|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 23:25:19 GMT
I left that thread as it was an inappropriately placed argument. I see you criteria as merely new tortuous ways of achieving very little. What do you see as the benefits of this regime? Who benefits, how and why? I'm not really proposing it because I think it's benefiting anyone in particular. I'm proposing it because the idea of hinging consent on age is ridiculous in my opinion. I'm instead analyzing what consent amounts to functionally, where I'd base the law of consent on that instead. If I had to come up with a benefit, I suppose I'd simply say that the benefit is that consent would in no way hinge on age, but it would hinge on ability instead. Thus you're not prohibited from doing anything merely because you're a particular age (and you're also not a candidate for doing anything merely because you're a particular age, either). As long as you're capable of consenting per the criteria, you are legally allowed to consent. (And then it's just a matter of whether you did consent to whatever it is.) In saying this you are ignoring certain biological facts. YOU say they are imposed by societal norms, and I SAY that there are and should be, biological provisos on what immature people can and should be allowed to do according to their maturity, physically mentally and emotionally I agree that due to individual differences in maturation rates that a numerical age is not necessarily a standard and is more a guide. There is much discussion, for example here in Australia about young boys playing body contact sports on an age division basis when some boys 'mature physically' early than others and out weigh them causing possible harm to each other. It is a vexed question however. I absolutely disagree with you on NOT singling out sexual relations based on maturity however ( not necessarily age) butt in this case, the easiest and fairest means of handling this problem is pretty much what we have, with a legal 'age of consent' set via scientific and biological evidence of the maturity, physical emotional and mental age of what could be assayed as an average or median child. As I said above, this has been an evolution in societal norms. This has been severely tested in this country recently with the number of underage persons having been indecently assaulted by paedophile priests and others in control, and it proves that such a line should be made by society to protect our children.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 23:35:19 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? There is no right or wrong goz, that is your own limited, personal, "emotional" black and white projection.
There are appropriate ways in which to behave and there are consequences for actions, but ultimately it is what it is.
Is it right or wrong for a grown man to have sex with a baby? Under the current law this is illegal and punishable by long jail sentences because it is wrong in that it causes irreparable harm to a baby who could not consent due to immaturity and whose body was too small.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 23:39:06 GMT
I must have missed the news when children where allowed to run in 4 00 meters against adults in races. Or box with champions in a ring. And that has what, exactly, to do with answering whether you'd make it illegal for a 4-year-old to have a foot race with an adult? I would not make it illegal for a 4 year old to be in a foot race with an adult. I WOULD make it illegal for a 4 year old to have sex with an adult.
|
|
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 23:39:17 GMT
I must have missed the news when children where allowed to run in 4 00 meters against adults in races. Or box with champions in a ring. And that has what, exactly, to do with answering whether you'd make it illegal for a 4-year-old to have a foot race with an adult? Are children allowed to run in adult races? Answer the question first. Then point out where I said I would make anything illegal. thank you.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 23:41:14 GMT
And that has what, exactly, to do with answering whether you'd make it illegal for a 4-year-old to have a foot race with an adult? Are children allowed to run in adult races? Answer the question first. Then point out where I said I would make anything illegal. thank you. I would make it illegal for a 4 year old to have sex with an adult.
|
|
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 23:42:53 GMT
See I think that's wrong. I do think that age of consent should have an age spread section... 2 years either way. You think it's wrong that folks are punished for relationships where one is 19 and the other 15 (and like examples)? I said a 2 year spread, 15 and 17... 13 and 15... like i've stated peers.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2018 23:51:46 GMT
See I think that's wrong. I do think that age of consent should have an age spread section... 2 years either way. You think it's wrong that folks are punished for relationships where one is 19 and the other 15 (and like examples)? Is that the sum total of your argument?
|
|
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 23:57:07 GMT
Is it right or wrong for a grown man to have sex with a baby? Under the current law this is illegal and punishable by long jail sentences because it is wrong in that it causes irreparable harm to a baby who could not consent due to immaturity and whose body was too small. Someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. The law will ensue consequences for these actions—not very well I might add—but ultimately, it is what it is. The wrongness of what you see, is 'only' a projection of your own emotions, because it is born out of your own sense of ethics and morality which has stirred disgust in you. That is understandable, but it is your revulsion, born out of your own ideals about life and the world around you. Is the care and concern you project really that genuine?
