Austin students want professor fired for writings on age of consent; UT says it’s protected speech

[Mappable 37]

Tommy Boy has a YouTube Channel.

 

[deadshank 24653]

5 minutes ago, Mappable said:

Tommy Boy has a YouTube Channel.

 

Is there a Reader's Digest version?

[Brisketexan 105192]

2 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Is there a Reader's Digest version?

Sure: "boys...I'd like to fuck 'em."  

I mean, I presume that's what he's saying.  I sure as hell ain't gonna watch it.

[Pato del Muerto 52553]

Slavery was socially accepted in much if not all of the world at one time or another throughout history. 
what do you suppose would happen if a UT professor decided to open a conversation about how we should maybe look at bringing slavery back?

[Brisketexan 105192]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

what do you suppose would happen if a UT professor decided to open a conversation about how we should maybe look at bringing slavery back?

[no CR] He'd end up with his own opinion show on Fox News?  [/no CR]

[Huckleberry 33057]

I think a better analogy would be allowing 14 year olds to sign themselves into indentured servitude contracts. I mean they have to willingly consent to it, so what's the problem?

[Rougarou 594]

Someone look at the title of the course he teaches and we will all understand where the liberal arts is worthless memes are born. 

[TwiceHorn 31517]

1 hour ago, irishtexan said:

Makes sense. Like that dumb fuck court clerk lady who wouldn't process the gay marriage certificate because God hates fags.

That is getting to the periphery of it. If she refuses to do her job that's getting toward unprotected expression/speech.  And then you drag the religion angle into it.  That gets pretty complicated.  Actions may be expressions, which may be speech, which may be protected against government reprisal.

A more apt example might be this.  https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2019/11/26/fort-worth-teacher-fired-after-anti-immigrant-tweets-to-trump-wins-appeal/.  That's pretty simple.  Clearly speech, clearly obnoxious, pretty clearly also protected.

I don't support pedophiles or pederasts or kiddie diddling or any criminal behavior.  That doesn't mean that a lot of our laws affecting this stuff shouldn't be seriously reconsidered in light of what we know now. When you think about the voting/drinking/draft/age of majority and how it came to be what it is, you can see what an untethered dog's breakfast it is.  Hell, once you start looking at it hard, some of the ages probably go up.

Edited December 5, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[irishtexan 11522]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is getting to the periphery of it. If she refuses to do her job that's getting toward unprotected expression/speech.  And then you drag the religion angle into it.  That gets pretty complicated.  Actions may be expressions, which may be speech, which may be protected against government reprisal.

A more apt example might be this.  https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2019/11/26/fort-worth-teacher-fired-after-anti-immigrant-tweets-to-trump-wins-appeal/.  That's pretty simple.  Clearly speech, clearly obnoxious, pretty clearly also protected.

I don't support pedophiles or pederasts or kiddie diddling or any criminal behavior.  That doesn't mean that a lot of our laws affecting this stuff shouldn't be seriously reconsidered in light of what we know now. When you think about the voting/drinking/draft/age of majority and how it came to be what it is, you can see what an untethered dog's breakfast it is.

Oh yeah. Fuck that lady too.

[DaysOff 7966]

The face of the tenured professor. Apologies to BV.

[Brisketexan 105192]

6 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

The face of the tenured professor. Apologies to BV.

I don't know you. Who is this? Don't come here, I'm hanging up the phone! Prank caller, prank caller!

[Anastasis 23481]

5 hours ago, Mappable said:

Hubbard rebukes the idea he writes about pedophilia. Instead, he says, he discusses the phenomenon of "pederasty,"

Imagine using this rebuke as a defense of your life's work. 

[Brisketexan 105192]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Imagine using this rebuke as a defense of your life's work. 

Some of us don't have to imagine.

[G650 14273]

3 hours ago, Xian said:

so, I researched him some.  Let’s just say he looks exactly like you expected. 
 

UT profile
 

one creepy MFer 

Oof.

[El Diablo 4232]

1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

I wonder if he is reasoning is influenced by writings like the novel, The last of the wine that takes place in Athens and features Socrates as a character. 

I remember stumbling onto this book in high school and being intrigued by the male homosexuality that figured prominently in it. The gist of the plot were that young dudes were courted by older men like they were debutantes and that they were encouraged to learn honor, courage, and dignity from the older man. But isn't that what a dad is for? Why do you have to be butt fucked to learn these things? 

