Sex with an Underaged Boy in Canada

[Eric]

sorry for the all caps - truly didn't realize it was rude, i often use all caps so as not to use the shift key - but no more caps then !!

[Eric]

i think this is a very thoughtful reflection - thanks for being bold to share it - it does also in a way answer my (rude) 'all-caps' question somewhere up above in response to Athan - whether there is a connection between his experience as a child and the fact he is an escort in that the earlier incident of losing one's 'innocence' early can affect one's point of view about his own body and use of it sexually and then prompt him to become a prostitute, albeit a 'high-class' one. again, i'm sure he's a great guy and all!

[woodlawn]

> Expressing sympathy for a public figure in

>Florida who tried to meet a 15 year old on the Internet and

>hoping he got the support of his family and friends was

>consistent with my Christian upbringing and the teachings of

>Jesus. While I am no longer a practicing Christian, some

>habits die hard.

 

It is rather odd, in light of your explanation above, that the sympathy you have expressed on these occasions has always been for the adult who attempted to have sex with the boy and not for the boy he attempted to exploit. What was it you said about the weatherman who was trying to seduce the 14-year-old online? Didn't you say that kids of that age have sex all the time and that we shouldn't get bent out of shape about it because "Life is messy," or words to that effect? That doesn't seem very "Christian" to me.

[trilingual]

RE: Innocent Children

 

So much of what has been written on this board on this topic (and so much similar drivel elsewhere) seem to be based on the mythology of childhood "innocence." There is a considerable literature showing that this is a concept that emerged in the Victorian era, which had a sick need to romanticize and prettify everything. Needless to say, being an artifact of the Victorian period, it has taken hold most strongly in the English-speaking countries. Nevertheless, not even the hypocritical Victorians believed in this stuff: it was also the era of the Industrial Revolution and they had no compunctions about "innocent children" slaving away in the dark Satanic mills of the 19th Century. Of course, the "innocent angels" they had in mind were the protected children of the aristocracy and plutocracy. They didn't give a shit about the children of the poor. Just re-read your Charles Dickens for a much more realistic view of what life was like for the majority of "innocent" kids in Victorian times.

 

Historically, childhood was a very short period of time, indeed, in periods when overall life expectancies also were short. By the time a child was 4 or 5, and no longer completely dependent on its mother, it was common for a child to begin working to help support the family. The skill level of the work may have been low for younger children, but they were still expected to work, and as they grew older they advanced to more complicated and arduous tasks. This is still the case in the poorer countries of the world. Children in such countries may be young in a chronological sense, but they are adults in most meanings of the word, unless they're the protected and sheltered kids of the wealthy.

 

Meanwhile, the idea of childhood innocence keeps producing endless Hallmark-style pablum in countries like the U.S. Reality is different. Ask any schoolteacher or juvenile justice official just how "innocent" kids really are. As for the posters here who drip venom over the subject of sex with adolescents, I'm willing to warrant that the vast majority of them are also loud, vicious proponents of lowering the age of majority for juvenile criminal liability and wept bitter tears when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled executions of minors unconstitutional. And NO, I am NOT advocating for sex between adults and early adolescents. But the idea that teenagers in the U.S. or the other developed nations are just "innocent children" who must be sheltered and protected from real life doesn't wash. The truth is much more complex. Unfortunately, far too many posters here seem to believe this is the true image of childhood:

 

http://www.chartingnature.com/img/victorian/victorian-rocking-horse.jpg

 

The reality is much more like this:

 

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/document_data/document_images/doc_059b_big.jpg

 

http://www.fisek.org/images/cocukemegi/1.jpg

 

http://www.modestopolice.com/Gang_Unit/images/pic4.jpg

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39218000/jpg/_39218468_celebrate_afp300.jpg

 

http://www.exileimages.co.uk/JimH/Majority/T.JIH.ASI.227.jpg

[BewareofNick]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>McDonalds was well aware of the

>problem with the temperature of certain of its beverages, had

>been warned about it by a national safety organization, and

>had settled numerous other cases of customers injured in this

>manner, but had never done anything to deal with the problem

>-- including warning customers about the potential for injury.

