Slashdot Mirror
Goblet of Fire Teaser Trailer Released
bryan8m writes "The teaser trailer for the next installment of the Harry Potter series has hit the web. The clip begins with a bit of a flashback but quickly turns to the triwizard tournament with some amazing visuals. And there is new director (again): Mike Newell."
It was on Apple's movie trailers site a week ago today.
when it comes to puberty, it's got to be hard to match older kids as younger kids.
Actually, the trailer "hit the web" about a week or so ago.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Almost as big as Star W. . . .Ahh!!!! Get away you freeks!
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Maybe I should break down and start reading the books instead.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
http://bash.org/?111338
http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/harry_potter_gob let/hp_gobletoffire_480.mov
here tis
Isn't Harry Potter a kids' movie? As in for young children?
If so, what is it doing on here?
By the poweres vested in me by the Late Pope EyeEye, I hereby declare -1 Offtopic on this news story.
If I get labelled as trolling for this post I'll be pissed off. This is my honest opinion, hopefully I'm just not the only one...
iirc the plan is for there to be 7 books covering the 7 years of harrys educations.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
she's 15. if anyone over 17 goes looking for that, they might have a problem.
He Ingrish Velly Good.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Source?
For, well, either of those (a) baseless, and (b) totally illogical assertions? :-)
How long are they going to make these things for?
:)
If I was in her shoes, I'd keep doing it for as long as it took for my paychecks to drop down to 5 figures, then I'd retire. After buying an island to retire on.
The first two were both directed by Chris Columbus.
Not true.
Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets were both directed by Chris Columbus (this one, not that one).
v4sw6HPU$hw5ln6pr5$ck4ma8u7LMO$w2m6l7DL$i2e3t4MWb9AHKMRTen5a29s0r1p-5.88/-8.36g5CST
whoops, oversight. Chris Columbus directed both the first two films. -matt.
Gilliam: Eventually they went with another director, and since the film made over $300 million, that was obviously the right decision.
NPR: What did you think of the movie when it came out?
Gilliam: Crap.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
GAH
must refresh screen more often.
Well...that explains why the first two movies are so much better than the third.
What were they thinking getting rid of a director who successfully translated books to movies?
And for that matter, why have the characters in what is essentially an old English boarding school wearing modern and eventually dated clothing rather than uniforms?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
She's doing something right. The quality of the films has been reasonably consistent, unlike George Lucas, who will be lucky if he scores 3 out of 6 on Star Wars.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Anybody know of a way to install quicktime without iTunes?
Not only is this old, but it hardly seems fitting for the /. main page. I realize the books are much-loved and all, but let's be serious. Do we really need Slashdot pimping movie trailers? I'm sure a good majority of us hit apple.com/movies often enough anyway. I prefer /. to report on cool tech stuff, not hollywood bullshit.
P.S. Sorry for the flamebait post.
swanker than you
Bah, she'll be legal in the UK next year :).
she's 15. if anyone over 17 goes looking for that, they might have a problem.
I really want to put a link to the Jason Killingsworth Hermione Countdown here, but the domain is gone. Too much hatemail I guess.
I can recommend the audio books read by Jim Dale, they are amazing.
He won some awards (including a Grammy) for them and a Guiness Book entry for "Most Character Voices in an Audio Book".
sorry, couldn't resist
It will be interesting to see if they stay faithful to the original or tame down the plotline to keep it appealing to little kids.
I didn't expect much from "children's books," but these are very very good. Admittedly the most recent one was a very slow starter (150 pages of nothing more than people talking to each other) but once it got going, it was very good. Hopefully she was listening to the critics on her last effort and trimmed this one down a bit. But these are trifles -- the books are absolutely worth reading no matter how old you are. There's always a place for fantasy.
What were they thinking getting rid of a director who successfully translated books to movies?
They didn't exactly "get rid" of Chris Columbus. He chose not to direct the Prisoner of Azkaban in order to spend more time with his family (he was still an executive producer though). According to the IMDB, he wanted to come back and direct the fourth film, but Warner Brothers chose Mike Newell instead.
She's already legal in Canada :)
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
Slashdot Jr. News for prepubescent nerds, Stuff that would matter if I were 12.
(I kid, I've actually seen all of the other ones).
Why?
Why did they have to switch directors? The first two movies seemed like a good book. The last felt like I was watching an episode of ... well any show with ordinary teenagers dealing with magic. What the hell was with putting the characters in street clothes for the whole second half of the film? They're supposed to be in a magical land. What next, Herminone having her Ipod taken away from her when she's listening to it in class?
OK you sickos.
She's underage. You're going well over the line in making remarks about panty shots.
If you don't respect the fact that she's jailbait, at least respect the fact that she's a human being. I remember reading somewhere she actually was quite shy about a scene in which she was supposed to HUG one of her fellow actors. I can't imagine how I would feel being in a film knowing that pimply, greasy nerds and other creepy people were trying to picture my genitalia.
So in short, grow up and get a life. As for the guy with the "coming of age" clock - anyone who produced something like that about my daughter gets his CPU reprogrammed with a softball bat and rightly so. Get it? Even if I was creepy enough to look at a little girl in a sexual manner, I would accord the same respect to Emma Watson and to her father as I would expect shown to me and my own kids.
When did we as a society decide this kind of sick crap was OK? Fatty Arbuckle's career was ruined by the suggestion he was a diddler. R. Kelly, of whom we have VIDEO EVIDENCE he's a child molestor and kiddie rapist, is top of the charts. Go figure.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I'm sorry to hear that.
Maybe you should consider changing that state of affairs.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
The fans of the books/movies are growing older each year too. I'm still a big fan of the books, which I started reading when I was 11 or 12. That was 5-6 years ago.
I really want to put a link to the Jason Killingsworth Hermione Countdown here, but the domain is gone.
Here is a link to it in the web archive. Their server seems to be having difficulty at the moment. It may not load properly.
> She's underage.
She is a fully physically mature woman.
> Even if I was creepy enough to look at a little girl in a sexual manner
Oh, nice strawman. Sure, she's a 'little girl'. Sure.
What I hear from you is "baa baa, 17 years 364 days = little innocent kid, 18 years = full grown responsible adult woman, baa". to which I submit that you're just proving you can't think for yourself or independently of what society tries to tell you. Plus, you obviously don't recall high school, or you just never got laid during it.
I can't tell you when it started, but I can say that it was already going in the 50's
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Actually I'd argue that the third movie, directed by Alfonso Cuarón was vastly superior to the previous two, which came across as long and a bit dry.
When asked to do the fourth movie, Alfonso said no, we wanted to spend the time to get the third one right in post-production. The result? An excellent 3rd movie, but I'm worried that the 4th won't be anywhere near as good.
Sorry, all I got out of that was; Blah Blah Blah.. Panty Shots.. Blah Blah Blah Blah.
There are lots of silly rumors about J.K. Rowling. The only conflict that has any real basis in fact is that she's not producing more Harry Potter as quickly as the publisher would like. One reason for this is the novels are getting progressively more bloated. Which I personally find a pain, but which most fantasy fans seem to love.
The big problem with the HP movies was not that the movie people didn't get along with Rowling, but that they got along all too well. So the first two movies were very literal adaptations of the first two books. Not a good way to make a movie, because you end up with a shortened version of the book that doesn't take advantage of cinematic story telling. Which is why I enjoyed the first two books, but found the first two movies utterly boring.
Well...that explains why the first two movies are so much better than the third.
Which movies did you watch? The scenery, sets, characters, and acting have got progressively better with each film.
Meh, not quite. The same directory did the first two films, and I think he was asked to stop because the films weren't quite living up to the source material.
The third one was a new director, and given that it was waaay better than the first two, I think they wanted to have him do the fourth BUT post-production on the third overlapped with pre-production on the fourth (maybe even filming) so it was impossible.
Maybe you should consider changing that state of affairs.
Why? Because a bunch of prudes from south of the border tell us to?
Because I hate watching movies in a browser window.
Save dis shiz
$ whatis themeaningoflife
themeaningoflife: not found
The movies are far enough behind the books that, even if Rowling was holding back plot elements, the directors should have more than enough information to make their film.
That comment is a blatantly obvious troll.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
If you actually take a look at the guy with the "coming of age" clock, you should notice pretty quickly that he actually seems to be trying to make your point - it's clearly not a genuine site (the photo isn't real, not even the clock is real - it counts the character, not the actor). It's purpose seems to be to make counters look really revolting. It succeeds wonderfully.
RE: She is a fully physically mature woman.
She's a kid. She's underage. She's off limits. If you don't understand that, then you have a big problem.
RE: Oh, nice strawman. Sure, she's a 'little girl'. Sure.
Let's see, how old was she in the first film? 12? How old is she now? 15? Neither is an appropriate age to be trying to look at her underwear. You can play semantic games all you want, but you can't get around the fact that that crap is off base and outa line. Unless you're R. Kelly.
RE:to which I submit that you're just proving you can't think for yourself or independently of what society tries to tell you.
I can think for myself. I can also recognise that sexualising children is wrong. You can't seem to work that out. And I feel sorry for you. I don't see you as liberal, liberated, independant or whatever. I see you as a sicko. You can do any kind of perversion with a consenting adult person - don't care if the person is male, female, black, white, etc. But lusting after someone who's between 12 and 15 is quite wrong. And all parts of society - even the lowest of the low in jail - disapprove of your attitude. Do you know what happens to diddlers in jail?
RE: Plus, you obviously don't recall high school, or you just never got laid during it.
