|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 12:17:34 GMT
So your point is?
Oh wait! You haven't made one this entire thread, so please don't attempt to start with another one.
Wow. Another question that everyone already knows the answer to.... It's like serendipity.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 12:22:12 GMT
Wow. Another question that everyone already knows the answer to.... It's like serendipity. I know you don't have one, that is why you are being aloof and evasive. Now what is it you are really wanting to say? Another question that doesn't need to be asked.... but, yet still is.... Proving a point has never been this easy.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 12:26:14 GMT
Another question that doesn't need to be asked.... but, yet still is.... Proving a point has never been this easy. Are you a troll? Not quite as ironically clueless.... But, dude... Ya gotta stop with the questions... You're killin' me.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 12:31:37 GMT
Not quite as ironically clueless.... But, dude... Ya gotta stop with the questions... You're killin' me. As I thought, you are! Somebody might come along and explain all of this to you....
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 12:39:17 GMT
Somebody might come along and explain all of this to you.... I won't be holding my breath. Good. ...cause it seems that you've done that way too many times already.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 11, 2018 17:08:04 GMT
So, someone has sex with someone else--again, this doesn't at all have to be a kid, it would include adults too--or, everyone, as this law applies to everyone, not just kids--and either that person or a caretaker, guardian, or whatever claims either "I didn't consent" or "I wasn't capable of consenting" or "that person was incapable of consent." In that situation, we investigate the incident to see whether there's evidence that the claimed victim either didn't consent or wasn't capable of consent. The same thing would go for any supposed consent violation. The claim is made that either consent wasn't given or wasn't possible, and then we investigate that.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 18:24:17 GMT
islandmurYeah, that's basically the way it works now, and even with incidents with minors, we still have to individually investigate them, of course. It's just that now there's no investigation into whether it was consensual when it involves minors. That's particularly ridiculous in my view when we're talking about a teen, say, and the teen clearly wanted the relationship. It's even more ridiculous in that we don't make it illegal for the teen to have a relationship with another teen. If there were something about sex where it would categorically be a problem for a 14-year-old, say, then it should categorically be a problem for the 14-year-old even if they are having sex with another 14-year-old.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 20:52:01 GMT
But it isn't. You never actually state what your point is, because you know we will judge you, and rightly so. You love to play word games; you love to turn around every question asked of you, back at the questioner, without answering anything. Right and wrong is not subjective in all instances. There are things that we, as human beings, recognise as being wrong. Harming children is one of the main ones. Sex with children is wrong, period. I know you will answer this by asking me questions that will only prove what I say is right. So don't bother to reply. Get help. I don't know how you'd think you know what's in my mind better than I do. My point is really exactly what I type all the time. For example, my points just now were "I don't know how you'd think you know what's in my mind better than I do " and "My point is really exactly what I type all the time." Right and wrong really are subjective in all instances. Human beings "recognizing" something is a subjective phenomenon. That occurs in your head. Hence it's subjective. My points there were "Right and wrong really are subjective in all instances,"Human beings 'recognizing' something is a subjective phenomenon," "That occurs in your head" and "Hence it's subjective." And so on. Okay, I will run with this. I agree and always have that there is no objective morality, yet I also believe that there is right and wrong. Therefore, in your view, why is it 'right' for an adult to have sex with an eight year old?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 20:59:58 GMT
I am going to say this once and nicely. Accommodating size of sexual and other organs without damage. Don't even start me on the mental and emotional Even though this is my own thread I might run away in disgust if you start with the paedophilic garbage. I just wanted to get you off the other thread where you were a pollutant. You are full of high handed intellectual rhetoric and snobbery, and zero common sense. I have not read through this entire thread yet, but on the contrary in regards to Terrapin Station and how he expresses himself, I find his posts very intelligent, stimulating and straight forward to the point, same as I do yours. It's just the disagreeance with the points being expressed that is the issue. He is not talking garbage— and he has been no more of a pollutant than those that engaged with him— and if anything, common sense goes out the door as soon as emotions DO take over. I think his point has been provenThe whole reason I started this thread was because he was OT on another thread and several posters were upset at this subject matter on that thread. Hence he was polluting that thread. I think it would be more sensible for you to have become involved in the debate and give your own opinions rather than castigate others for theirs. e.g. Where did emotion take over common sense in my answers/debate and what point has been proven?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 21:02:08 GMT