 

Um, the coffee is hot. One would think after 79 years, someone would know that coffee is hot.

[Guest]

RE: Woodlawn bullshit

 

You keep bringing up irrelevant issues such as the precise actual sum of the award and use obscenities because you know you're wrong about the basic issue here. Normal people do not put scalding liquids in their crotch. Period. There are lots of people out there whose judgment is clouded by mental illness, dementia, substance abuse, or just plain stupidity. It's not up to corporate America to pay for their lapses in judgment. Unlike any other country on the planet, PI lawyers have exploited weaknesses in the US legal system to reward those with bad judgment.

If you disagree, I challenge you to:

(1) Tell us how often you put scalding hot liquids in your crotch, if that's what normal people do, and

(2) Name all of the countries where the plaintiff in the McDonald's case would have prevailed.

[Guest]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

You need to learn how to read. My position is that this plaintiff should not have received anything. In more general terms, I do not think any plaintiff anywhere (or their lawyer) should receive punitive damages. What I said was that punitive damages should go to a third party, such as a charity. If someone is injured, the responsible party should compensate them fully and pay for reasonable legal fees (as is done in most civilized countries). In such cases where punitive damages are called for (i.e. if the injury was intentional and/or malicious, such as throwing boiling water in someone's face out of anger), there is no reason the plaintiff or his lawyer should get lottery-type winnings.

[Guest]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

At least that lady didn't burn herself on purpose.

[Doug69]

RE: Woodlawn bullshit

 

>Normal people do

>not put scalding liquids in their crotch.

 

Have you ever spilled any coffee on yourself? I would venture to say that most people, at some point, have done so. When you did, did you end up in the burn unit with third-degree burns?

 

Why do you think it is that most people who spill coffee on themselves don´t end up in the burn unit with third degree burns, but this woman did? Any guesses?

[Doug69]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>In such cases where

>punitive damages are called for (i.e. if the injury was

>intentional and/or malicious, such as throwing boiling water

>in someone's face out of anger), there is no reason the

>plaintiff or his lawyer should get lottery-type winnings.

 

If a plainitff is aware of serious wrongdoing on the part of a corporation which has harmed the plaintiff and may very well harm thousands or even millions of other people, don´t we want that plaintiff to bring a lawsuit exposing this wrongdoing and punishing the corporation so as to deter future misconduct.

 

To use your formulation, any sane, normal person would want this to happen. But if the plaintiff does not stand to gain anything from commencing such litigation (i.e., if your idea became law and punitive damages when to charity), what possible motivation would most people to bring such suits, especially considering the enormous amount of resources (time, money, reputation, anxiety) which the commencement of every litigation entails?

[woodlawn]

RE: Woodlawn bullshit

 

>You keep bringing up irrelevant issues such as the precise

>actual sum of the award and use obscenities because you know

>you're wrong about the basic issue here.

 

As you know, I keep bringing up the amount of the award because you and the other right-wingers who want to keep ordinary people from suing big corporations have repeatedly lied about the amount to make this case seem an outrageous abuse of the legal system. As I said in a previous post, I am sick and tired of the distortions you and others keep repeating.

 

 

>Normal people do

>not put scalding liquids in their crotch. Period.

 

Unicorn, I want to preface this by saying that you have posted plenty of things on the subject of escorts that I agree with. But to be perfectly honest, I think that a gay man who makes a regular thing of hiring prostitutes, and who actually helped an illegal alien working as a prostitute get legal status here with a bogus "asylum" claim, is the very last person who ought to be telling us what "normal people" do. When was the last time you even MET a normal person?

 

>If you disagree, I challenge you to:

>(1) Tell us how often you put scalding hot liquids in your

>crotch, if that's what normal people do,

 

Thanks for the compliment -- since the premise of your question is that I am a normal person. Not sure I qualify, but thanks anyway.