 

 

We as a society don't even blink at the idea of snipping boys weenies. Proponents will argue that it's for hygienic reasons. I'm not so sure about that. 

Just to say, some god prolly told 'em to buttfuck the little bastards.

[G650 14273]

Keep your gross ass uncircumcised dick out of this.

[formermav43 4606]

2 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

Lots of things were culturally "normal" hundreds/thousands of years ago that no longer make any sense in our current culture.  What a strangely stupid argument for a philosophy professor to be making. 

By the same token, lots of things that were once considered sexually deviant-not hundreds or thousands of years ago, but within the lifetime of people posting on this thread-are now accepted, even celebrated. I’m not sure what the criteria is to make THIS particular issue somehow beyond the pale of academic discussion in our current culture. 

[Sandman 3410]

1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

Why do you have to be butt fucked to learn these things? 

 

 

Teenaged boys are notoriously lazy. Maybe he wants them to do the pitching, teach them some work ethic? "You won't be able to lay there and get fucked your whole life, Jeffrey. Eventually you'll have to put forth some goddamn effort!". 

[TwiceHorn 31517]

After reviewing his university profile, this guy's head is so far up his academic ass, I don't think you can take too much about him seriously.  Ivory tower, indeed.

[Brisketexan 105192]

2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

By the same token, lots of things that were once considered sexually deviant-not hundreds or thousands of years ago, but within the lifetime of people posting on this thread-are now accepted, even celebrated. I’m not sure what the criteria is to make THIS particular issue somehow beyond the pale of academic discussion in our current culture. 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

After reviewing his university profile, this guy's head is so far up his academic ass, I don't think you can take too much about him seriously.  Ivory tower, indeed.

And....yeah.  Seriously, his roster of classes taught and published works.....it's a "liberal arts is a joke" meme that doesn't require a single edit or embellishment.

[UDontKnow 10447]

32 minutes ago, G650 said:

Keep your gross ass uncircumcised dick out of this.

Noted. You like your dicks without prepuce.

[TwiceHorn 31517]

1 minute ago, formermav43 said:

By the same token, lots of things that were once considered sexually deviant-not hundreds or thousands of years ago, but within the lifetime of people posting on this thread-are now accepted, even celebrated. I’m not sure what the criteria is to make THIS particular issue somehow beyond the pale of academic discussion in our current culture. 

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm driving at.  Most of our grandparents, or greatgrandparents, were married in their teens, at ages that would be considered scandalous if not illegal today.  They mostly turned out ok.

On the other hand, there's lots of psychological evidence about the trauma incurred by child sexual abuse victims.  And adult sexual abuse victims. That may be more about power and betrayal than the actual sexual activity, though.

And there's still further evidence that humans aren't psychologically mature until about 25.

It's deserving of some consideration.

[formermav43 4606]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm driving at.  Most of our grandparents, or greatgrandparents, were married in their teens, at ages that would be considered scandalous if not illegal today.  They mostly turned out ok.

On the other hand, there's lots of psychological evidence about the trauma incurred by child sexual abuse victims.  And adult sexual abuse victims. That may be more about power and betrayal than the actual sexual activity, though.

And there's still further evidence that humans aren't psychologically mature until about 25.

It's deserving of some consideration.

Exactly. And, to your point, my great-grandmother was married at 14 and gave birth to my granddad at 16.

[G650 14273]

1 minute ago, formermav43 said:

Exactly. And, to your point, my great-grandmother was married at 14 and gave birth to my granddad at 16.

Yeah, my grandmother had my aunt and mom at 16 and 17 years old respectively

[BigHorn'13 3385]

Never heard of the concept "mental masturbation" until I went to UT. This guy strikes me as one of them, and hides behind his diplomas and accolades as if he's speaking some foreign language to the rest of us. 

No, doc. 14 is still an age that's premature. And the fact that you advocate/ endorse/ promote such an idea is sickening as a graduate. 

[Deej 76876]

Good thing his class doesn't have a lab section.

[LABEVO 928]

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

 

[hookem17 485]

He’s just trying to keep Austin weird. 