Once again - there's a difference between two six year olds playing doctor and a twenty one year old wanting to play doctor with a six year old. And legal provisos are usually made for same. I wouldn't have a problem if it came out that members of the cast were more interested in each other than they let on on-screen... they're of an equivalent age and though I wouldn't think it the best course of action, that's age-appropriate and normal. What isn't is an adult male in a predatory mode.
Careful, by the way projecting things on to me. Suggesting that I have some kind of hangup or cannot get sex has nothing to do with the discussion. But for what it's worth most kiddie diddlers can't handle relationships with adults and are emotionally stunted. Most of the 20+ year olds sniffing around my high school had low self esteem, low IQs and if they did work worked part time at places like McDonald's. No wonder they'd go after kids. No adult female would want em.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I wouldn't look at something like that Harlequin, but if you're right then I take back my comment about his clock. Anything that makes stuff like that revolting is OK in my book.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Which means absolutely nothing. Most "producers" are getting paid because they're friends with the movie makers. He's most likely listed as a producer on the third movie because of his affiliation with the series.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
But she's not in Canada. :)
- #12529961
- #12514880
Your help would be very much appreciated. Thanks!The third one was like 'Harry Potter Lite' - just one calorie, not quite evil enough.
What if she's of age where the OP lives?
I am trolling
Yes, yes, of course...
YOUR kink, whatever it may be, is just fine and good. MY kink, however, is sick and twisted and disgusting.
I would point out to you that the age of consent in much of the world is 14, not 18, as you seem to believe. With some places as low as 12. So "underage" is a mere matter of location, at best.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/
I find this entire concept of "age of consent" somewhat tenuous, at best. It seems to imply that there is an age at which one magically is able to make intelligent, rational decisions about their own body and their sexuality, and below that they're just too stupid and/or immature to make any such decision. If that were actually the concern, I know plenty of 30 year olds who aren't able to make said intelligent, rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are. People mature at different ages. Get over it.
And this post is courtesy of a 49-year-old married man with kids of my own, but, unlike you, with a rational view of human sexuality. So much for your idea that anyone who thinks such things are OK must have problems with adult relationships. As a libertarian, I believe it's no business of the State to get involved with anything two people do consentually in private.
Where would that be? Canada?
Emma Watson lives in England, and the movie was made (to the best of my knowledge) there.
It was not made in Thailand, she isn't Thai, she doesn't come from a culture in which she's expected to be a sex object long before the age of consent.
She didn't sign up to do bikini scenes, she isn't topless in any scene - she's playing a repressed, bookworm nerd.
What you're in essence arguing is "don't project your mores on my society". Well, matey, she's English, and in England she's jailbait. Don't project your mores on hers.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Sexualising children is WRONG
Again with the straw man - tell me, are you missing the point deliberately?
She's not a child, she's a teenager who is well past puberty, and in much of the world, she's past the age of consent. (Which has been pointed out to you before, and yet you continue to ignore it while making your straw man argument.)
"That's what you get for expecting intuitive behavior from an open-source project."
The "Submit" button should not even be there when the comment page first comes up. IOW, you should have to "Preview" at least once before you submit.
erm.. people took the joke wrongly it seems. It was a freaking joke, you know how many people get dragged to these things for little kids? At least star wars has Padame.
:/
this has started a huge flame war over nothing
I like muppets.
"When did we as a society decide this kind of sick crap was OK?"
Two words:
Britney Spears.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
1. The "call for help" guy is lying through his anal teeth. If you waste your mod points on any of the comments he linked to, you're doing just that: wasting your mod points. Everyone in that comment tread is a loser troll
2. So... did someone 'sploit mercatur.org's DNS record to point it to the Cracky-Chan wiki?
3. How long has this 20271 comment thread been around and what's the story behind it?
"Well, matey, she's English, and in England she's jailbait."
Barely: and if she'd been born on a council estate she'd have a couple of kids of her own by now. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that underage sex isn't a regular occurence in the UK.
In any case, it wouldn't surprise me at all if NuLab reduced the age of consent to fourteen: after all, they've already reduced the butt-shagging age for boys to sixteen, and I'm sure they'd like to reduce that further.
I'd have to agree. The third one, like the book, takes a sudden delightfully unsettling turn for the macabre. Flirting betweent eh characters, twisted evil... it's much more fun for an adult audience to relate to. They have all been really excellent renditions, but I feel like they are getting better.
She's underage.
Perhaps in your part of the world, but not in many others.
She's off limits.
Why? Because you say so?
If you don't understand that, then you have a big problem.
I'm sorry, but it appears that you're the one with the problem - you are deliberately ignoring evidence presented to you that you are wrong.
How old is she now? 15? Neither is an appropriate age to be trying to look at her underwear.
Bullshit. You have made an arbitrary decision about based on an imcomplete representation of facts. There are *many* people here who are her age (typically the ones making these comments), and you're saying it's inappropriate for them to want to sneak a look?
If you believe that, you should go in for some councilling - repressing your feelings that much is just asking for trouble.
there's a difference between two six year olds playing doctor and a twenty one year old wanting to play doctor with a six year old
Ohh.. another straw man! Seems to me that we were discussing 15 year olds, weren't we?
Got a tip for you: if you want people to take you seriously, you shouldn't make stupid arguments that have no bearing on the topic at hand, all you do is make it look like you don't have any relevant arguments, and are grasping at straws in order to convince yourself you're right.
I wouldn't look at something like that Harlequin
Typical holier-than-thou prude.
"I haven't seen it, but I have no problem passing judgement on it anyway."
God forbid you would actually want to *understand* what it is you're condemning.
I have a problem with that too.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
RE: Barely: and if she'd been born on a council estate she'd have a couple of kids of her own by now. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that underage sex isn't a regular occurence in the UK.
Underage with underage, fair enough - though I don't think it's the perfect state of affairs it happens. I can of course have a problem with adults shacking up with kids. And I dunno about you but where I came from the 25 year old who knocked up the 15 year old ended up razor scarred and fleeing the province for his life.
RE: In any case, it wouldn't surprise me at all if NuLab reduced the age of consent to fourteen: after all, they've already reduced the butt-shagging age for boys to sixteen, and I'm sure they'd like to reduce that further.
And of course, there'll be people like me saying it's wrong, and these oh so enlightened folk claiming that it's repression or whatever that's the root cause. Whatever happened to decency?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Hey, this is just in: you can tell if someone is a pedophile by tossing them in the water. If they float, they're pedophiles. If they drown, eh, we had to make sure.
Now, I dislike pedophilia as much as the next guy, but the sort of furious demagogue rhetoric I hear from some people in this forum sounds like someone trying to inflame a mob to lynch a witch to me.
Further more, Emma Watson is 15 years old, which makes her below age of consent, but only barely, so you are actually justified in your moral outrage legally. And I do understand you stance, being the protector of a little girl and all.
However, expression of sexual attraction to a physically adult human being sounds vulgar to me, but not nearly as vulgar as your threat of death by softball bat that you spewed. I really don't get how an expression of violence should somehow be acceptable, but one of sexual matters should be labelled "sicko".
Now que the "You're a God-damn pederass lover and need to be executed same as them!" flames.
Every time I read Emma Watson, I think of Emma Thompson, who plays prof Trelawney and she used to be married to Kenneth Brannagh, who played Guilderoy Lockhart.
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
RE: Perhaps in your part of the world, but not in many others. [ageofconsent.com]
WTF? In some parts of the world I could kill you for looking at me funny. Does that make that right, too?
RE: Why? Because you say so?
I say so, the law says so, most people say so. I tell you what. You get caught in a compromising position with a 14 year old, and when you get to jail, you can tell the fellow inmates all your palaver crap about how it's OK because they do this in Cameroon. If you live, write me back. Looks to me that even thieves and murderers have more decency to you.
RE: I'm sorry, but it appears that you're the one with the problem - you are deliberately ignoring evidence presented to you that you are wrong.
I am not wrong. You are wrong. Sexualising children, diddling children, preying on kids is wrong. You'd find few people appreciating you hanging around the high school cruising for tail, making appreciative comments about how hot a 14 year old looks, etc. It's wrong legally, it's wrong morally, etc.
RE: Bullshit. You have made an arbitrary decision about based on an imcomplete representation of facts. There are *many* people here who are her age (typically the ones making these comments), and you're saying it's inappropriate for them to want to sneak a look?
Yeah, I do. Got a problem with that?
RE: If you believe that, you should go in for some councilling - repressing your feelings that much is just asking for trouble.
Dude, I have no feelings for little kids. You're the one arguing for the right to do that kind of thing.
RE: Ohh.. another straw man! Seems to me that we were discussing 15 year olds, weren't we?
Replace six with fifteen. Same trip.
RE: Got a tip for you: if you want people to take you seriously, you shouldn't make stupid arguments that have no bearing on the topic at hand, all you do is make it look like you don't have any relevant arguments, and are grasping at straws in order to convince yourself you're right.
Got a tip for you. Wait til my daughter's 18 or I set you on fire. Deal?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
"Underage with underage, fair enough"
What makes you think the father is underage? In many cases they're probably in their 20s or older: certainly the few specific cases I know of they mostly were.
"And I dunno about you but where I came from the 25 year old who knocked up the 15 year old ended up razor scarred and fleeing the province for his life."
And you talk about _decency_?