 

Why do so many cars these days come equipped with cupholders as a standard feature? Isn't it because so many people get hot drinks at a drive-through and want to drink while they're driving? Which came first -- a widespread habit of drinking in the car, or the cupholders? Do you think carmakers put the cupholders in because nobody was drinking in cars, but they thought if cars came equipped with cupholders people would start? Of course not. They put the cupholders in because people were drinking in the car and holding the cups in all sorts of ways that led to spills. I mean, you really ought to get out more, you know?

 

If a corporation is going to sell drinks hot enough to cause serious injuries when spilled, and sell them at a drive-through window which exists for the express purpose of letting people buy things, including such hot drinks, while in their cars, it ought to anticipate that some injuries may result and take precautions. There are any number of ways it could address the problem. Even if it did NOT anticipate such injuries, after settling a number of lawsuits involving such injuries, as McDonalds had done before this Albuquerque case, it certainly KNEW about the problem. But the corporation did nothing. An excellent case for punitive damages.

 

>(2) Name all of the countries where the plaintiff in the

>McDonald's case would have prevailed.

 

How the fuck would I know? And why would I care? Why should Americans measure their customs by those of other societies? Are you aware, for example, that a group of Japanese citizens who were taken hostage by the insurgents in Iraq and released a few months ago were not welcomed home by their fellow countrymen but were criticized as troublemakers because they defied the goverment's warning not to go to Iraq in the first place? In America, such people would be welcomed back with much sympathy and support. Should we adopt the Japanese custom? Or should they adopt ours? Our should we each just do as seems best to us?

[Guest]

RE: Woodlawn bullshit

 

Thank you for finally arguing rationally for once instead of going off on irrelevant tangents (whether or not I remembered the correct figure in my original post, for instance, is totally irrelevant since I acknowledged at that time that the figure was my recollection, not a statement of fact), or shouting obscenities. The reason this case shocked the nation (and even the world) is not because of the dollar figure. Everybody can acknowledge that McDonalds delivered a potentially hazardous product to this old woman, but there are countless things we come into contact every single day which are potentially hazardous, or even deadly (I won't insult your intelligence by providing a long list). Ultimately, I believe the legal system should expect basic common sense from people who come into contact with them.

When they don't, and these cases come to court, juries, who are often comprised of the poorly educated with little understanding of the law, frequently dole out verdicts based on sympathy rather than on rational thought. Poor granny vs. mean corporation. The plaintiff in this case did not use common sense when handed that cup (or "ordinary care," if that's the legal jargon). I therefore do not believe she was entitled to any compensatory damages.

I found the awarding of punitive damages even more shocking. Punitive damages should be assigned in order to punish truly malicious or wanton behavior (in general when the injuries are inflicted intentionally). While I would argue that serving scalding hot coffee isn't even negligent, it's certainly not malicious.

It isn't just foreigners who are shocked by these types of verdicts. There's a groudswelling for change in this country despite the significant financial resources of trial lawyers. Limitations on lawsuits (and especially as regards non-compensatory damages) are coming on both a national and state level.

We certainly do not need to follow the lead of any given country. Nevertheless, when we're the ONLY country doing something in a certain way, we can't pretend that our way is the ONLY rational way of handling an issue.

[Guest]

RE: Woodlawn bullshit

 

>Have you ever spilled any coffee on yourself? I would venture

>to say that most people, at some point, have done so.

 

Well, I haven't done that, though I have spilled coffee (on the floor or table--I keep the cup away from my body) and I have burned myself on other things (hot oil splattering from beef fondue, for instance). I don't know whether or not most people have spilled coffee on themselves, but I'm sure most people do not put hot cups of coffee in their crotches. And I certainly didn't sue the fondue restaurant when I burned myself, nor do most people sue when they burn themselves.

[woodlawn]

RE: Right Wing Crap

 

>Thank you for finally arguing rationally for once instead of

>going off on irrelevant tangents (whether or not I remembered

>the correct figure in my original post, for instance, is

>totally irrelevant since I acknowledged at that time that the

>figure was my recollection, not a statement of fact), or

>shouting obscenities. The reason this case shocked the nation

>(and even the world) is not because of the dollar figure.

