shewolfnm wrote:informed consent.
at the age of 14?
that only serves 1 purpose. The men who want to sleep with kids, can now do so legally..
14 years old... the only people that child should be sexual with is other 14/15 year olds.
Legal consent, 18 and up , gives other adults ..............
you know what.
I cant even argue against this. This just makes my stomach turn.
14? are you serious? fourteen?
14 was normal till recently....are girls more dumb now than they were then?? Why do 14 and 15 year olds need this "protection" which in my view is a dishonest justification for removal of their rights?
hawkeye10 wrote:shewolfnm wrote:informed consent.
at the age of 14?
that only serves 1 purpose. The men who want to sleep with kids, can now do so legally..
14 years old... the only people that child should be sexual with is other 14/15 year olds.
Legal consent, 18 and up , gives other adults ..............
you know what.
I cant even argue against this. This just makes my stomach turn.
14? are you serious? fourteen?
14 was normal till recently....are girls more dumb now than they were then?? Why do 14 and 15 year olds need this "protection" which in my view is a dishonest justification for removal of their rights?
Well, given that the executive functions of the brain, especially including the ability to weigh consequences and inhibit action based on judgment are not fully formed until about age 25, I would think the answer is obvious to any reasonable normal person.
!4/15 is new for you, by the way, you were originally talking about 12 year olds.
There are many things that were normal until recently.
You know...minor stuff like slavery, no votes for women, little kids working down mines, no property rights for married women.....your argument holds no weight.
At one time, seven was the age of consent in Delaware. The point of such low age of consent laws was to facilitate arranged marriages--so you could get a signature on a contract, and the point was specifically to get 'em before they were old enough to understand what they were agreeing to.
However, and argument from custom simply does not make it. Until quite recently, slavery was common, and although illegal almost everywhere in the world, it is practiced de facto even if outlawed de jure. I can't think that anyone would be so witless as to suggest such an argument for child sexual abuse, but i guess you learn something new every day.
Female infanticide is still common in many places in the world. Does that make it acceptable?
Female, childhood genital mutilation is common in many places in the world. Does that make it acceptable?
*****************************************
Anyone can come online and make claims about their childhood. I could say that i was an abused child, and you would have no way of knowing if i were lying or not. As it happens, i was. But that was more than a half century ago, and it has faded sufficiently into my past that i go long periods of time without thinking about.
No one needs to have been the victim of abuse, nor an abuser, to discuss this topic. I never bring up my own childhood, both because it is private, and no damned business of a bunch of complete strangers online, who may well be inveterate liars.
But the best reason is, you don't need that kind of personal history to see just how pathetically feeble, and sick, the arguments being made here for both child sexual abuse and rape truly are.
dlowan wrote:.
You know...minor stuff like slavery, no votes for women, little kids working down mines, no property rights for married women.....your argument holds no weight.
we have consistently expanded individual rights, except for kids. For them we have taken away by moving the goal posts.
hawkeye10 wrote:we have consistently expanded individual rights, except for kids. For them we have taken away by moving the goal posts.
So then, you suggesting that steps taken to prevent child sexual abuse represent a denial of civil liberty for children?
Have you ever considered actually thinking about the implications of what you choose to post,
before you hit the submit button?
Setanta wrote:Anyone can come online and make claims about their childhood. I could say that i was an abused child, and you would have no way of knowing if i were lying or not. As it happens, i was. But that was more than a half century ago, and it has faded sufficiently into my past that i go long periods of time without thinking about.
.
thanks for supporting my long held argument that all of the personalization that roams a2k gets in the way of talking about stuff. I would be very happy if there were a few more people here who could talk about important things primarily with facts and arguments and logic.
hawkeye10 wrote:I would be very happy if there were a few more people here who could talk about important things primarily with facts and arguments and logic.
Yes, well, we all hope you'll join us someday.
Ragman wrote:I'm floored that you'd discuss their tragic personal crimes here in such an offhand manner and to do so just to make some debate work for you.