I don't know how you'd think you know what's in my mind better than I do. My point is really exactly what I type all the time. For example, my points just now were "I don't know how you'd think you know what's in my mind better than I do " and "My point is really exactly what I type all the time." Right and wrong really are subjective in all instances. Human beings "recognizing" something is a subjective phenomenon. That occurs in your head. Hence it's subjective. My points there were "Right and wrong really are subjective in all instances,"Human beings 'recognizing' something is a subjective phenomenon," "That occurs in your head" and "Hence it's subjective." And so on. Okay, I will run with this. I agree and always have that there is no objective morality, yet I also believe that there is right and wrong. Therefore, in your view, why is it 'right' for an adult to have sex with an eight year old? First, I didn't say "It is right for an adult to have sex with an eight year old." I would say, "It is right to allow any two people to have sex as long as they're consenting to sex (regardless of their age)." Can any eight-year-olds consent? I have no idea. As I said earlier, and I wasn't being coy, I haven't researched whether any eight-year-olds would be able to consent per my criteria. It's not like that's a big concern of mine. I feel that it's right to allow people to do anything they consent to doing (again, per my criteria of consent), and it's wrong to prohibit them from doing anything they consent to doing. Why? Because that's how I feel about it. Morality always comes down to how an individual feels about something. That's ultimately what morality is ontologically--how individuals feel about interpersonal behavior that they consider to be more significant than mere etiquette.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 21:10:40 GMT
You mean on your terms? Not necessarily. I can understand people posting as detached from a topic in a 'Devil's Advocate' kind of way, butt as others have pointed out you don't do that. You yourself are emotionally attached to YOUR version of debate and you delude yourself that you are debating unemotionally and that YOUR way is superior and no-one else understands. It is fundamental to any argument about the safety health and wellbeing of 'children' that we both share the same basic premise that human parents are here to protect their offspring from harm. In our society there is an acceptance of 'parental responsibility' as a fundamental responsibility. If you are going to carry on about the freedom of the child to consent to everything, then this argument won't get very far. Children are in the care of their 'legal guardians'/parents and this is the reason that we have secular laws such as 'age of consent'. There is a fundamental presumption under the law that children need 'protection and cannot legally enter into contracts of any kind until they reach an arbitrary age. Sex is not the same as a child 'consenting' to a game of football, or taking up ballet classes. On a sliding scale it is an unsuitable activity for immature persons as it is aimed biologically towards maturity and procreation of the species. You call this stance emotional, and I call it physical biology and psychology. There is really not much more to be said, especially as you have taken the higher ground of faux unemotional debate. There is no such thing. BANG!! Couldn't have said it better myself.... (I would have had waaayy more profanity) With some pedantic posters who claim they are an unemotional intellectual, it sometimes helps NOT to get emotional. They seem to see it as losing a rational argument, like when you point out that an erect male adult penis is too big for the vagina/anus of a baby and other biological facts. They like ignoring biological facts and prefer to tell us that twelve year olds should be allowed to have sex with each other, and then of course it would be the slippery slope they are looking for as adults to then claim that the twelve year old can consent to sex with a peer, so why not them?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 21:14:20 GMT
Okay, I will run with this. I agree and always have that there is no objective morality, yet I also believe that there is right and wrong. Therefore, in your view, why is it 'right' for an adult to have sex with an eight year old? First, I didn't say "It is right for an adult to have sex with an eight year old." I would say, "It is right to allow any two people to have sex as long as they're consenting to sex (regardless of their age)." Can any eight-year-olds consent? I have no idea. As I said earlier, and I wasn't being coy, I haven't researched whether any eight-year-olds would be able to consent per my criteria. It's not like that's a big concern of mine. I feel that it's right to allow people to do anything they consent to doing (again, per my criteria of consent), and it's wrong to prohibit them from doing anything they consent to doing. Why? Because that's how I feel about it. Morality always comes down to how an individual feels about something. That's ultimately what morality is ontologically--how individuals feel about interpersonal behavior that they consider to be more significant than mere etiquette. OK. Island Mur has touched on this with you and in my view, you waffled. Tell me succinctly just how children can give consent.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 21:19:32 GMT
I can say, by the way, that when I was nine, I fooled around with a fellow nine-year-old (well, or close to it--we were in the same grade, not sure exactly when her birthday was or what time of year this would have been), a girl who was a friend of mine. Did we have sex? Not exactly, although the boundaries of that for our fooling around, which happened a number of times, were pretty fuzzy.
I certainly consented to what we were doing as well as I could consent at the time (I don't know if I could have met my criteria or not--there's no way I can remember my thought process that well, and of course I hadn't formulated my consent criteria back then). And as far as I know, the girl I was friends with and fooled around with consented as well as she could at the time, too. Even if we couldn't have met my criteria, though, I don't think that much should have happened to us--it was certainly something we wanted to do.