 

What you have said above simply is not the truth, and as many times as you keep saying it, so many times will I point out that you are not telling the truth. I cannot even count the number of occasions on which I have heard some right-wing jackass on a cable "news" program cite the case in which a woman forced McDonald's to pay "millions and millions" of dollars simply because "she spilled a little coffee" on herself. The figure I have heard used most often is $8 million, which is nowhere near the true amount. Your estimate of $100 million is probably the most outrageous distortion I have heard so far.

 

>Ultimately, I believe

>the legal system should expect basic common sense from people

>who come into contact with them.

 

>When they don't, and these cases come to court, juries, who

>are often comprised of the poorly educated with little

>understanding of the law,

 

The system does expect common sense. That, although you "forgot" to mention it in any of your posts, is why the jury of "poorly educated" people REDUCED the award to the plaintiff by 20% of the compensatory damages it actually found because the jurors felt she had to bear some responsibility for the accident. The jury found the plaintiff had suffered $200,000.00 in compensatory damages, but reduced that to $160,000.00.

 

> While I would argue that serving

>scalding hot coffee isn't even negligent, it's certainly not

>malicious.

 

That isn't why the punies were awarded, as you know. They were awarded because it was proved that the company was well aware of the problem and did nothing about it.

 

 

>It isn't just foreigners who are shocked by these types of

>verdicts. There's a groudswelling for change in this country

>despite the significant financial resources of trial lawyers.

>Limitations on lawsuits (and especially as regards

>non-compensatory damages) are coming on both a national and

>state level.

 

If there is such a popular "groundswell," then why the need for advocates of "tort reform" to keep telling lies that exaggerate these cases? Why can't you lot win by telling the truth?

[augustman]

Wow I am amazed that with atlmn's very illuminating response we continue to focus on jury awards and oneupmanship. I believe that part of the conversation is detracting from Luv2play's post. I realize a part of it dealt with law enforcement using a different law to bring some one up on charges while seemingly to ignore the current status of being able to have sex with a 14 year old.

 

I have taken the thoughts of the author, Trilingual woodlawn and others and realize there are many points of background coming into this. I being from a white suburban neighborhood in middle America, Catholic upbringing and affluent parents. Just because it is a cruel world with no discrimination against age does not mean we just give up and do not try to be responsible adults. Maybe if there had been more responsible adults in atlmn's life sooner maybe he and his family could have received help sooner and help salvage more of his life and ability to have respect for himself and others and help show his brothers.

 

I wish and hope more people would share their experiences especially escorts and whether there youth played a big part in there decision to include escorting as a way of life and do you still respect yourself. Trilingual I know you were not condoning the Texas man's behavoir or encouraging under age sex nor was I bashing Canada for having a different idea of what might be an age for consesual sex. What I do question is an adult pursuing sex with someone that young despite knowing that there are few jobs for 14 year olds and these kids are the responsibilty of a parent. First thing I would want to know is why is this kid out here and not home and what can I do to help. And if that parent or responsible adult is not in the kids life is not an excuse to come in and use the 14 year olds situation to exploit him. And show sex as a means to love. I still believe 14, 16 even 17 and 18 year olds need adults in their lives who are not sexual partners to, if no other reason, guide them or place for them to turn to.

[trilingual]

By my posting I did not in any way mean to belittle atlman's experience, or what he has had to struggle through as a result of it. However, there is a difference between incestuous affairs with minors, which is what atlman experienced, and a sexual relationship between two unrelated people old enough to consent to it. The kind of incestuous situation atlman describes leaves a kid feeling powerless because few kids have it within themselves to tell their father or grandfather or other older relative abusing them "no." Incestuous relationships are also damaging because they destroy the trust family members should have between themselves, and that lost trust can never really be regained. You can always stop having a relationship with someone who's not related to you. You can't stop being someone's child or grandchild or sibling, so you're forced to live with the consequences of what happened for the rest of your life, or certainly as long as the adult in the relationship is alive.