Given the record of this poster, this does not surprise me at all.
Setanta wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:we have consistently expanded individual rights, except for kids. For them we have taken away by moving the goal posts.
So then, you suggesting that steps taken to prevent child sexual abuse represent a denial of civil liberty for children?
Have you ever considered actually thinking about the implications of what you choose to post,
before you hit the submit button?
steps taken under the justification that teens must be protected from abuse have denied civil liberties for teens....yes.
If you care to argue the point you will lose, but you are welcome to try.
Your assumption that you are right and you say that Setanta would lose creates no reason to even have discussion with you. Not that I speak for Setanta.
It's simplicity itself to argue the point. Statutory rape laws are based upon the concept of informed consent, and the decision by lawmakers that children below the age of 18 are not mentally and emotionally equipped to give informed consent. Children under that age of 18 are not allowed to buy and consume alcoholic beverages because they are considered unable to give informed consent to the risks involved. Children under the age of 18 are not allowed to sign binding financial contracts because they are considered unable to give informed consent to the consequences of such contracts. But you think you should be allowed to f*ck 'em if you can talk 'em into it.
Oh . . . that's right . . . informed consent is one of those messy concepts you have sedulously avoided discussing here . . .
Intrepid wrote:Your assumption that you are right and you say that Setanta would lose creates no reason to even have discussion with you. Not that I speak for Setanta.
Interesting that one having confidence in his position has this effect on you. Are you saying that you prefer to pick on those who don't think that they can defend themselves?? If not that then what exactly??
hawkeye10 wrote:dlowan wrote:.
You know...minor stuff like slavery, no votes for women, little kids working down mines, no property rights for married women.....your argument holds no weight.
we have consistently expanded individual rights, except for kids. For them we have taken away by moving the goal posts.
No...what we have taken away is the legal rights of people such as yourself who either espouse, or actively participate in, child sexual abuse, to do so with impunity.
I find it quite fascinating that you regard it as a right for a prepubescent or adolescent girl to be filmed specifically for the sexual pleasure of older men.
We have tried to make it a right for children not to be sexually exploited by predators.
I can see how that is really, really tough for you to handle.
Just like the slave owners were devastated when their rights were so cruelly infringed.
I am sure they have victim support groups for men such as yourself.
This isn't one of them.
dlowan wrote:I am sure they have victim support groups for men such as yourself.
This isn't one of them.
Ziiiinnnnggggg . . .
Good one, Cunning Coney . . .
Setanta wrote:It's simplicity itself to argue the point. Statutory rape laws are based upon the concept of informed consent, and the decision by lawmakers that children below the age of 18 are not mentally and emotionally equipped to give informed consent. Children under that age of 18 are not allowed to buy and consume alcoholic beverages because they are considered unable to give informed consent to the risks involved. Children under the age of 18 are not allowed to sign binding financial contracts because they are considered unable to give informed consent to the consequences of such contracts. But you think you should be allowed to f*ck 'em if you can talk 'em into it.
Oh . . . that's right . . . informed consent is one of those messy concepts you have sedulously avoided discussing here . . .
I don't think that teens are more stupid than before when they had these rights. I think that be have removed their rights and attempted to baby them out of our own fear, fear that was never justified, and that this harms each generation that is subjected to this misappropriation of fear. I think that current AOC laws have next to nothing to do with their actual ability to understand and provide consent, we adults will not allow them to consent, to run their own lives, for our own reasons. I am perfectly willing to let science take up the matter and get back to us on when these brains are capable of providing said consent, but we will never do that.
hawkeye10 wrote:Setanta wrote:It's simplicity itself to argue the point. Statutory rape laws are based upon the concept of informed consent, and the decision by lawmakers that children below the age of 18 are not mentally and emotionally equipped to give informed consent. Children under that age of 18 are not allowed to buy and consume alcoholic beverages because they are considered unable to give informed consent to the risks involved. Children under the age of 18 are not allowed to sign binding financial contracts because they are considered unable to give informed consent to the consequences of such contracts. But you think you should be allowed to f*ck 'em if you can talk 'em into it.