Frankly, I think you have more problems than the majority of people posting here. I sure don't watch 'Harry Potter' movies looking for panty shots, but if you've never seen a fifteen-year-old you wanted to shag then I can only presume you're deluding yourself or have no libido... and claiming that attacking someone with a razor because they shagged a fifteen-year-old is 'decent' behaviour make you look like a psychopath.
Wouldn't it spoil it if she told the director who would die? I mean, we're not supposed to know, and the characters sure as heck don't know, so why would it be foreshadowed?
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
RE: Frankly, I think you have more problems than the majority of people posting here. I sure don't watch 'Harry Potter' movies looking for panty shots, but if you've never seen a fifteen-year-old you wanted to shag
Nope, sorry. I see a bunch of kids standing by the bus stop, I want em to be kids. But then again I don't go around looking at everyone as potential sex objects, either.
RE: then I can only presume you're deluding yourself or have no libido...
No, just a sane libido. I don't find men attractive either.
RE: and claiming that attacking someone with a razor because they shagged a fifteen-year-old is 'decent' behaviour make you look like a psychopath.
Tweren't me, that was the rest of the estate. I was young at the time. The bikers who caught up with the guy weren't.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
RE: However, expression of sexual attraction to a physically adult human being sounds vulgar to me, but not nearly as vulgar as your threat of death by softball bat that you spewed
It was the server I threatened with a bat.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I would have to disagree about the third movie being superior. If you read the books, the story made sense because you could fill in the blanks. Otherwise, all you would see is a disjointed series of events. "Harry does this" "Now he does this". The narrative was nearly non-existant, and made the movie a big disappointment, even for fans.
I do think you're over reacting a bit. I agree that sexualising children is wrong, but surely you're aware that a lot of children are taking cues from older segments of society and sexualising themselves quite happily without any conspiracy of "kiddie diddlers". Go out on any Friday night, and you'll see that not a single 25 year old dresses as sexually provocatively as the average 14 year old, not even the prostitutes.
I can't tell you how many times I've been out and seen a girl where I honestly couldn't work out the faintest clue as to how old she was - anywhere between 15 and 26. I'm in my 20s and not the least bit interested in anyone under 21, but in some cases, you genuinely can't tell from looks alone.
It's a pain in ass, but it's life, so I think going near-ballistic because someone dares observe that 15 year olds can be (and often are) sexual is a little baffling. I know one very sexy, gorgeous 24-year-old night-clubbing girl who has even commented out-of-the-blue that she really doesn't like going to all-ages events because the 14 year olds make her feel so unsexy and plain in comparison.
And I guarentee you she isn't creepily projecting fantasies on those girls. Many, if not most 14 year olds are NOT asexual chidren. They are sexual beings. You don't have to like it (I don't, she doesn't), but that's the way the world is.
Servers are people too.
RE: WTF? In some parts of the world I could kill you for looking at me funny. Does that make that right, too?
America != rest of the world
RE: I say so, the law says so, most people say so. I tell you what. You get caught in a compromising position with a 14 year old, and when you get to jail, you can tell the fellow inmates all your palaver crap about how it's OK because they do this in Cameroon. If you live, write me back. Looks to me that even thieves and murderers have more decency to you.
America != the rest of the world
RE: I am not wrong. You are wrong. Sexualising children, diddling children, preying on kids is wrong. You'd find few people appreciating you hanging around the high school cruising for tail, making appreciative comments about how hot a 14 year old looks, etc. It's wrong legally, it's wrong morally, etc.
again, America != etc etc
RE: Yeah, I do. Got a problem with that?
FUCK YOU, AND YOUR EGOTISTICAL SELF. You are not god, as much as you want to be, little 1337 sheep.
Now shut the fuck up about it. Your american ways dont apply here. Die, filthy american.
here here brother.
I like a young chick as much as the rest of us, but I draw the line somewhere.
The olsen twins ? another non starter.
As to Jon-Benet Ramsey (kiddie pageantry), don't LET me get started there.
Society is sick and needs an enema.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
"No, just a sane libido."
Hardly. Men are genetically programmed to find teenage girls attractive, because they can have lots of kids... you can dislike that if you want, but fighting genetic programming is usually a losing battle.
I don't really have any interest in shagging fifteen-year-olds, but that's because I wouldn't have much of anything to talk to them about afterwards, not because I'm a prude.
"Tweren't me, that was the rest of the estate."
But you seem to be the one having masturbation fantasies about it.
Quicktime standalone player
There's a difference between thinking someone's cute, or attractive, and/or sexually so.
I think babies are cute, and dogs are cute. I think certain works of fine art are pretty and beautiful as well.
But that doesn't mean I'm into doing babies, dogs, etc.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Dude, you're a child molester waiting to happen. Just say the hell away from children, or you're going to end up in prison.
A claim of FUD used to be a very serious accusation. It was meant to counter act some of the subtle marketing that the big players were pushing. FUD goes hand in hand with vapourware. FUD is all about promissing that a company's future product is better then a competitor's product. A common claim was that a competitor's product had no future. A important part of FUD is that it is difficult or impossible to varify a company's claim.
Now FUD is claimed by any 13 year old fanboy who does not like a negative comment about their product of choice. A claim of FUD has become no better than true marketing FUD.
Now shut the fuck up about it. Your american ways dont apply here. Die, filthy american.
Ah, the genteel, erudite discourse of slashdot.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
...I mean, you got plenty of kids being trialed as adults, but not one that can screw like an adult. This has lead to silly stuff like a 12yo girl being charged with molesting two 11yo girls, or the teenager (how old was she? 15?) charged with molesting herself.
So if the underage person is the "molester", she understands everything, but if she is the "molestee", she understands nothing. That requires a few leaps of logic, but that is the way it is.
We're approaching the same kind of sillyness here. A 16yo can screw as much as they want with whoever they want, but if you take a picture of it it is child pornography. It's like saying you can smoke weed, but not take a picture of it. Go figure
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There's also a Windows Media Player version of the trailer (direct link to MMS stream easily available in that file; use mimms to download rather than stream), which ironically works better than the quicktime version under GNU/Linux; in the quicktime version, the audio is unsupported.
I'm not asking for trailers in Ogg or something like that. Is standard MPEG4 with MP3 or AAC audio too much to ask?
Erm, no. Chris Columbus directed the first two films, and is still on board as executive producer. Alfonso Cuaron (who directed the third) was never intended to direct the fourth, although he has stated he'd like to come back later and do at least one more. Neither Columbus, Cuaron, or Newell have ever hinted at being displeased with Rowling's involvement.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
I have to agree with you; I think the third movie was worse than the others.
IIRC there were some big plot holes for people who didn't know the story;
the Marauders Map (looking very nice) was put very much into the foreground, but it lacked some explaining - for example who created it:
Lupin knew what it was, but there was no explaination why he - but not Snape - did know how to use it
(no explaination of the creators' nicknames and that Lupin was one of them).
That could have been nicely integrated with a remark of Harry's father being and Animagus and the shape of Harry's patronus.
Another thing (again IIRC) was that there was no explaination how Sirius knew about PettiDon'tKnowTheSpelling and why he was at Hogwarths
- which was the reason for him trying to escape from Ascaban
These might sound like nitpicks (and I might remember them wrong, only saw the movie once last year) but if you don't know the books they are examples of things that create some basic WTF?-feeling.
Also I didn't like the atmosphere. The castle and its surroundings might be a matter of taste,
but I sure didn't like that the students ran around in Jeans and Sneakers instead of their robes most of the time.
Well, I can go you one further.
Imagine someone in the 1950s proposing that thongs be marketed to five year olds.
Imagine someone, even in the swingin 60s, proposing that stiletto heeled hooker boots be made in four year old sizes.
Think they'd have kept their jobs, if not their front teeth?
So why is it acceptable today?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I agree - the movies are getting darker and more interesting. The 3rd movie was the best by far, and the next looks (although it's hard to tell from a teaser trailer) even darker and better.
They're realizing that the kids (both in the movie, and their fans) are growing up, and can handle a darker movie.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
I haven't seen sadomasochistic homosexual kiddie porn either, but I'll tell ya sure as shootin I disapprove of that too.
Just as I know for sure I wouldn't like sticking my privy parts into a meat grinder without having tried it.
So I was wrong about the clock. But the whole idea is distasteful.
What do you think my chances are about the kiddie porn being OK? "Oh, I'm terribly sorry - that was art! That was wonderful and witty social commentary." Uh huh....
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
but I sure didn't like that the students ran around in Jeans and Sneakers instead of their robes most of the time.
Actually, this was one of the things that I thought was a brilliant idea. It really helped to show that they really ARE kids, and helped decrease the "fake fantasy" feeling that tends to permeate the other two movies.
The third movie felt "real" (for lack of a better word). Ordinary kids thrown into extraordinary circumstances.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Why would she stop at 7 books when making so much money? I find it hard to believe that she will just stop when she gets to 7.
Steven Kloves has written the screenplay for all 4 movies. He's the one, not the director, who has to pry the secrets from JKR.
I've been dragged along to see all three films so far and I'd say the third was in a different league to the other two but each film has improved on the previous.
I just wish someone would go back and re-render all the CGI in the first film. Parts of that (particularly the Quidditch (sp?) scenes) looked no better than a console game. They really were appallingly rushed and are a stain on what would otherwise be a nice little DVD boxset in the future.
Nerds don't like fantasy books and movies all of a sudden?
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
Oh, then forget it. I thought you ment the other kind of CPU.
Read the books. This is a natural side effect on basing it on the books.
The books get darker each book, so the movies should get darker too.