 

My posting was only intended to cut through the romanticized sticky-sweetness that particularly affects people from the English-speaking countries when they talk about childhood "innocence." As I said, it's a Victorian myth. Kids are much less innocent and much more resilient and adaptable than they're given credit for. One of the problems in the English-speaking countries (which are also all developed countries) is that kids who've been sexually molested by adults, but not in a violent or painful way, have a lot of trauma added to their situation by the adult hysteria that emerges when the situation comes to light. That hysteria is driven exactly by that Victorian childhood "innocence" myth. I want to make it clear that I don't think there is EVER a good reason, in any cultural or social context, for an adult to have sexual relations with a prepubescent child. But if there were less hysteria by adults in such cases, the affected kids would be much less traumatized and their chances of recovering from the experience would be significantly increased.

 

As for early adolescents, some are clearly mature enough to know what they're doing and consent to sexual acts, and others aren't. The law, unfortunately, can't be structured to deal with such matters on a case-by-case basis, so some age of consent has to be determined for legal purposes. At least in the developed nations, 16 seems to me a fair age. By then virtually all kids are well past puberty and into adolescence, and even in the developed nations have very likely been sexually active for a few years. As you can see by the chart that was linked above, 16 also seems to be the age most jurisdictions have chosen.

 

As for the 14-year old who's been the subject of this thread, I have no idea whether he's emotionally/physically mature for his age or not. Canadians, in their wisdom, have determined that he's old enough to consent to sexual relations, and that's their decision to make. The obscure "abduction" law in Canada seems to be very vague, and could be found to be unconstitutionally so by Canadian courts. If the boy engaged in Internet chat with the adult, and met the adult voluntarily and without coercion, it might be hard to support a charge of "abduction". Of course, it appears that the adult could still face criminal charges in the U.S.

 

In any event, if we can get over the "innocence" mythology this whole subject will be easier to talk about. Kids unquestionably need some degree of protection and adult guidance, but not the kind that's intended to keep them "innocent" until they're in their 20's!!! Especially when they're not "innocent" even in sixth grade! And, as you can see from the posted photos, the majority of kids in the world were already working, or involved in crime, or acting as soldiers, at very early ages. They may be young, but they aren't "innocent" little Victorian greeting-card angels. Again, I'm certainly not advocating for child labor or crime, or child soldiers. The world should be able to do better by its children. But that's the reality, contrasted to the myth, and if we can see children as they really are and not as we mythologize them, and deal with the real issues they face rather than trying to force them to be those mythological "innocents", we might be much better able to help solve the problems they face and make their lives better.

[Guest]

RE: Right Wing Crap

 

Regarding the award amount, we're talking in circles. I made it quite clear that I had not looked up the figures prior to my first posting. That case was years ago. I was probably thinking about one of those ridiculous tobacco lawsuits (as if there's any adult in the U.S. who doesn't know smoking kills). There's another example of how most people realize that smoking demonstrates bad judgment on the part of the smoker and should therefore not be compensable. Most juries have agreed. However, there have been crafty PI lawyers who have found jurisdictions with juries who sympathize with the smokers.

I believe strongly that putting the hot cup in her crotch showed horrible judgment, and should not be compensable at even 0.8%, let alone 80%. If people do not like the temperature of coffee and McDonalds, they are free to take their business to Burger King. Years later, this famous case is still party talk, and I've never met anyone (in real life) who has disagreed with me. (Yes, it was a party with a lot of foreign college friends of my partner's, whom you seem to dislike for some reason).

I'm sure McDonalds (as well as other fast food giants) get sued on a daily basis. Doubtless, many suits have been over coffee burns. Most of the time, these suits don't make the news because the plaintiffs don't win (nuissance settlements don't count). The reason this verdict made the news is because it shocked the nation's conscience. In this case, the plaintiff gambled at the casino of the US civil justice system and hit the jackpot. I would like to see these civil cases removed from juries and assigned to panels of three judges or arbitrators. This would get rid of the casino mentality even you admitted is present in the current system.