[immortal13 4059]

He needs to be cut loose by the University 

[Helobious 9464]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

14-16 year olds are absolutely children in our society legally speaking. 

Not really. That’s old enough to be charged as an adult for murder. I always thought it was stupid how the law says you’re old enough to be punished as an adult but not old enough to decide who you want to have sex with. Either lower the age of consent to 14, or (preferably IMO) raise the age you’re eligible to be charged as an adult to 16/17. 

[immortal13 4059]

1 minute ago, Helobious said:

Not really. That’s old enough to be charged as an adult for murder. I always thought it was stupid how the law says you’re old enough to be punished as an adult but not old enough to decide who you want to have sex with. Either lower the age of consent to 14, or (preferably IMO) raise the age you’re eligible to be charged as an adult to 16/17. 

[Brisketexan 105192]

1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

Don't know why you're looking askance.  He raises a valid point.  We're just talking about decisions here.

Decision to have sex with someone - no way, no how can a 15 yr old be competent to make that decision.

Decision to stab someone -- you bet, they are responsible for that.

I'd suggest that a young person is more competent to make a LESSER decision than a GREATER decision.  Let's stairstep it up: 1) decision to eat a snack, 2) decision to go outside and throw the football with a friend, 3) decision to ride a bike up to the 7-11 and buy a slurpee, 4) decision to perform poorly in school, 5) decision to make out with your girlfriend, 6) decision to have sex with your girlfriend, 7) decision to have sex with your 19 yr old girlfriend, 😎 decision to steal electronics from someone's home, 9) decision to kill someone.

At 15, you are competent to make decisions 1-6, and can be held legally responsible for 8-9....but decision 7, well, nope, you cannot possibly consent to that.  Something seems wacky there.

[immortal13 4059]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't know why you're looking askance.  He raises a valid point.  We're just talking about decisions here.

Decision to have sex with someone - no way, no how can a 15 yr old be competent to make that decision.

Decision to stab someone -- you bet, they are responsible for that.

I'd suggest that a young person is more competent to make a LESSER decision than a GREATER decision.  Let's stairstep it up: 1) decision to eat a snack, 2) decision to go outside and throw the football with a friend, 3) decision to ride a bike up to the 7-11 and buy a slurpee, 4) decision to perform poorly in school, 5) decision to make out with your girlfriend, 6) decision to have sex with your girlfriend, 7) decision to have sex with your 19 yr old girlfriend, 😎 decision to steal electronics from someone's home, 9) decision to kill someone.

At 15, you are competent to make decisions 1-6, and can be held legally responsible for 8-9....but decision 7, well, nope, you cannot possibly consent to that.  Something seems wacky there.

And a two year old can make a decision to lick a lollipop. Should we also allow them to lick your dick if they choose to do so?

[formermav43 4606]

3 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

And a two year old can make a decision to lick a lollipop. Should we also allow them to lick your dick if they choose to do so?

Should we disallow a 20 year old if they choose to do so?

[Brisketexan 105192]

4 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

And a two year old can make a decision to lick a lollipop. Should we also allow them to lick your dick if they choose to do so?

Probably not.

My point wasn't why we draw the line at number 7.  It's why we un-draw it again at numbers 8 and 9.  If you are NOT competent to choose to have sex, and cannot be responsible for that choice....how can you be responsible for choices that are more serious, like committing a serious crime?

Either you are a minor who is not competent to make serious decisions (and we seem to draw that line somewhere below "have sex with an adult"), or you are competent to make those decisions and thus should be held responsible for them.

I'm suggesting that what's underneath the dividing line is not a concept of competence and responsibility of the actor at all.

[Samson's Wig 3194]

52 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Exactly. And, to your point, my great-grandmother was married at 14 and gave birth to my granddad at 16.

Was your great-grandfather a much older man?  If not, I don't see how that has anything to do with professor numnuts' argument.

Brisket went to the well trodden discussion about 19 year olds having sex with minors only a couple of years younger than them.  Most states have romeo/juliet exceptions to consent laws for just such situations.   This professor is advocating that old dudes should get to bang young teens.  This has nothing to do with teenagers/young folks having sex or your grandmother having kids young.  Teenagers still have babies young, it's not like that only happened in the old days.  But we've largely moved past old leches getting to have their way with young boys and girls.  I don't think that has anything to do with being prude, or Victorian values ruining everyone's good time.  We just didn't have the same societal structure in place to protect innocents until relatively recently.