On the other hand, the last movie wasn't actually as good. It told a very small portion of the story the book did, and the things it focused on weren't nearly as interesting as some of the things it left in there.
Like, for instance, they didn't even mention some (IMHO) crutial plot things - SPOILER OF BOOK WARNING-:
1) all the new adults in the third movie went to Hogwarts together and were really good friends - and all really good friends with James Potter, Harry's dad. This group also made Harry's map.
2) Because of this friendship, all of them became animagi (people who could transform into animals) in sympathy for Lupis, who was naturally a lycanthrope.
3) including Harry's dad, who could turn into a stag.
4) Harry's patronus is a stag. He takes after his dad a lot it seems.
A big theme - probably the biggest that seems to run through the book is how heredity and your past affects it's future and the choices you make.
They missed it in this last movie.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Oh if only Lindsey Lohan would play Hermine... http://www.liquidgeneration.com/blog/video/snl_pot ter.mov
-tom
At least they didn't spend 50 episodes on their 'different-schools' tournament, unlike Naruto.
after all, they've already reduced the butt-shagging age for boys to sixteen
There was one sole reason for reducing what you call the "butt-shagging age", and that reason was equality. It was obviously unfair that the age of consent for homosexuals was higher than that for heterosexuals, and Labour corrected that. Don't try to impose your homophobic views on something that's all about equality.
RE: I can't tell you how many times I've been out and seen a girl where I honestly couldn't work out the faintest clue as to how old she was - anywhere between 15 and 26. I'm in my 20s and not the least bit interested in anyone under 21, but in some cases, you genuinely can't tell from looks alone.
Here's what happens. You ask a girl out, you find out she's under $AGE_OF_CONSENT, and at that point you excuse yourself, explain the situation, and leave.
You don't airily talk about how in Cameroon the age of consent is 9 or whatever and ask if she wants to shack up.
RE: I know one very sexy, gorgeous 24-year-old night-clubbing girl who has even commented out-of-the-blue that she really doesn't like going to all-ages events because the 14 year olds make her feel so unsexy and plain in comparison.
There's totally something wrong with this.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
As much as you would like to think Slashdot is some sort of free-world rebellion, it's run by OSN, a company with a huge axe to grind. They could easily be taking a cut for advertising and feeding the "nerds" Potter.
I think the big joke on everyone is that Harry Potter was a horrible copy of LOTR combined with other junk (Rowlings didn't do any historical research when "re-defining" races), and everyone hated it. Now it has slowly seeped into campy-land and there are very few protests.
Potter sucks.
the best part is I wrote it, and I'm an american.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
FLAME ON
WTF? In some parts of the world I could kill you for looking at me funny. Does that make that right, too?
Probably, yes. And that is not the law anywhere. The age of consent is 15 or lower in about half of the world. She's of proper age for half the population. It sounds like you have some hangups.
I say so, the law says so, most people say so.
In the "new world", ie. pre-US, historically women were married at age 14 or thereabouts, and it was even religiously accepted.
I tell you what. You get caught in a compromising position with a 14 year old
Now it's a 14 year old... they just keep getting younger in your arguments!
Got a tip for you. Wait til my daughter's 18 or I set you on fire. Deal?
Ah, so the truth comes out. This is not about age of consent, it's the fact that you're an over-protective father. Legal age is 16 in Canada.. so just don't send her over the border!
And death threats are much more illegal than anything else in this discussion (set you on fire? WTF?).
I think she could buy a little island called England.
Gimme one example of thongs being marketed to 5 year olds. The only problem i hav seen so far is short skirts for preteens that make them look like nasty little ... Well you know what I mean. Why do there parents allow it. Once they are older teens I can understand how some parents lose control and I dont really have a problem with them making their own choices then but the under 15 crowd that wear these very short skirts need to be kept in check by the parents.
> She's a kid. She's underage. She's off limits. If you don't understand that, then you have a big problem.
Google up 'kid' and click on the definition. Let's see. "Between birth and puberty." Therefore, the person under discussion here is NOT a 'kid'. Underage. Under _what_ age? You mean under the age that society has decided you suddenly become a fully responsible & mature adult at 12:01 am on that birthday? Age limits - for driving, screwing, drinking, voting, everything - are legal abstractions. Because it can't fairly be determined when a certain person is ready for these activies, the law had to draw a line somewhere. 18, 16, 14, 20, whatever. It's a highly individualistic thing, and it depends on the person. I could introduce you to two females I know: a 15-year-old cousin of mine and a 23-year-old friend of mine. If I only told you the ages and not which was which, you would pick the 15-year-old as older and quite probably find her sexually attractive. Until you found out her age, anyway.
> I can think for myself.
No you can't. Not if you've got a switch in your brain that says attraction to any woman under the exact age of 18 years 0 days is a horrible horrible crime. Society put that switch there and marked it with that number.
> I can also recognise that sexualising children is wrong. You can't seem to work that out.
I can work that out just fine, however we seem to have a different definition of 'children'. No 15-year-old is a 'child' and - do you even REMEMBER high school? - they're pretty damn sexualized as it is. Sure, an adult male with manipulation in mind can really fuck over a 15-year-old. He can also really fuck over an 18-year old. Or a 24-year-old.
> Do you know what happens to diddlers in jail?
There's a difference between 5-year-olds and 15-year-olds. One of them will get you tagged 'short-eyes'. One won't. You're refusing to recognize this difference and lumping the categories together.
> Once again - there's a difference between two six year olds playing doctor and a twenty one year old wanting to play doctor with a six year old.
Strawman strikes again. When did anyone mention six-year-olds? Oh, right, you did - in an attempt to lump the other side of the discussion in with prepubescent-child molesters.
> Careful, by the way projecting things on to me. Suggesting that I have some kind of hangup
You do. You shut off your hormonal attraction to - again, FULLY [PHYSICALLY] MATURE WOMEN - if you find out that they're under 18. Not based on maturity, personality, or philosophy.
> or cannot get sex has nothing to do with the discussion.
When did I do that? Oh, I see - when I asked if you ever got laid during high school. That wasn't a shot, that was to point up the fact that nobody needs to 'sexualize' someone in mid-late teen years. They're doing it enough on themselves.
Do yourself a favor. Google up "likejailbait2 swf". Take the quiz. It just might open your eyes to how arbitary this eighteen-year thing is.
I think it was said best here
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
I agree - to me the third movie felt like a series of vignettes from the book. Taken as such, I did enjoy it, but I had read the book twice before seeing the movie... I really fear what they are going to do to the fourth movie. I wish they'd break it into two full-length parts, but I doubt it will happen.
RE: Gimme one example of thongs being marketed to 5 year olds
I believe the Gap was the company that was told to pull them.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
This is heading the route of StarWars.. Milk them for all you can.
Oh, and dont forget your donation to the MPAA when you go see these things.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
here's something that may clarify matters for you.
imagine you're talking to someone from a country where the age of consent is 20.
a 19-year-old (never mind how you know this) woman walks by. a HOT 19-year-old. you drool, because hey, 19. he stares at you. "in my country, she is a child! you creep! you child molestor and kiddie rapist! do you play doctor with 6-year-olds? you should go to prison, where even the lowest of the low will look down on you!"
you're seriously linking s&m gay kiddie porn with a "countdown to legality" joke clock?
What? Do you suggest that underage girls should not wear panties? What's wrong with panty shots, you, sicko? Do you think that they give hardons to every male? Nope, only to latent pedophiles like yourself.
something like that about my daughter
This is a dead giveaway of a guy with a lot of personal problems who would really mess up his kids. I pity your daughter (if you already have one).
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
It's true the chances a 12 year old would attempt to do that sort of thing with an adult are remote, as too are the chances they'd be able to appreciate and handle it mentally. But you've missed his point. Each person is an individual. Dividing people by slot categories with age numbers is of limited use.
It's true that a person aged at the age of consent is probably going to be more likely to be able to handle and appreciate the complexities of human sexuality than a person aged a couple of years under it, but we're talking about trends here: there are wild variations in human mental and physical development among individuals inside the trend. Some people should never be having sex, at any age.
Can you honestly say there's not a single 12 year old in the world that is less able to mentally handle and understand sex than the average 18 year old? Or of a wife-cheating, prostitute-seeing 30 year old? Once you start seeing everything in terms of the average of the trend and of the individual as being synonymous with their category within it, you burn the people on the edges. The hypothetical 30 year old is allowed to harm others with impunity and gets little condemnation from others, whereas the hypothetical 12 year old and her boyfriend of whatever age are going to be serious trouble if they do what comes naturally to them. I know I once saw a 12 year old with a DD bust. We're talking about rare cases here, but they do exist.
The person who started this thread was probably either a troll or just being cynical, but there's probably a shred of truth in it that some people do find the girl attractive. Herminone of the books is an unattactive, buck-toothed girl. Would the actress of a major role been chosen if she looked like that? Throughout human history it was normal for girls 15 and younger to be sexually active, have babies and get married. By that age, a girl is physically and mentally far more an adult than a child. Someone doesn't magically become physically attactive to adults at a certain numerical age. They slowly become more attactive as they develop physically and mentally, each at their own pace. That many teenagers nowadays are so irresponsible, selfish and stupid over things reflects today's society, and not how teenagers should be if they're raised properly. The minority of teenagers who are raised in a better environment can end up very different.
It's not paedophilic to say that adults might find someone like Emma Watson attactive. Worry how someone's attacted, now whether they are or not.