I first entered into what I'd consider the "same" (nominalistic clarifications aside) as an adult relationship, which involved regular sex, too, when I was 13, just about to turn 14. I had a long-term (non-monogamous) relationship with the girl in question, and we're still very good friends.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 21:21:01 GMT
BANG!! Couldn't have said it better myself.... (I would have had waaayy more profanity) With some pedantic posters who claim they are an unemotional intellectual, it sometimes helps NOT to get emotional. They seem to see it as losing a rational argument, like when you point out that an erect male adult penis is too big for the vagina/anus of a baby and other biological facts. They like ignoring biological facts and prefer to tell us that twelve year olds should be allowed to have sex with each other, and then of course it would be the slippery slope they are looking for as adults to then claim that the twelve year old can consent to sex with a peer, so why not them? Most adult males would hope, at least. But obviously, per my criteria, a baby wouldn't be capable of consenting anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 21:22:31 GMT
First, I didn't say "It is right for an adult to have sex with an eight year old." I would say, "It is right to allow any two people to have sex as long as they're consenting to sex (regardless of their age)." Can any eight-year-olds consent? I have no idea. As I said earlier, and I wasn't being coy, I haven't researched whether any eight-year-olds would be able to consent per my criteria. It's not like that's a big concern of mine. I feel that it's right to allow people to do anything they consent to doing (again, per my criteria of consent), and it's wrong to prohibit them from doing anything they consent to doing. Why? Because that's how I feel about it. Morality always comes down to how an individual feels about something. That's ultimately what morality is ontologically--how individuals feel about interpersonal behavior that they consider to be more significant than mere etiquette. OK. Island Mur has touched on this with you and in my view, you waffled. Tell me succinctly just how children can give consent. I don't know what the "waffling" is and I don't suppose you'll detail that? My consent criteria probably aren't that succinct. I can repost them though.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 21:36:38 GMT
I can say, by the way, that when I was nine, I fooled around with a fellow nine-year-old (well, or close to it--we were in the same grade, not sure exactly when her birthday was or what time of year this would have been), a girl who was a friend of mine. Did we have sex? Not exactly, although the boundaries of that for our fooling around, which happened a number of times, were pretty fuzzy. I certainly consented to what we were doing as well as I could consent at the time (I don't know if I could have met my criteria or not--there's no way I can remember my thought process that well, and of course I hadn't formulated my consent criteria back then). And as far as I know, the girl I was friends with and fooled around with consented as well as she could at the time, too. Even if we couldn't have met my criteria, though, I don't think that much should have happened to us--it was certainly something we wanted to do. I first entered into what I'd consider the "same" (nominalistic clarifications aside) as an adult relationship, which involved regular sex, too, when I was 13, just about to turn 14. I had a long-term (non-monogamous) relationship with the girl in question, and we're still very good friends. Oh dear! Emotional personal anecdotal evidence is brought to bear on this topic. You lose. You see the trouble with your argument ( and in a sense it is a fundamentalist argument in that you state that consent should be within your own criteria and an absolute in the sense of always applying not in the objective sense ) ...is that the devil is in the detail. YOU are making the point that sex between consenting young teens is OK butt unfortunately in society we have to codify legal matters and there is the famous old slippery slope argument ie matters of degree. In answer to my last post you said that an adult male would not be having sex with a consenting baby because you implied that a baby was incapable of consent. It is great for fundamentalists and faux intellectuals to pontificate what the 'ought' ought or ought not be, butt we have a society dealing with the precious young lives and bodies of children who, like it or not, need protection from predators, and even themselves sometimes because having sex is a responsibility that on a sliding scale, children are not ready for biologically and emotionally (that dirty word you hate again) They get pregnant and diseased and lives can be ruined. If underage sex of an adult with a child is illegal we need to codify how, why and set limits categories and penalties. As a society it is our duty and obligation. To just sit back and say as you do ... I don't believe in that...I think children can decide for themselves and consent according to my personal criteria... is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 21:45:26 GMT
OK. Island Mur has touched on this with you and in my view, you waffled. Tell me succinctly just how children can give consent. I don't know what the "waffling" is and I don't suppose you'll detail that? My consent criteria probably aren't that succinct. I can repost them though. I think it is time you did that re your consent criteria because in my pinion all your replies to island Mur on this point were indeed waffle about basically restating that you don't like age based criteria and making up new tortuous ways to prove consent etc etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 22:06:43 GMT