[woodlawn]

RE: Right Wing Crap

 

>Regarding the award amount, we're talking in circles. I made

>it quite clear that I had not looked up the figures prior to

>my first posting.

 

But that did not stop you from quoting a specific figure that grossly exaggerated the true circumstances and true significance of the case. I really don't see how that distinguishes you from any of the other right-wing yahoos who are constantly squawking about this on cable.

 

> That case was years ago. I was probably

>thinking about one of those ridiculous tobacco lawsuits (as if

>there's any adult in the U.S. who doesn't know smoking kills).

> There's another example of how most people realize that

>smoking demonstrates bad judgment on the part of the smoker

>and should therefore not be compensable. Most juries have

>agreed. However, there have been crafty PI lawyers who have

>found jurisdictions with juries who sympathize with the

>smokers.

 

Once again you are distorting the facts in order to win undeserved sympathy for big corporations whose bad behavior imposes serious economic consequences on others.

 

As we all know, tobacco lawsuits got absolutely nowhere in this country UNTIL a whistleblower at one of the big companies divulged internal documents showing that the company had known its product was both cancer-causing and addictive and was trying its best to make it even more addictive, while publicly denying any such thing.

 

 

>I believe strongly that putting the hot cup in her crotch

>showed horrible judgment, and should not be compensable at

>even 0.8%, let alone 80%.

 

Doug asked you a question a few posts ago that you did not answer. Have you ever spilled hot coffee or another hot drink on yourself? If you did, does that mean you are suffering from dementia or are a stupid person? And if you did have such a spill, did you suffer third-degree burns requiring skin grafts, like the plaintiff in this case? If there were no burns, why not? What could account for the fact that you were not severely burned while she was? Does coffee of the same temperature have a different effect on the skin of a stupid person from the effect it has on the skin of an intelligent person? Or could it be that the drink you spilled had a different temperature?

 

 

> If people do not like the

>temperature of coffee and McDonalds, they are free to take

>their business to Burger King.

 

You could also say that if McDonalds serves burgers with arsenic in them people are free to go to Burger King. In a civilized society, people are not permitted to sell products that are dangerous with impunity.

 

> Years later, this famous case

>is still party talk, and I've never met anyone (in real life)

>who has disagreed with me. (Yes, it was a party with a lot of

>foreign college friends of my partner's, whom you seem to

>dislike for some reason).

 

I don't dislike your partner. I know nothing about him other than what you have told us, which is that he came to this country on a student visa and violated the terms of his visa both by overstaying and by working as a prostitute. And that he once suggested you adopt him so that he could stay in this country. Getting involved in scams like that doesn't fit very well with the lectures on personal responsibility you have been giving us in this thread, by the way.

 

 

> The reason this verdict made the news is

>because it shocked the nation's conscience.

 

The only reason people found it shocking is because you right-wing types made up a bunch of shit about it instead of telling the truth.

 

> I would like to see these civil cases

>removed from juries and assigned to panels of three judges or

>arbitrators. This would get rid of the casino mentality even

>you admitted is present in the current system.

 

I have admitted no such thing. Every lawsuit is a gamble, whether it is about a personal injury or about forcing a restaurant owner to allow blacks to eat at his restaurant even though he doesn't want to. Without trial lawyers willing to take a gamble and the court system you keep denigrating we would still have de jure racial segregation in this country, in all likelihood. Think about that the next time you are tempted to bellyache about it.

[Guest]

RE: Right Wing Crap

 

>As we all know, tobacco lawsuits got absolutely nowhere in

>this country UNTIL a whistleblower at one of the big companies

>divulged internal documents showing that the company had known

>its product was both cancer-causing and addictive and was

>trying its best to make it even more addictive, while publicly

>denying any such thing.