This kind of discussion always goes the same way. It comes up, people go balistic, someone complains they're being unreasonable and it's a complex issue, and people get even madder and become less rational. It's a self reinforcing cycle.
An age of consent law is a self-fullfilling prophescy. Where it's 18, it's fine for 18 year olds to be having sex and be seen as being attactive, but 17 year olds are meant to be asexual and unattactive. Where it's 16, it's the same with 15 year olds. Where it's 14, it's the same with 13 year olds.
If Christian fundamentalists hadn't managed to have the age of consent increased much higher with the aim of stopping girls having pre-marital sex, then people's views would've been very different today.
I know of a 16 year old girl who was manipulated by a 30something for sex and emotionally hurt by it. But he did nothing legally wrong. So we could say the age of concent is too low? I also know of another 16 year old who got into a relationship with a 30somehing, and she happily spent the rest of her life with him.
Actually the first two were pretty awful, the third one done by the mexican guy was excellent.... (no wonder this guy did Y tu mama tambien as well, and the first two were done by a disney guy)
RE: a 19-year-old (never mind how you know this) woman walks by. a HOT 19-year-old. you drool, because hey, 19. he stares at you. "in my country, she is a child! you creep! you child molestor and kiddie rapist! do you play doctor with 6-year-olds? you should go to prison, where even the lowest of the low will look down on you!"
Here's something that may clarify matters for YOU
She showed up on screens at 12 and was being lusted after then. She's being talked of in terms of panty shots and worse at 15. This is not a case of 18 in a place where it's 19. Though she's legal in Cameroon and parts of Canada, it's way off base in most of the US and the civilised world, and off base in her home country. DIG?
You can think me a vile pervert for not being Islamic, and I am equally as entitled to oppose your country's liberal attitude towards slavery.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Not really. As much as I love the Books of Magic and couldn't give less of a damn about the HP series, even Neil Gaiman has said any resemblance is pure coincidence. The whole lonely-boy-finds-out-he-has-fantastic-powers thing is pretty archetypal, especially in British kiddie lit. And other than that basic resemblance, they're very different stories.
As far as the two being drawn similarily, if you look at how artists' depictions of Tim Hunter evolve and the dates, you'll notice he actually starts to look more Harry Potterish after the first HP book got big.
Also, while Gaiman wrote the original mini-series and had general creative control over the ongoing series, the other writers really were responsible for the story. Don't give Gaiman too much credit for it, especially since the on-going series is much better than the mini-series.
My daughter is nearly two. The idea that she might hit puberty in six or seven years is frightening. Nobody knows why they're getting to puberty so early but its frightening. The sexualization of children on TV and the media is not helping.
There are plenty of creeps trying the troll of "what's the difference between 15 yrs 364 days and 16 years" but the answer is usually "statutory rape". Lines have to be drawn somewhere and vulnerable children protected. Children are vulnerable - they may have sexual feelings (and thinking back, mine were INTENSE in my teens) but they have no clue about consequences.
Rock on.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
I find this entire concept of "age of consent" somewhat tenuous, at best. It seems to imply that there is an age at which one magically is able to make intelligent, rational decisions about their own body and their sexuality, and below that they're just too stupid and/or immature to make any such decision. If that were actually the concern, I know plenty of 30 year olds who aren't able to make said intelligent, rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are. People mature at different ages. Get over it.
Ugh. You don't seem to understand anything about society engineering. I don't mean social engineering. I mean engineering societies so that they productive and not too screwed up.
Sure, some 12 year olds are more mature than some 30 year olds. That's not the point.
We can't have a society where everyone has to take long, drawn-out tests to allow them to do certain things. Think about applying for a driver's license (including the written and driving tests) for everything adults are allowed to do. Drinking alcohol, voting, signing legally binding contracts, entering the Army, getting a job, buying a firearm (*), owning a house, etc..
Geez, think of the cost. Think of how thick your wallet would be, carrying around all those different ID cards. Then, when you have to move, think about all the change-of-address forms.
So we don't do that kind of stuff. We don't have the time and money to implement comprehensive ability tests for all aspects of adulthood. So we pick a number (14, 18, 21, whatever) and hope for the best.
It is fine to question the rules of society. People don't do that enough. But to dismiss the rules without understanding the reasons for them is folly.
(*) Actually, I think a more comprehensive test for gun ownership is a good idea, but even that's probably not going to happen in the USA.
Give me a break. Men are genetically programmed to be attracted to young females. Everything about a man finds youth attractive. It has always been this way. And it's a very recent phenomenon that considers this inappropriate. For most of human culture through most of human history, 40 year old men marrying 12-15 year old girls was perfectly acceptable.
I'll leave off discussions of whether our current system is an improvement, but I will just note that COMMENTING about an attractive young female is... not something to have a fit about.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Is it me, or do aspect ratios on movies keep getting wider and wider? Now we're up to 30/13 already.
>who seems to have a tendency to substitute action scenes for character moments
... rather than spending any quality time on CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT (which the Potter movies balance well, IMHO).
You must be an American. Two reasons
1. Because you call it the "Sorcerer's Stone"
2. Because of the comment above. I call this the "Bruckheimer Syndrome". Movies tend to be jam-packed with explosions and other trickeries
I personally tend to prefer UK movies to US movies (note: i'm from neither region) - for that very reason... UK = character focused movie... US = explosions and other 'distractions' (aka. eye candy).
IMHO, one of the major failings of the Matrix sequels was just that... All eye candy - and no character development.
Then again, as a director, you already know this.
Having said that, I respect your right to enjoy eye candy all you like - but conversely, that bores me to tears in movies.
AC #4571
We've always found children to be off limits. It's just recently that we've decided to extend childhood.
And dude, you're not an animal - there's always a filter that eliminates hot. You could have an attractive mother, sister - or your friend has an attractive spouse or you see an attractive nun and the "yeah, this is hot" circuit breaker should get tripped.
As in, your interest should go to nil.
If it doesn't, there's something pathologically wrong with you.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
"Goblet of Fire" I clicked on this thinking it was the newest product from Mozilla.
Asking legal questions on an Slashdot forum is like asking 4chan for relationship advice. --Stolen from Hork_Monkey
Yeah, I am.
Stealing a $500 Honda scooter vs a $10,000 car.
Both are thefts.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
RE: What? Do you suggest that underage girls should not wear panties?
When did I say this?
RE: What's wrong with panty shots, you, sicko?
Of an underage girl? Tons, especially with perverts like you around, scumbag.
RE: Do you think that they give hardons to every male? Nope, only to latent pedophiles like yourself
I'm the one arguing against em. You're the one arguing for being able to diddle a six year old. Now shut up and stick your head in the oven and get out of our gene pool.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
If you were a 16 year old boy, I'd dicuss the difference between appropriate and inappropriate actions, and that it would be INappropriate for her to flash her skivvies onscreen even if she wanted to - because of the fact that there are adults who don't know what appropriate and inappropriate is, and direct him to the postings of the baby-diddler supporters here. I would not denigrate your age-appropriate feelings for one of your peers.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
South of the border? Do you mean the U.S.? It doesn't have a unfirom age of consent. We're a union of States, and all. There are States where she's been legal for some time now.
Interesting comment,I too read the books of magic when they came out originally. a few years ago when I finally cottoned on to the whole HP phenomenon, I thought, "Geez, why did Gaiman rip off this Rowling person for DC?" thinking that HP was obscure for years before hitting it big. When I looked at the dates I was blown away. Gaiman was hindered by the fact that he was trying to tie a whole bunch of DC historical backstory and characters into the Books of Magic in only 4 initial volumes, which in my opinion didn't feel very coherent. I'll pit his imagination against any author (except Grant Morrison and Jorge Luis Borges) on any day. Bottom line is I think it's a heck of a coincidence that at the very least should have been picked up by mainstream media more.
When did I say this?
Right where you implied that panty shots of an underage girl are somehow bad. Or do you mean that it is perfectly natural for a girl to wear panties, but this fact should be hidden from anyone and any demonstration of these panties is bad. But that makes even less sense.
Of an underage girl? Tons, especially with perverts like you around, scumbag.
Could you be more specific instead of tossing insults around?
I'm the one arguing against em.
Of course. Just lake latent homosexuals are the worst homophobes. Tone down your indignation, that's giving you away. And please, warn your daughter that most cases of child abuse are perpetrated by relatives, such as uncles or fathers. She ought to know.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I think it's the faggot wizardry that everyone hates.
Places where the age of consent is 14 also seem to be places that practice female genetic mutilation and honor rapes.
Nice to see you're the rational one.
The third movie felt "real" (for lack of a better word). Ordinary kids thrown into extraordinary circumstances. :-)
;-))
Yes, and that's exactly what I didn't like about it
I somehow got the perception that the Wizard- and the Muggle world were very separated and that most of the kids tended to live more in the Wizard world.
The kids spent most of their time there, you only hear them think about wizard careers and all those (especially "pure blood") wizards who don't know anything about the muggle world:
think of the Weasleys who don't know how to dress like muggles or how their world works, the "Muggle Studies" class or that department at the ministry,
Harry seeming to be the only one who didn't know what Quidditch was but the football fan being perceived as odd by the others and so on.
I think it's just a weakness of the books - the whole relation between the wizard and muggle world;
being not the focus of the books, it feels formed as needed for a plot twist or some comical sidestories (culture clashes).
I think we simply got different impression from the books.
