one person is 19 and the other is 15. See I think that's wrong. I do think that age of consent should have an age spread section... 2 years either way.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 23:13:51 GMT
"Full understanding" is a nonsensical phrase. No it's not. There are degrees to everything. You can have a basic understanding of something... a limited understanding of something... or a full understanding of something. The fact that you're a fucking idiot who doesn't fully understand that doesn't change that fact.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 11, 2018 23:14:16 GMT
Who gives witness to these consent? You still want to put children on an equal footing with adults, I have no idea why. A child of 4 may consent to a foot race with an adult, he knows all about running and even knows he will loose however emotionnally he will still be crushed when he does. All your criteria is, is a reworking of how things where worked out that achieved the age of consent. Age of consent was not picked out of thin air. I don't know why you won't address one thing at a time and why you won't follow up on anything. Anyway, re "A child of 4 may consent to a foot race with an adult, he knows all about running and even knows he will loose however emotionnally he will still be crushed when he does"--are you proposing to make that illegal? If not, why not? I must have missed the news when children where allowed to run in 4 00 meters against adults in races. Or box with champions in a ring.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 23:14:28 GMT
What consent amounts to, has been analized by the ones who drew up the age of consent. I'd challenge that that's likely not true at all. I'd bet that historically, age of consent conventions have nothing at all to do with anything like a conceptual analysis. I may be wrong about that. But I'd not believe that until you showed the historical evidence. Do that, and then we'll examine their analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 23:15:52 GMT
I'm not sure what "working on a practical and legal level" would really amount to. I mean, if we were to execute anyone who jaywalked, that could easily work on a practcal and legal level, but I sure wouldn't agree with doing it. One of the differences is that folks wouldn't wind up legally punished, imprisoned, etc., just because they had a relationship where one person is 19 and the other is 15. See I think that's wrong. I do think that age of consent should have an age spread section... 2 years either way. You think it's wrong that folks are punished for relationships where one is 19 and the other 15 (and like examples)?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 23:16:59 GMT
I don't know why you won't address one thing at a time and why you won't follow up on anything. Anyway, re "A child of 4 may consent to a foot race with an adult, he knows all about running and even knows he will loose however emotionnally he will still be crushed when he does"--are you proposing to make that illegal? If not, why not? I must have missed the news when children where allowed to run in 4 00 meters against adults in races. Or box with champions in a ring. And that has what, exactly, to do with answering whether you'd make it illegal for a 4-year-old to have a foot race with an adult?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 23:18:49 GMT
"Full understanding" is a nonsensical phrase. No it's not. There are degrees to everything. You can have a basic understanding of something... a limited understanding of something... or a full understanding of something. The fact that you're a fucking idiot who doesn't fully understand that doesn't change that fact. Certainly repeating the assertion that there are "full understandings" and it's not a nonsensical phrase is a good support of the claim.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 23:21:07 GMT
No it's not. There are degrees to everything. You can have a basic understanding of something... a limited understanding of something... or a full understanding of something. The fact that you're a fucking idiot who doesn't fully understand that doesn't change that fact. Certainly repeating the assertion that there are "full understandings" and it's not a nonsensical phrase is a good support of the claim. You just repeatedly denying it's existence isn't really any better of an argument, moron.
|
|