This academic twat should absolutely be able to prattle on about whatever the fuck he wants to, and he should be free to do so with out government interference.  And of course what the age of consent should be is a discussion worth having.  However, freedom of speech doesn't me you're free from all consequences for your opinions.  And his opinions absolutely merit the action by the students, and now that they're becoming better known will likely result in some more dire consequences for him at some point.  No way that guy hasn't trolled for young boys somewhere.  Guys like that, at least those that haven't hid out in the Catholic or Southern Baptist church, tend to run into an angry father or two eventually.

[TwiceHorn 31517]

23 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Not really. That’s old enough to be charged as an adult for murder. I always thought it was stupid how the law says you’re old enough to be punished as an adult but not old enough to decide who you want to have sex with. Either lower the age of consent to 14, or (preferably IMO) raise the age you’re eligible to be charged as an adult to 16/17. 

Yuuup.  It's not just the age of consent for sex, it's all kinds of ages that are fairly arbitrary.

I mean the voting age was established at 21, which kind of seems possibly appropriate, but then the draft was 18 for different reasons and so we had to even them up.  Same with drinking age.  And so 18 kind of arbitrarily became the age of majority for most purposes, but it seems a little high for fuckin, so we knocked a year off, some places two, some places more.

And it's absurd that fucking a 16 year and 364 day old is a sex offense felony, but if you wait a day, it's not.

And so on and so forth.  It's not rational.

[formermav43 4606]

2 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

Was your great-grandfather a much older man?  If not, I don't see how that has anything to do with professor numnuts' argument.

Brisket went to the well trodden discussion about 19 year olds having sex with minors only a couple of years younger than them.  Most states have romeo/juliet exceptions to consent laws for just such situations.   This professor is advocating that old dudes should get to bang young teens.  This has nothing to do with teenagers/young folks having sex or your grandmother having kids young.  Teenagers still have babies young, it's not like that only happened in the old days.  But we've largely moved past old leches getting to have their way with young boys and girls.  I don't think that has anything to do with being prude, or Victorian values ruining everyone's good time.  We just didn't have the same societal structure in place to protect innocents until relatively recently.

This academic twat should absolutely be able to prattle on about whatever the fuck he wants to, and he should be free to do so with out government interference.  And of course what the age of consent should be is a discussion worth having.  However, freedom of speech doesn't me you're free from all consequences for your opinions.  And his opinions absolutely merit the action by the students, and now that they're becoming better known will likely result in some more dire consequences for him at some point.  No way that guy hasn't trolled for young boys somewhere.  Guys like that, at least those that haven't hid out in the Catholic or Southern Baptist church, tend to run into an angry father or two eventually.

He was 19. Is that too old? Is 20? 25? 30? How young is too young? 

You’ve conceded that there’s a discussion worth having on age of consent. Now we’re just haggling over price. 

[TwiceHorn 31517]

1 minute ago, Samson's Wig said:

Was your great-grandfather a much older man?  If not, I don't see how that has anything to do with professor numnuts' argument.

Brisket went to the well trodden discussion about 19 year olds having sex with minors only a couple of years younger than them.  Most states have romeo/juliet exceptions to consent laws for just such situations.   This professor is advocating that old dudes should get to bang young teens.  This has nothing to do with teenagers/young folks having sex or your grandmother having kids young.  Teenagers still have babies young, it's not like that only happened in the old days.  But we've largely moved past old leches getting to have their way with young boys and girls.  I don't think that has anything to do with being prude, or Victorian values ruining everyone's good time.  We just didn't have the same societal structure in place to protect innocents until relatively recently.

This academic twat should absolutely be able to prattle on about whatever the fuck he wants to, and he should be free to do so with out government interference.  And of course what the age of consent should be is a discussion worth having.  However, freedom of speech doesn't me you're free from all consequences for your opinions.  And his opinions absolutely merit the action by the students, and now that they're becoming better known will likely result in some more dire consequences for him at some point.  No way that guy hasn't trolled for young boys somewhere.  Guys like that, at least those that haven't hid out in the Catholic or Southern Baptist church, tend to run into an angry father or two eventually.

The age difference implies, but does not prove, coercion by the older person.