Maybe I still suffer from the plot of the fifth book were I always thought that the whole somewhat totalitarian social/political structure of the wizard world was very stupid and unlikely (it really pissed me off)
- especially if you think that lots of the kids/people are more "normal" and are in more or less close contact with relatives and friends in the real world and got some first hand experience of basic democratic principles or even went to school there before going to Hogwarths.
So in a kind of keeping-the-fun-self-defense I chose to view the two worlds as very much separated and all the kids primarily as living in the wizard world
- hence I prefer the robes, not jeans
That said, there is something to be said for the developing ethincal inclusion which has occurred. For example, monkey now have rights. This may indicate two thing, we are becoming more aware of the natural law; or we are all stuffed in the head hippies.
I do agree about the panty shot being over the line (not that I could find that quote). This is not for any pragmatic reason such as going to jail, but on virtue that people have an intrinsic dignity and are to be counted as more than 'sexual beings'.
My two cents...
It seems that people who are not fans or haven't read the books, liked the third movie more. That includes me. To me, it was simply a better movie; it made more sense, obviously because the director chose to focus on certain parts of the story. Whereas the first two movies seemed to rely on shocking deus ex machina moments to resolve the stories and had no tension.
Fans simply can't help noticing all the bits that were left out. This is nothing new.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
I hate to sound like a broken record, but you're really, truely, saying that sex with a 16 year old is the same thing as having sex with a 3 year old!?!?!
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
What makes you think he comes from an Islamic country? You probably think that all Muslims deserve to be nuked off the face of the earth?
Oh, please...you're overreacting. The real truth is that most Slashdotters don't want to *molest* Ms. Watson--they want to *be* Ms. Watson...
This law applies to us no matter where we are in the world (none of this "when in Rome" bullshit).
Do you not have a similar law?
In Soviet Amerika the ballot boxes YOU!
Most of Europe.
It was not made in Thailand, she isn't Thai, she doesn't come from a culture in which she's expected to be a sex object long before the age of consent.
I live in England, the culture certainly expects her to be sexual at 15.
What you're in essence arguing is "don't project your mores on my society". Well, matey, she's English, and in England she's jailbait. Don't project your mores on hers.
So if you see an attractive woman from a culture that doesn't believe in having sex at all, it's wrong to fancy her?
I am trolling
RE:Or do you mean that it is perfectly natural for a girl to wear panties, but this fact should be hidden from anyone
That's correct. Just as, people do use the bathroom and most people have rectums, but taking photos of the process isn't considered appropriate by most people.
RE: Of course. Just lake latent homosexuals are the worst homophobes. Tone down your indignation, that's giving you away.
Oh, so now I'm a closet child molestor because I disapprove of people ogling little girls? Very very interesting. I wonder if you'd have the balls to make that kind of accusation to my face, internet warrior.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
DVDs by Christmas? I doubt it. My Birthday (late January)? I doubt it.
-- Stephen.
Alright, Danila, I'll admit that kind of comment was out of line, to some degree, but I'm entitled to get hot under the collar about it.
No, it isn't because I like little girls. I don't. My idea of a woman is a real woman, though there's a typo above I'm into a fully grown developed 20something woman. Kids don't interest me in any way - not physically, not as someone to talk to, etc. I'm very secure in this.
However, I will say this. Even if I was wired to look at a 15 year old and develop an interest, which I can certainly understand, this has to be tempered with an understanding of just how messed up things can get. Tell you what - get into a relationship with someone messed up by childhood diddling, or see at 15 your 15 year old female classmates who are supposedly mature, supposedly with it, hip and together modern women manipulated and screwed up by older men.
I've never seen a man of the age of consent, esp. in his 20s, who was interested in sniffing around the high school who didn't have some kind of serious problems relating to other people. Would I suggest it isn't possible that someone of 15 can make up her own mind and her own decisions? Nope! But two things - 1) neither of you are gonna die if you wait a few years and 2) if when she's 18 you're no longer interested in her that reveals it to be fetish, not love.
I am still not happy with your strong suggestion I molest my daughter. Either prove it or retract it.
And by the way, you might get away with that in Russia, but here most people would violently assault you for making that suggestion - so in future be real careful how sarcastic you get. That's a word of advice, not a threat.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Obviously modded down by stupid, sissified Harry Pothead fans.
Well, well, well, isn't THIS interesting. A quick search of danila found you on everything2.
2 9, speaks volumes. Not only are you aware of different child porn sites, but you argue that there's a fine line between kiddie porn and art. You even go on to suggest that thanks to computer generated porn kiddie porn as acceptable public content will be here to stay. That is sick. If you need me to argue exactly why then that goes to show me how far gone you've gone.
This node, http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=14943
Other nodes on that site you wrote include instructions on hiding pornography stashes.
Hey, man, rather than lecturing me on my own psychology, which is firmly rooted in people of legal age of consent, or making suggestions I would molest my own kids, you should go see a shrink.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Ooooh, and this is even more interesting: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=147838 5 - in which you talk of sharing everything from bukkake to child porn with your friends, and say at the end of your node that it's based on personal experience.
I think perhaps your trip is that you're some kind of libertarian or something. I think perhaps you've never had personal experience with someone who was molested, and others who went too far too soon with people old enough to know better. You seem to suggest at the end of yer node that computers will allow people to make safe kiddie porn.
As someone who regularly assists anti-kid-porn and survivors of child abuse groups, let me tell you this - the prime use of kiddie porn is for diddlers to convince other kids that it's OK to do what's being shown to them in the pictures. So kiddie porn per se is evidence of a crime, and computer generated porn something used to assist people in committing crimes. So I take a very dim view to your point of view. Perhaps this will enlighten you. But considering you're in that pit of holier than thou deviance called E2, I doubt it.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I am glad that you found some of my everything write-ups, that frees me from the need to repeat whatever arguments I made there already. I will also add that one of my writeups there was arbitraly deleted by the site owner as too controversial (which is why I lost interest in e2 and moved on), though you still might be able to find it somewhere by applying your well-honed detective skills. :)
:) Just because a certain stage is bad taste doesn't prove that the one before it is too. :)))
:) It's half an attempt to make you angry and half a bad-taste joke.
But first things first. I disagree with you that panty shots are unnatural. For example, Hayao Miyazaki regularly includes panty shots of prepubescent girls just for the sake of it. Yeah, he directs anime, not real films, but this still suggests that may be, just may be a panty shot of a small girl is not evil (though some people like yourself immediately resort to calling Miyazaki a pedophile). As far as I remember my school years, the boys certainly weren't above oogling girls and (when opportunities arose) looking at their panty-covered areas. I heard that it's not uncommon in schools all over the worlds. While this doesn't prove that panty shots are good, it suggest that they are rather natural and probably not very harmful (if at all). And please don't use the slippery slope fallacies. We are not talking about rectums, we are talking about panty shots. There can be a gradation of disgusting photographs face->bare hands->belly->breasts->pubic area->vaginal lips->spread vagina->deep photo->endoscopic photo->x-ray scan.
Oh, so now I'm a closet child molestor because I disapprove of people ogling little girls? Very very interesting. I wonder if you'd have the balls to make that kind of accusation to my face, internet warrior.
Yes, I do and yes, you may be. Note, how I didn't say "closet child molestor", I said "latent pedophile" (i.e. the guy who may not even be consciously aware of it).
Tell you what - get into a relationship with someone messed up by childhood diddling
But not everyone, who has childhood diddling develops problems. One of my well-adjusted female friends first had sex in her tweens (pre-13), albeit not with an adult. Sex is not necessarily harmful and the only thing I object to is arbitrary statutory restrictions on sex. If someone tries to "mess up" a child, of course, arrest the guy/gal and try them at court. But first there has to be some evidence of "messing". I would even support compulsory psychiatric testing for each child-adult couple, but if the testing shows that both partners are fine, they should be allowed to pursue their relationship.
see at 15 your 15 year old female classmates who are supposedly mature, supposedly with it, hip and together modern women manipulated and screwed up by older men.
So what? I don't understand this one.
I've never seen a man of the age of consent, esp. in his 20s, who was interested in sniffing around the high school who didn't have some kind of serious problems relating to other people.
But they do exist. Yes, I admit that some pedophiles have psychological problems, but some do not. The fact is that the vast majority of cases of child abuse are perpetrated by non-pedophiles. So sex with kids is not necessarily connected with pedophilia, which is not necessarily connected with psychological problems. It's the same as with, say, gays. You can have sex with men and not be gay, you can be gay and not be mentally ill (though as recently as 50 years ago homosexuallity was barbarically "treated" with sex hormones).
I am still not happy with your strong suggestion I molest my daughter.
It is not fully serious.
And by the way, you might get away with that in Russia, but here most people would violently assault you for makin
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
For the record, I'm no dirty old man, I'm 17.
Right, a basic fact: The human body is biologically designed to be attracted to anyone who is past the age of puberty.
Sorry, but that's the way it is - we're designed to start breeding as soon as we hit puberty so we can further the species - this comes from the days when humans barely made it past 25 if they lived to their old age, and babies and such were likely to die before they got anywhere near double-figures, thus it was important to pump out as many kids as you possibly could in the short space of time there was availible. It was biologically neccessary and thus it occurred.
Therefore, I wouldn't call it 'sick' to be attracted to someone who was 14, 15, etc, especially if they *act* like adults - can you tell me an accurate way to differentiate between a 14-year-old who is physically mature and acts like an adult and an actual adult, short of asking their age? I'll give you a clue: there isn't one.