No... the wrongness is wrong because it's contrary to the laws of nature. Even animals do not have sex with their youngs until they have reach sexual maturity.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 0:02:41 GMT
Is it right or wrong for a grown man to have sex with a baby? Under the current law this is illegal and punishable by long jail sentences because it is wrong in that it causes irreparable harm to a baby who could not consent due to immaturity and whose body was too small. Someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. The law will ensue consequences for these actions—not very well I might add—but ultimately, it is what it is. The wrongness of what you see, is 'only' a projection of your own emotions, because it is born out of your own sense of ethics and morality which has stirred disgust in you. That is understandable, but it is your revulsion, born out of your own ideals about life and the world around you. Is the care and concern you project really that genuine?
WTF? Without wishing to get involved in an Argumentum ad populum, there are some issues about which sane people of most cultures agree, and this is the sanctity of our children Faux intellectuals like you and Terepin like to fel superior by pointing out something which I actually agree with, which is that there is no objective morliaty HOWEVER there are rights and wrongs in most cultures due to their inherent nature of harm such as murder, torture, rape and sex with young children. Those with a paedophilic bent go through hoops to justify their desires with faux intellectualism of consent, butt we all really know that exactly what you said is true someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. You agree to this yet carry n about how I am 'projecting my emotions, or some such crap. Hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 0:31:40 GMT
Certainly repeating the assertion that there are "full understandings" and it's not a nonsensical phrase is a good support of the claim. You just repeatedly denying it's existence isn't really any better of an argument, moron. I can explain why it's nonsense in detail, although you won't respond with anything other than stupid insults. So first, here's what understanding is in general: Understanding obtains when one assigns meanings to objects, actions or events in a way that is coherent and consistent to one and that also makes sense in the context of both future and past related objects, actions and events, especially those (one considers) related to the objects, actions or events in question. Mutual understanding obtains when multiple parties do this in conjunction with each other, so that if there are two parties, say A and B, A is in the state described in the first sentence with respect to B, and B is in the state described in the first sentence with respect to A. Note that this does not imply that A and B have similar content to their states. Since meaning is subjective and inherently first-person in my view, we can never know whether A and B have similar content to their states. Any questions so far?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 0:34:04 GMT
I'm not really proposing it because I think it's benefiting anyone in particular. I'm proposing it because the idea of hinging consent on age is ridiculous in my opinion. I'm instead analyzing what consent amounts to functionally, where I'd base the law of consent on that instead. If I had to come up with a benefit, I suppose I'd simply say that the benefit is that consent would in no way hinge on age, but it would hinge on ability instead. Thus you're not prohibited from doing anything merely because you're a particular age (and you're also not a candidate for doing anything merely because you're a particular age, either). As long as you're capable of consenting per the criteria, you are legally allowed to consent. (And then it's just a matter of whether you did consent to whatever it is.) In saying this you are ignoring certain biological facts. YOU say they are imposed by societal norms, and I SAY that there are and should be, biological provisos on what immature people can and should be allowed to do according to their maturity, physically mentally and emotionally And I'm sure you'll be amenable to systematically examining those concepts--maturity, etc., right?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 0:36:19 GMT
And that has what, exactly, to do with answering whether you'd make it illegal for a 4-year-old to have a foot race with an adult? Are children allowed to run in adult races? Answer the question first. Then point out where I said I would make anything illegal. thank you. Yes, of course they're allowed to run in adult races. I didn't say that you said you'd make anything illegal. I asked you a question about that. You could just answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 0:37:46 GMT
You think it's wrong that folks are punished for relationships where one is 19 and the other 15 (and like examples)? I said a 2 year spread, 15 and 17... 13 and 15... like i've stated peers. Right. So I feel that it's morally wrong to prosecute the 19 year old in the example I gave.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 0:39:09 GMT
You think it's wrong that folks are punished for relationships where one is 19 and the other 15 (and like examples)? Is that the sum total of your argument? I thought you were better than just trolling, no?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 0:40:07 GMT
Someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. The law will ensue consequences for these actions—not very well I might add—but ultimately, it is what it is. The wrongness of what you see, is 'only' a projection of your own emotions, because it is born out of your own sense of ethics and morality which has stirred disgust in you. That is understandable, but it is your revulsion, born out of your own ideals about life and the world around you. Is the care and concern you project really that genuine?