You make a broad assumption that all or most relationships involving a younger partner are coercive.  I have no doubt that some are, but I'm not good with the generalization.

We have all internalized 18 (or 17) as some magic number, but it doesn't in any meaningful way safeguard the 18 or 17 or 16 year old from predatory or coercive relationships

The notion that we have a "societal structure in place to protect innocents" is self-congratulatory bullshit of the purest ray serene.  Straight from the school of facile thinking that brought us "who will think of the children" and "tough on crime."

All that said, bright line rules like age of consent are useful for these sorts of things, but they are highly unsatisfactory in terms of addressing even the general case.

[TwiceHorn 31517]

2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

He was 19. Is that too old? Is 20? 25? 30? How young is too young? 

You’ve conceded that there’s a discussion worth having on age of consent. Now we’re just haggling over price. 

Out of rep.  For you and several others.

[Pato del Muerto 52553]

18 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Should we disallow a 20 year old if they choose to do so?

Definitive no on this one. 

[StassneyHorn 6624]

Is this the same argument that Milo Y put forward that got him cancelled? If I remember right he was 13 or 14 and was banging a priest but said it wasn’t weird and was good for him.

[Dahobbs 17634]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hell, once you start looking at it hard, some of the ages probably go up.

Are we still doing phrasing?

[Samson's Wig 3194]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The age difference implies, but does not prove, coercion by the older person.

You make a broad assumption that all or most relationships involving a younger partner are coercive.  I have no doubt that some are, but I'm not good with the generalization.

We have all internalized 18 (or 17) as some magic number, but it doesn't in any meaningful way safeguard the 18 or 17 or 16 year old from predatory or coercive relationships

The notion that we have a "societal structure in place to protect innocents" is self-congratulatory bullshit of the purest ray serene.  Straight from the school of facile thinking that brought us "who will think of the children" and "tough on crime."

All that said, bright line rules like age of consent are useful for these sorts of things, but they are highly unsatisfactory in terms of addressing even the general case.

I agree with your bolded statement above.  Poorly worded on my part.  But even just acknowledging that the way kids, and women, were treated as no more than commodities, and attempting to take action to prevent it is a large step in the right direction from where we were even one hundred years ago, pablum or not.  Workplace regulations, rape related batter laws, and age of consent laws have all been attempts to draw a line in the sand, and have no doubt improved conditions from what they were.  But if we're going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we may as well just throw up our hands and tell predators to have at the kids without concern for consequences.

[BigHorn'13 3385]

18 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Is this the same argument that Milo Y put forward that got him cancelled? If I remember right he was 13 or 14 and was banging a priest but said it wasn’t weird and was good for him.

Even further proving that one student's quote correct. 

Maybe this is case in point why it shouldn't be lowered.

"Milo Yahblahblakis was molested as a child. He turned out ok." Just isn't a compelling argument. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by BigHorn'13
Derp

[Doc Reeves 6434]

7 hours ago, Xian said:

Yeahhh. So I clicked the thread thinking the students were over reacting.  After reading the article, I’m not sure they are. 
 

 

Got a NAMBLA vibe too

[Samson's Wig 3194]

23 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

He was 19. Is that too old? Is 20? 25? 30? How young is too young? 

You’ve conceded that there’s a discussion worth having on age of consent. Now we’re just haggling over price. 

Again, sex amongst similarly aged youngsters shouldn't be a problem for anybody, and while it's where this discussion has gone it's not where it started, which was an argument that a fully developed adult having sex with a young teen is perfectly normal.  As for where to draw the line, maybe ask yourself this:  How young would professor boy have to be to come over and stick his dick in your fourteen year old kid without you beating the shit out of him?

If science means much of anything the age of consent should be raised, not lowered.

[Armybrat 40862]

Fuck NAMBLA, but some students tend to get in hysterics at the drop of a hat over over more innocuous things.

Nothing new, saw the same mentality in the early 1960s when integration cranked up.

[Deej 76876]

50 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

And a two year old can make a decision to lick a lollipop. Should we also allow them to lick your dick if they choose to do so?

[MissingInAction 25152]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No. Public employees get to vent their spleens about all manner of idiocy, japery, and mopery without employment ramifications.

This is true. I would have been unemployed long ago were it not.