The real 'sickos', as you say it, are the ones that are attracted to kids *because* they're kids - 'paedophile' means 'lover of children'; they are sexually drawn to the innocence of children, the overt prepubescency - I'll cede to you, anyone who lusted after Emma Watson when she was 12 (either prepubescent or at the very early stages of it) may just fall into this category. Not so now she's 15. I had my first sexual experience when I was that age, and my girlfriend of the time was a year older - legal in Britain. Do you think she should have been arrested for child molestation? If you do, you're either against base humanity or simply incredibly naive. Just because the age of consent is 18 where you are, that doesn't mean that any girl under 18 is an innocent little girl and any man attracted to a girl under 18 is a steaming paedophile.
Law and your so-called 'morality' are simply conveniently ignoring reality, and while I agree perfectly with laws to keep middle-aged perverts apart from early-teen girls (as any decent person would), I would also argue they are too strict and fail to take nature into account - what sort of law or society would say that two 15-year-olds making love are raping each other, or that a 16-year-old lusting after a 15-year-old is a vile pervert? Sorry to jump into this interesting debate, but to my mind you're both equally wrong.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
RE: But first things first. I disagree with you that panty shots are unnatural. For example, Hayao Miyazaki
:) It's half an attempt to make you angry and half a bad-taste joke.
Don't quote the Japanese at me. As a culture it's sick. Buying used underwear from prepubescents in vanding machines... IIRC there's no age of consent at all there, which is why a lot of weird stuff, including children in bondage, is available over there. I may be wrong in this, but I don't want to investigate that avenue. All I know is that their cartoons are sick enough.
RE:I said "latent pedophile" (i.e. the guy who may not even be consciously aware of it).
Ah, the typical defence of the pervert "you mustn't like this because deep down you love it - so deep down even you don't know." Uh huh. Whatever.
RE: But they do exist. Yes, I admit that some pedophiles have psychological problems, but some do not.
You know what? There's something wrong with anyone trying to take children and put them into adult situations. Look at that kid, for example, whose father smacked him around and demanded he become this bodybuilder - making him pump iron even though his bones were still growing, etc. just so he could show him off. Likewise, sex is an adult thing - not a game. Not a pastime without consequences.
RE: It's the same as with, say, gays. You can have sex with men and not be gay,
Only in prison, maybe. If it's against your will.
RE: you can be gay and not be mentally ill (though as recently as 50 years ago homosexuallity was barbarically "treated" with sex hormones).
So, so you're saying in ten years if you get your way the idea of a forty year old with a twelve year old will be just another lifestyle choice? Over my dead body. The essential difference here, mate, is that gay men are adults. Two adult men want to do whatever they want with each other, fine. But kids are not physically or emotionally ready for this kind of thing, and they certainly aren't economically ready for some of the lifelong repercussions of their actions.
RE: It is not fully serious.
In certain groups I travel in, you would not have been able to finish that sentence. Once again I'm not threatening you - I'm just pointing out that while you're sitting here pontificating about liberty and well in Scandinavia they believe this, and logical fallacy that most people have a sense of right and wrong and pulling children into an adult arena for your own selfish pleasure IS WRONG. And many groups of people will hurt you or worse for making those kinds of statements. Because this isn't some intellectual game or some airy conjectures about life - this is people's lives. Grow up.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Don't quote the Japanese at me. As a culture it's sick.
Hayao Miyazaki makes some of the most family friendly and most touching films. His Spirited Away was awarded Oscar for Best Animated Film. It's not Japanese culture that is sick, it's American. A sick mixture of sexual innuendo and sexual inhibitions. Britney Spears is OK, salivating for Olsen twins is just fine, but panty shots of girls are sick. Psychiatrists have a name for it - it's "schizophrenia".
There's something wrong with anyone trying to take children and put them into adult situations.
I agree with you here. But what if a child is willing to get into that situation himself. Look, sex between children is normal. Normal, mentally and physically healthy kids can have sex as early as at 12-15 years. This is a fact of life, they do fuck that early. Boys and girls, sometimes boys and boys as well as girls and girls. And they have group sex too, you know. This is reality. Good, old-fashioned, physical reality, not just some pedophilic wet dreams. I am not saying that all kids do it, I am not saying it is always beneficial, what I am saying is that this is happening and apparently it's no big deal.
So what if some kid wants to have sex with a consenting adult? How is the sex different? All the arguments that you can state against it apply equally well in the situation of sex between children. And we have already established that it is ok, fine, legal and acceptable, even if not very good.
sex is an adult thing - not a game
Why is that? Because you say so? Kids can have sex just fine and they do. And for many of them it's a game. And usually there are no bad consequences. In most cases there is no pregnancy, in most cases there are no STDs. In most cases there is no lifelong trauma.
Only in prison, maybe. If it's against your will.
You might want to read up on the subject. Yes, it is possible to have consensual sex with men, even if you are not gay. You can be bisexual or even straight.
So, so you're saying in ten years if you get your way the idea of a forty year old with a twelve year old will be just another lifestyle choice?
No, I am not. It won't happen very soon, because some western societies are so preoccupied with pedophiles. That doesn't change the fact that sex with children is not always bad.
But kids are not physically or emotionally ready for this kind of thing, and they certainly aren't economically ready for some of the lifelong repercussions of their actions.
This is a logical fallacy. In fact, several fallacies.
First, kids are ready for sex in the sense that they are having sex all the time. Second, readiness is not a prerequisite. Some adults are not emotionally or economically ready for sex and its repercussions, but they are still allowed to have it. Third, the repercussions do not necessarily have to follow. If you use a condom or another contraceptive option, you can avoid pregnancy and I don't know what else you need to be economically ready for. Conclusion - you argument is thrice false.
In certain groups I travel in, you would not have been able to finish that sentence.
I choose not to travel in such groups. I very much like the environment I am (and was) in and I do not intend to radically change it. I am aware that there are a lot of people and groups that I wouldn't like (or would outright hate), but I am confident in my ability to generally avoid them. And when I can't, I will take heed of what I am saying, thanks for the advice again.
And many groups of people will hurt you or worse for making those kinds of statements. Because this isn't some intellectual game or some airy conjectures about life - this is people's lives.
No, not because of this. But because they are simple-minded illiterate morons, who are programmed a certain way and don't have a functional brain in their head. But as I said, I don't find the company of such people intellectually or emotionally stimulating, so I let them stay in their ghettos or wherever they usually hang.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
RE: Hayao Miyazaki makes some of the most family friendly and most touching films.
So what? He's still a voyeuristic pederast like many of his contemporaries. Walt Disney made some nice films but it didn't change the fact that he was a virulent anti-Semite.
RE: His Spirited Away was awarded Oscar for Best Animated Film.
Would this be the same Hollywood that supports Roman "drugged and raped a little girl" Polanski?
RE: It's not Japanese culture that is sick, it's American. A sick mixture of sexual innuendo and sexual inhibitions. Britney Spears is OK, salivating for Olsen twins is just fine, but panty shots of girls are sick. Psychiatrists have a name for it - it's "schizophrenia".
I'm not for Olsen Twins or Britney Spears either. We need to cleanse our culture of this kind of vileness.
RE: I agree with you here. But what if a child is willing to get into that situation himself.
That doesn't make it right to exploit that for selfish purposes or to get kids involved in stuff they have no business in either. My three year old son would really like to ride my Harley Davidson. He's not old enough to yet, not legally and he doesn't have the balance to stay on, never mind the neck strength to keep from being killed or worse in an accident. So like a mature adult, I say NO.
RE: I am not saying that all kids do it, I am not saying it is always beneficial, what I am saying is that this is happening and apparently it's no big deal.
No, it is a big deal. What people do vs what they should do are two different things.
RE: So what if some kid wants to have sex with a consenting adult? How is the sex different? All the arguments that you can state against it apply equally well in the situation of sex between children. And we have already established that it is ok, fine, legal and acceptable, even if not very good.
No, I said age appropriate - not acceptable or good. It's one thing to be 15 and with someone of the same age group. It's another to be 29 trolling for 14 year olds.
RE: in most cases there are no STDs. In most cases there is no lifelong trauma.
You naive fool. I will find the studies and present them to you. But suffice it to say this sort of thing leaves lifelong scars. Ask Alanis Morrissette, who regrets being tossed around, as a willing 12 year old, between groups of predatory men even though she was willing at the time.
RE: You might want to read up on the subject. Yes, it is possible to have consensual sex with men, even if you are not gay. You can be bisexual or even straight.
What does this have to do with the discussion?
RE: No, I am not. It won't happen very soon, because some western societies are so preoccupied with pedophiles. That doesn't change the fact that sex with children is not always bad.
Murder isn't always bad, either, but we've a law against it for a damn good reason. Same as for laws that protect children.
RE: First, kids are ready for sex in the sense that they are having sex all the time.
Physically ready != emotionally ready
RE: Second, readiness is not a prerequisite. Some adults are not emotionally or economically ready for sex and its repercussions, but they are still allowed to have it.
Yer right - readiness isn't technically a prerequisite. You can always use force. As for adults - that doesn't mean they should.
RE: Third, the repercussions do not necessarily have to follow. If you use a condom or another contraceptive option,
Which can fail
RE: you can avoid pregnancy
Abortions for ten year olds. Great. That's the kind of childhood experience it'd take a liberal therapist to justify, huh?
RE: but I am confident in my ability to generally avoid them. And when I can't, I will take heed of what I am saying, thanks for the advice again.
Very good. And stay away from my kids.
RE: so I let them stay in their ghettos or wherever they usually hang.