Oh . . . that's right . . . informed consent is one of those messy concepts you have sedulously avoided discussing here . . .
I don't think that teens are more stupid than before when they had these rights. I think that be have removed their rights and attempted to baby them out of our own fear, fear that was never justified, and that this harms each generation that is subjected to this misappropriation of fear. I think that current AOC laws have next to nothing to do with their actual ability to understand and provide consent, we adults will not allow them to consent, to run their own lives, for our own reasons. I am perfectly willing to let science take up the matter and get back to us on when these brains
Actually, we are getting better and better at discovering when particular executive functions develop in the normal human brain.
The law will likely always remain a compromise between this knowledge and pragmatism.
However, the more we learn, the less your attempts to justify child abuse are supported by the facts about the brain.
Nobody is arguing your straw an that teens are more stupid, so if you wish to be taken seriously by anyone at all you will cease to misrepresent the argument.
That would be like attempting to say that slavery was outlaweed because black people became less stupid.
The law has simply become LESS stupid.
It isn't a question of stupidity, it is a question of ignorance and maturity. What "rights" do you allege they had in years gone by?
In fact, you have failed utterly to address the subject of informed consent, you have simply offered your opinion (unqualified) to the effect that "teens" are not "stupider" than they were in the past. Science already has assessed the matter of emotional and intellectual development in young people, and if that science were applied, the age of consent would shoot up to well over 20 years of age. If you buy an automobile which had previously been involved in an accident which bent the frame, and you are subsequently involved in an accident which causes more damage than would have been the case had the frame never been bent--you (or your survivors) have an iron-clad basis for a lawsuit for massive damages, because you were denied your right of informed consent. Children under the age of 18 simply do not possess either the knowledge, or the life experience, or the maturity to make decisions which can have a profound effect on their mental and emotional health for the rest of their lives--in fact, nearly all children under the age of 21 fit that description.
You have presented here nothing but your opinion, and you don't even support it with a logical argument. Precisely what rights have children been denied?
Setanta wrote:It isn't a question of stupidity, it is a question of ignorance and maturity. What "rights" do you allege they had in years gone by?
In fact, you have failed utterly to address the subject of informed consent, you have simply offered your opinion (unqualified) to the effect that "teens" are not "stupider" than they were in the past. Science already has assessed the matter of emotional and intellectual development in young people, and if that science were applied, the age of consent would shoot up to well over 20 years of age. If you buy an automobile which had previously been involved in an accident which bent the frame, and you are subsequently involved in an accident which causes more damage than would have been the case had the frame never been bent--you (or your survivors) have an iron-clad basis for a lawsuit for massive damages, because you were denied your right of informed consent. Children under the age of 18 simply do not possess either the knowledge, or the life experience, or the maturity to make decisions which can have a profound effect on their mental and emotional health for the rest of their lives--in fact, nearly all children under the age of 21 fit that description.
You have presented here nothing but your opinion, and you don't even support it with a logical argument. Precisely what rights have children been denied?
The right for people like him to sexually exploit them, of course.
Intrepid wrote:Ragman wrote:I'm floored that you'd discuss their tragic personal crimes here in such an offhand manner and to do so just to make some debate work for you.
Given the record of this poster, this does not surprise me at all.
How would you know of my record when I know nothing of you or your's? I dare say you know nothing of me. And your Ad Hominem attack (particularly a blindsided one) invalidates any credibility you might have had.
dlowan wrote:
We have tried to make it a right for children not to be sexually exploited by predators.
Because everyone who chooses what we don't want them to choose has by definition been exploited....Anyone who suggest that the right thing to do is something that we don't want people to do is applying coercion. Everything is so wonderfully tied up with bow.
Society and the do-gooders are applying the coercion, and diminishing the individual, an injustice that will not be allowed to continue.