I can say, by the way, that when I was nine, I fooled around with a fellow nine-year-old (well, or close to it--we were in the same grade, not sure exactly when her birthday was or what time of year this would have been), a girl who was a friend of mine. Did we have sex? Not exactly, although the boundaries of that for our fooling around, which happened a number of times, were pretty fuzzy. I certainly consented to what we were doing as well as I could consent at the time (I don't know if I could have met my criteria or not--there's no way I can remember my thought process that well, and of course I hadn't formulated my consent criteria back then). And as far as I know, the girl I was friends with and fooled around with consented as well as she could at the time, too. Even if we couldn't have met my criteria, though, I don't think that much should have happened to us--it was certainly something we wanted to do. I first entered into what I'd consider the "same" (nominalistic clarifications aside) as an adult relationship, which involved regular sex, too, when I was 13, just about to turn 14. I had a long-term (non-monogamous) relationship with the girl in question, and we're still very good friends. Oh dear! Emotional personal anecdotal evidence is brought to bear on this topic. You lose. You see the trouble with your argument ( and in a sense it is a fundamentalist argument in that you state that consent should be within your own criteria and an absolute in the sense of always applying not in the objective sense ) ...is that the devil is in the detail. YOU are making the point that sex between consenting young teens is OK butt unfortunately in society we have to codify legal matters and there is the famous old slippery slope argument ie matters of degree. In answer to my last post you said that an adult male would not be having sex with a consenting baby because you implied that a baby was incapable of consent. It is great for fundamentalists and faux intellectuals to pontificate what the 'ought' ought or ought not be, butt we have a society dealing with the precious young lives and bodies of children who, like it or not, need protection from predators, and even themselves sometimes because having sex is a responsibility that on a sliding scale, children are not ready for biologically and emotionally (that dirty word you hate again) They get pregnant and diseased and lives can be ruined. If underage sex of an adult with a child is illegal we need to codify how, why and set limits categories and penalties. As a society it is our duty and obligation. To just sit back and say as you do ... I don't believe in that...I think children can decide for themselves and consent according to my personal criteria... is ridiculous. You're going back to your telemarketing script there without discussing anything systematically. In a nutshell, your argument here seems to be "I'm deferring to common sentiment on this, because I'm a deferring to the norm kind of gal."
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 22:10:42 GMT
I don't know what the "waffling" is and I don't suppose you'll detail that? My consent criteria probably aren't that succinct. I can repost them though. I think it is time you did that re your consent criteria because in my pinion all your replies to island Mur on this point were indeed waffle about basically restating that you don't like age based criteria and making up new tortuous ways to prove consent etc etc etc. Just fyi, I had posted my consent criteria in the other thread a few days ago. But here it is again: What I require for consent (and keep in mind that this is not at all just about sex): Of their own "free will", and not due to the direct or indirect force initiation of another agent or criminal threatened force from another agent, (i) the persons can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to, (ii) they can and do say, "Yes, I'd like to do that" (again verbally, or in writing, signing, etc.), or an equivalent, regarding those actions, and can demonstrate (by at least attesting to the fact) that they so agreed, (iii) In the situation at hand, the persons would be/would have been capable of but doesn't/didn't say "No" either linguistically or via body language, including (re consensual physical interaction) a la attempting to push or fight off etc. the person doing whatever they initially agreed to above, and where we're not talking about a formal, legally binding contract the person entered into. (In the case of formal, legally binding contracts, the person is legally obliged to hold up their end of the bargain as they agreed/consented to in the contract.) (iv) the consenting parties are able to state some of the commonly accepted beliefs about potential physical, psychological and situational risks and consequences of consenting to the act at hand, at least comparably to the average person (where that's not age-specific. education-specific, etc.). * If any of the above conditions can not be met for any reason then consent isn't possible. * If any of the above conditions are not met, for any reason, then consent wasn't given. * Forcing someone to do something they couldn't or didn't explicitly consent to wouldn't be consent obviously. * I'd have no age of consent, including for contracts. However, note that for all contracts, I'd limit the maximum duration to n*1.5 the length of the previous contract with that same party, with the first contract maximum being 1 year. So a first contract can't be longer than 1 year, a second contract 1.5 years, a third contract 2.3 years, a fourth 3.4 years, a fifth 5.1 years, etc. There would be an exception made for contracts involving single projects that would take longer than the duration otherwise allowed by the contract, in which case, the contract would be over at the conclusion of the project. * For contracts and consent in general, fraud would still be fraud--you can't "sneak something in" that the person isn't explicitly consenting to (without threat of being prosecuted for fraud). * And yes, I'd hold children responsible for murders and other crimes just like adults. I'm in favor of sentencing reform, however, and I'd even change the core structure of imprisonment/the social separation of criminals. * Consent violation for physical interaction, such as sex, in order to be successfully prosecuted after the fact, requires evidence of a consent violation--at least evidence of physical violence, where physical violence isn't a documented aspect of what was consented to. In other words, this means that if you're consenting to violent interactions with someone else, and you want to make sure that you can't be double-crossed and successfully prosecuted later, you need to make sure that you have documentation (notarized, etc.) of the involved parties consenting to violent interaction.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 11, 2018 22:13:07 GMT
I think it is time you did that re your consent criteria because in my pinion all your replies to island Mur on this point were indeed waffle about basically restating that you don't like age based criteria and making up new tortuous ways to prove consent etc etc etc. (i) the persons can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to, what if they're mute, deaf and limbless?
|
|