Ah, the "you are uncultured/stupid because you do not agree with my perversion" lie. Whatever. Tell you what, you see how many people who aren't sick in the head agree with you. Very few.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
White. With little blue flowers...
So what? He's still a voyeuristic pederast like many of his contemporaries. Walt Disney made some nice films but it didn't change the fact that he was a virulent anti-Semite.
The difference is that Miyazaki's films are considered great films for children and the whole family. They are usually highly acclaimed and rated G in the US, meaning that the majority of people do no consider panty shots of little girls (at least in animation) a horrible abomination. You are in the minority.
Would this be the same Hollywood that supports Roman "drugged and raped a little girl" Polanski?
First, I'd say that the good of his films overweights one mistake. Second, what the society and the media did to Geimer was much worse than what Polanski did.
That doesn't make it right to exploit that for selfish purposes or to get kids involved in stuff they have no business in either. My three year old son would really like to ride my Harley Davidson. He's not old enough to yet, not legally and he doesn't have the balance to stay on, never mind the neck strength to keep from being killed or worse in an accident. So like a mature adult, I say NO.
Logical fallacy again. We are not talking about 3-year old kids riding HDs. We are talking about 12-15 kids, who already have sex with each other, having sex with an adult. They are already "invoved in stuff". What you are saying doesn't make any sense.
No, it is a big deal. What people do vs what they should do are two different things.
Who are you to decide? Children have sex, it's legal and it's accepted by the society (except by the same wackos who oppose gay marriage too). So it's not a big deal (you don't get to decide what is and what isn't a big deal - society does).
No, I said age appropriate - not acceptable or good. It's one thing to be 15 and with someone of the same age group. It's another to be 29 trolling for 14 year olds.
Logical fallacy again. I was talking about how there is no significant difference for the kid to sleep with another 15 year old or with a 25 year old.
You naive fool. I will find the studies and present them to you. But suffice it to say this sort of thing leaves lifelong scars. Ask Alanis Morrissette, who regrets being tossed around, as a willing 12 year old, between groups of predatory men even though she was willing at the time.
Of course, you can find studies. It's because the society is outraged at correct science and tries to ban controversial research such as Rind's study. So any researcher demonstrating that sex with children is not as horrible as anyone believes is going to have almost as much respect as Polansky. That doesn't change the reality - there are many cases, where there is no trauma. There is extremely strong correlation between coercion and trauma. If the child is not forced, but is allowed to do what he/she is comfortable with, there is usually no trauma. This is reality, this is a fact, no matter how much you may dislike it.
Murder isn't always bad, either, but we've a law against it for a damn good reason. Same as for laws that protect children.
Are you really incapable of thinking rationally or does it just look that way? Murder is always bad, that's why we have a law against it. There can be extenuating circumstances, but it doesn't change the fact that murder is bad. Furthermore, the whole point that you seem to be unable to comprehend is that the existence of laws against something doesn't make it always bad. Sex with children is one such case. I am not arguing that it's legal, because it's usually not, I am arguing that it's not bad. If you can't understand what we are talking about and insist on something totally obvious and unrelelated, you are clearly stupid.
Physically ready != emotionally ready
Thank you, Captain Obvious. But they are emotionally ready too. The fact that they do have sex proves that they are ready. Except, of course, by your own definition of ready, which means someone isn'
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
RE: The difference is that Miyazaki's films are considered great films for children and the whole family.
By the "wanna sniff little girl panties" Japanese.
RE: They are usually highly acclaimed
By geek loser white guys who are into animated kiddie porn
RE: and rated G in the US, meaning that the majority of people do no consider panty shots of little girls (at least in animation) a horrible abomination. You are in the minority.
Or, which is more likely - that the rating system is screwed up. Used to be G-rated films didn't contain scatological humor, fart jokes, etc. In fact, here's a shocker - the Tom Green film "Freddy Got Fingered" was rated R even though in the film he masturbates a horse, which is supposed to make that film unviewable.
RE: First, I'd say that the good of his films overweights one mistake.
So the deliberate drugging rape and sodomy of a little girl is a "mistake"?
RE: We are talking about 12-15 kids, who already have sex with each other, having sex with an adult.
And for starters, I'm saying the 12-15yr olds shouldn't be having sex - not that that makes it right for you to go in and exploit that and them for your own selfish pleasure. You wiggled out of that one. Just because someone wants to do something or is doing something doesn't make it right. According to your argument it wasn't wrong to give little 9 year old Drew Barrymore drugs cause she wanted them and she was already doing them.
RE: Who are you to decide? Children have sex, it's legal
Exemptions and exceptions in the law are made for age-appropriate behaviour. That does not mean that it is OK nor should those laws be expanded to let YOU in.
RE: and it's accepted by the society (except by the same wackos who oppose gay marriage too). So
I think you'll find most people think 12 is too young to be fooling around. The wackos want their kids locked up til marraige. The normal people expect some kind of peer experimentation. Sickos like you want anyone to have a fair crack at em.
RE: it's not a big deal (you don't get to decide what is and what isn't a big deal - society does).
Well, mate - that's what the law says now - and I didn't write the laws. Society did. You're the one trying to change em for your own selfish purposes.
RE: Logical fallacy again. I was talking about how there is no significant difference for the kid to sleep with another 15 year old or with a 25 year old.
Yes there absolutely is. No question. Heck, there are serious emotional and psychological differences between the 15 year old and the 18 year old, never mind the 15 year old and the 25 year old.
RE: tries to ban controversial research such as Rind's study.
This would be the "objective" group of researchers that included a kiddy diddler in their midst? Rind's study has been debunked. One of its major "findings" was asserted with no corroborating data, the notion of "consent" was mishandled - that study has been debunked on its own failings not hysteria.
RE: So any researcher demonstrating that sex with children is not as horrible as anyone believes is
going to have almost as much respect as Polansky.
That's cause noone can do it. They can try and lie to suit their own purposes, as Rind did.
RE: If the child is not forced, but is allowed to do what he/she is comfortable with, there is usually no trauma. This is reality, this is a fact, no matter how much you may dislike it.
There are certain things you don't get. There are well known repercussions of childhood sex with adults whether "trauma" is involved a lot. Kids learn, and learn deep, that sex is important, very very very important - that it will attract people to you and keep them with you. They've found a very significant correlation between childhood interludes of this sort and very dysfunctional behaviours like drug use and problems with adult relationships. Look at Michael Jackson, whose entire adult life is FUCKED because he h
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
By the "wanna sniff little girl panties" Japanese.
Wrong, by moviegoers all over the world and by MPAA rating commissions.
By geek loser white guys who are into animated kiddie porn
Wrong, by members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Or, which is more likely - that the rating system is screwed up.
Wrong.. I guess all the same it's because the majority of people do no consider panty shots of little girls a horrible abomination.
So the deliberate drugging rape and sodomy of a little girl is a "mistake"?
Do you think it wasn't? And Polansky wasn't charged with drugging rape or sodiomy, only with "statutory rape" (which isn't really rape), actually, because the mother of a little girl asked to drop the charges. The girl's little son actually thinks that "it's "cool" that mom's been on TV" and the girl doesn't feel angry or hateful and thinks Polansky "is a really good director".
And for starters, I'm saying the 12-15yr olds shouldn't be having sex - not that that makes it right for you to go in and exploit that and them for your own selfish pleasure.
This is not up to you, so STFU. They do have sex, they will have sex and the society thinks it's ok. So shut up about that, would you?
You wiggled out of that one. Just because someone wants to do something or is doing something doesn't make it right.
First, it's not for you to decide. Second, something not being right doesn't mean it should be a crime. Being a moron on Slashdot is not right, but I am not trying to charge you with that in the court.
According to your argument it wasn't wrong to give little 9 year old Drew Barrymore drugs cause she wanted them and she was already doing them.
You are a moron, sorry. You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass. Don't try to draw analogies, they are too complex for your simple mind. Answering the correct question - in the hypothetical situation where it was legal for Drew to possess and use drugs, where it was legal for adults to distribute drugs, it would be ok for an adult to give drugs to Drew.
Exemptions and exceptions in the law are made for age-appropriate behaviour. That does not mean that it is OK nor should those laws be expanded to let YOU in.
Are you an idiot? I wasn't talking about that. Try to read my posts at least 4-5 times, you don't seem to get it on the first reading.
I think you'll find most people think 12 is too young to be fooling around. The wackos want their kids locked up til marraige. The normal people expect some kind of peer experimentation. Sickos like you want anyone to have a fair crack at em.
You don't make any sense.
Well, mate - that's what the law says now - and I didn't write the laws. Society did. You're the one trying to change em for your own selfish purposes.
Are you stupid or what? I was saying that it's legal for kids to have sex and it is. RTFL.
Yes there absolutely is. No question.
Well, since I am questioning it, there IS a question. And you haven't yet explained what difference there is. I guess it's because you are a moron and can't realise that you are not making any sense. Whoever programmed your little brain did a decent job at deleting any capabilities for logical reasoning that you might have had at some point.
Heck, there are serious emotional and psychological differences between the 15 year old and the 18 year old, never mind the 15 year old and the 25 year old.
As well as between the 18 year old and the 60 year old. And your point is?
This would be the "objective" group of researchers that included a kiddy diddler in their midst? Rind's study has been debunked. One of its major "findings" was asserted with no corroborating data, the notion of "consent" was mishandled - that study has been debunked on its own failings not hysteria.
Oh, really? Wasn't it Congress that did the debunking with it's damnation declar
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.