No... the wrongness is wrong because it's contrary to the laws of nature. Even animals do not have sex with their youngs until they have reach sexual maturity. It's impossible to do anything contrary to the laws of nature.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 0:41:55 GMT
Someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. The law will ensue consequences for these actions—not very well I might add—but ultimately, it is what it is. The wrongness of what you see, is 'only' a projection of your own emotions, because it is born out of your own sense of ethics and morality which has stirred disgust in you. That is understandable, but it is your revulsion, born out of your own ideals about life and the world around you. Is the care and concern you project really that genuine?
WTF? Without wishing to get involved in an Argumentum ad populum, there are some issues about which sane people of most cultures agree, and this is the sanctity of our children Faux intellectuals like you and Terepin like to fel superior by pointing out something which I actually agree with, which is that there is no objective morliaty HOWEVER there are rights and wrongs in most cultures due to their inherent nature of harm such as murder, torture, rape and sex with young children. Those with a paedophilic bent go through hoops to justify their desires with faux intellectualism of consent, butt we all really know that exactly what you said is true someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. You agree to this yet carry n about how I am 'projecting my emotions, or some such crap. Hypocrite. Was that an example of "real" intellectualism?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 12, 2018 0:43:22 GMT
You just repeatedly denying it's existence isn't really any better of an argument, moron. I can explain why it's nonsense in detailSo... Are you saying that you fully understand why you can't fully understand something? Yeah.. Because you are a stupid person. Yes. Why are you so fucking stupid?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 1:03:35 GMT
So... Are you saying that you fully understand why you can't fully understand something? You would be dumb enough to think that, wouldn't you?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 12, 2018 1:23:02 GMT
So... Are you saying that you fully understand why you can't fully understand something? You would be dumb enough to think that, wouldn't you? Yeah... You're right. It would be dumb to think that you fully understand anything.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 1:29:37 GMT
WTF? Without wishing to get involved in an Argumentum ad populum, there are some issues about which sane people of most cultures agree, and this is the sanctity of our children Faux intellectuals like you and Terepin like to fel superior by pointing out something which I actually agree with, which is that there is no objective morliaty HOWEVER there are rights and wrongs in most cultures due to their inherent nature of harm such as murder, torture, rape and sex with young children. Those with a paedophilic bent go through hoops to justify their desires with faux intellectualism of consent, butt we all really know that exactly what you said is true someone who has penetrative sex with a baby has serious mental issues. You agree to this yet carry n about how I am 'projecting my emotions, or some such crap. Hypocrite. What a depressing life you must lead, waking up every morning and concerning yourself with all the pedophiles of the world and the children that are their victims. goz, the pedophile hunter. Who are these pedophiles in your life and who are these children in your life that have been victimized by them? Where are they, who are they?
How you feel about anything are your emotions to deal with. What you brought up was just an abstract example, and it needs to be expressed in some form to answer your question. It is all born out of emotion. You are concerning yourself with a moral stance that has no objectification and is a subjective abstract. And wanting to project your own sense of wrongness and rightness, is also about control issues. Your care and concern is phony.
What a ridiculous,illogical hypocritically emotional, stupid post this is. This is a frickin message board and we are discussing whether it is acceptable for children to have sex, how, with whom and that it is unacceptable for all the reasons I have mentioned that it is not acceptable for young children to have sex. WTF are YOU discussing?
|
|