>

Absolutely every adult in this country has known for over 30 years that smoking cigarettes kills. I won't believe for a second that the plaintiffs didn't know this or that their doctors told them smoking was safe. There's no way on God's earth you can tell me you believe that these plainiffs were smoking because tobacco company executives told Congress it was safe. Those plaintiffs smoked because they were willing to take a risk for something they enjoyed. It's no coincidence that you'll find the highest concentration of smokers in gambling casinos. Casinos are magnets for people who like taking (bad) risks, and for people with bad judgment. Should casinos be sued for their ads? (P.S. I have NEVER seen a tobacco ad in the last 30 years saying smoking is safe, any more than I have seen a casino ad saying that most people at their casino end up ahead of the house)

 

>Doug asked you a question a few posts ago that you did not

>answer. Have you ever spilled hot coffee or another hot drink

>on yourself?

Actually, I did. Check back up on that thread.

 

>

>> If people do not like the

>>temperature of coffee and McDonalds, they are free to take

>>their business to Burger King.

>

>You could also say that if McDonalds serves burgers with

>arsenic in them people are free to go to Burger King.

 

This is not a serious argument. Firstly, no one would buy burgers if they knew they had arsenic in them. Secondly, arsenic in burgers will hurt everybody who eats the burgers the way they were intended to. A scalding cup of coffee will only harm someone who handles it in a careless manner. Obviously, McDonalds has sold billions of cups of coffee, and only the careless have been hurt.

 

 

>I don't dislike your partner. I know nothing about him other

>than what you have told us, which is that he came to this

>country on a student visa and violated the terms of his visa

>both by overstaying and by working as a prostitute.

 

He came in on a work exchange visa, was accepted at a U.S. college, and his paperwork for a student visa was apparently misplaced during the 9/11 mess (all of this has been documented with the immigration court). Despite coming from an affluent family background, he preferred to work as a prostitute rather than return to the abuse he faced as a gay man in his home country. Yes, I helped him apply for asylum. That's not illegal. Gay persecution is a well-established basis for asylum, and several people from his country have been granted asylum on this basis. He has received an affadavit from the leading expert on sexuality in his country (a university professor and author) that the situation in his country has in fact gotten worse since he left.

[woodlawn]

RE: Right Wing Crap

 

>Absolutely every adult in this country has known for over 30

>years that smoking cigarettes kills. I won't believe for a

>second that the plaintiffs didn't know this or that their

>doctors told them smoking was safe.

 

And that is why tobacco lawsuits all fizzled on the fact that warnings mandated by Congress on every pack of cigarettes showed that smokers knew they were taking a risk with their health. Until it was discovered that tobacco companies had been deliberately putting out information about the safety of their products that their own research showed was false. No corporation should be permitted to get away with that.

 

 

>>Doug asked you a question a few posts ago that you did not

>>answer. Have you ever spilled hot coffee or another hot

>drink

>>on yourself?

>Actually, I did. Check back up on that thread.

 

I will check.

 

 

>This is not a serious argument. Firstly, no one would buy

>burgers if they knew they had arsenic in them.

 

And who would buy a cup of coffee if he knew that it was so hot that even a small spill could send him to the hospital? Would you?

 

> Secondly,

>arsenic in burgers will hurt everybody who eats the burgers

>the way they were intended to.

 

Not at all. It depends entirely on the concentration of arsenic. You may recall that one of Bush's first acts as president was to put on hold EPA regulations approved by Clinton revising downward the concentration of arsenic that could be permitted in drinking water.

 

>He came in on a work exchange visa,

 

> he preferred to work as a

>prostitute rather than return to the abuse he faced as a gay

>man in his home country.

 

And rather than get an actual job? If he did indeed have a visa that permitted him to work here.

 

> Yes, I helped him apply for asylum.

>That's not illegal.

 

Never said it was. I referred to the fact that the first mention you ever made of the situation on this message board was a thread asking if you could adopt him as your child because he suggested that to you.

[+ deej]

RE: Right Wing Crap

 

This thread has gone quite far enough afield of the topic.

 

You two need to get a room! ;-)