|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 15, 2017 12:43:46 GMT
Which arbitrary age limit would you say is correct? Every jurisdiction has set a different one, so what is the correct age of consent? Under 14 14 15 16 17 18 Over 18 Well, for me it would be 16. 14 is too young in my opinion and 16 clears that middle ground. This is all obviously subjective and I can offer nothing but my interaction with teenagers to validate my thoughts. One of the most honest and unbiased answers I've seen you give. Thank you  |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 15, 2017 12:53:31 GMT
Well, for me it would be 16. 14 is too young in my opinion and 16 clears that middle ground. This is all obviously subjective and I can offer nothing but my interaction with teenagers to validate my thoughts. One of the most honest and unbiased answers I've seen you give. Thank you I'm always honest. I might be wrong or misinformed, but I never knowingly post misinformation and If I do post wrong stuff, I'll happily acknowledge and retract. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 15, 2017 12:55:06 GMT
The definition I just gave, by the way it's written. Don't waste your time. He could go on and on like this forever. Believe me, I know. I've argued with him on this subject on the old boards. He's impossible to pin down and loves to play with words. no we just both are anti-ageists and believe there are no correct definition of a word which is where the similarities end. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 15, 2017 13:27:50 GMT
Which arbitrary age limit would you say is correct? Every jurisdiction has set a different one, so what is the correct age of consent? Under 14 14 15 16 17 18 Over 18 Well, for me it would be 16. 14 is too young in my opinion and 16 clears that middle ground. This is all obviously subjective and I can offer nothing but my interaction with teenagers to validate my thoughts. Some countries have two ages of sexual consent: one which is absolute, and one lower, which applies to youths where the age difference between partners is very slight. So, for example, 18 might be the age at which it would be legal for, say, a 40 year old to sleep with you, and 16 might the age of consent if both (or all) involved are aged 16-18. The idea is that while 16 year olds may be mature enough to explore sex, they are still susceptible to being manipulated by older partners. While such a law isn't going to prevent those 16 year olds from being exploited thus, it will prevent the law from striking down on 17 year olds reported to the police by indignant fathers. Also, while I don't think 14 is too young on a general basis (provided the age difference isn't significant), I think that makes it prudent to set the age of consent to 16. The reason being that people are always going to test the limits anyway, and it is better if 15 is "not that illegal" than to say the same for 13. With the age of consent at 16, 13 is very illegal. As I feel it should be. I find the "half your age plus seven" to be a sensible enough rule to find out if an age gap is kosher. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 15, 2017 13:42:16 GMT
Well, for me it would be 16. 14 is too young in my opinion and 16 clears that middle ground. This is all obviously subjective and I can offer nothing but my interaction with teenagers to validate my thoughts. Some countries have two ages of sexual consent: one which is absolute, and one lower, which applies to youths where the age difference between partners is very slight. So, for example, 18 might be the age at which it would be legal for, say, a 40 year old to sleep with you, and 16 might the age of consent if both (or all) involved are aged 16-18. The idea is that while 16 year olds may be mature enough to explore sex, they are still susceptible to being manipulated by older partners. While such a law isn't going to prevent those 16 year olds from being exploited thus, it will prevent the law from striking down on 17 year olds reported to the police by indignant fathers. Also, while I don't think 14 is too young on a general basis (provided the age difference isn't significant), I think that makes it prudent to set the age of consent to 16. The reason being that people are always going to test the limits anyway, and it is better if 15 is "not that illegal" than to say the same for 13. With the age of consent at 16, 13 is very illegal. As I feel it should be. I find the "half your age plus seven" to be a sensible enough rule to find out if an age gap is kosher. Yeah I was actually going to post about how there is a difference re two 16 year olds and a 50 year old and a 16 year old. I'm torn on the issue because whilst my gut tells me there is something off about an age gap that big especially with a person that young, I'm not sure its down to me to say their relationship is valid or not. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 14:52:36 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said:I haven't addressed this question up to this point as there are conflicting principles involved, but my opinion is that they are disqualified both by the assumption that they encourage a horrific pathology and by extension facilitate harm to minors, and secondly under the principles of obscenity. If they were to be available at all, I think under the care of a physician in some treatment plan would be the only manner I would likely find acceptable. Or perhaps if they were engendered with thoroughly nasty, bossy old termagant personalities and teeth or electric current at all of the orifices.
I am an expert of electricity. My father occupied the chair of applied electricity at the state prison. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 15, 2017 15:25:16 GMT
tpfkar I haven't addressed this question up to this point as there are conflicting principles involved, but my opinion is that they are disqualified both by the assumption that they encourage a horrific pathology and by extension facilitate harm to minors, and secondly under the principles of obscenity. If they were to be available at all, I think under the care of a physician in some treatment plan would be the only manner I would likely find acceptable. When you say "they" are disqualified, to what are you referring? Are you referring to the sex dolls? Are you saying that you believe they would in fact encourage a horrific pathology? Because the question is, what is that assumption based on? And what "principles of obscenity" are you talking about exactly, because as far as I know that's not a thing by any objective means. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 15:46:18 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said:What other "they"s were on your shortlist? And no, I'm saying the cat believes they would in fact encourage a horrific pathology. But the assumption is based upon human nature, expert/legal treatment of similar issues up to this point, and maybe even those "experts" you casually dismiss as they don't offer the conclusion you want. And that only disordered individuals that need to be closely monitored would desire such devices. The only "objective" is a shared subjective, so your last line is pure blather.
If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 15, 2017 18:45:45 GMT
What other "they"s were on your shortlist? I don't have a shortlist and I'd rather not speculate about what someone else means when they use open pronouns; that's why I asked. And no, I'm saying the cat believes they would in fact encourage a horrific pathology. But the assumption is based upon human nature, The idea that either "human nature" is objectification, abuse, rape and paedophilia, OR that human nature is to be encouraged by things designed to satiate natural desires (because you weren't clear on which one you referring to) is beyond retarded! That is like saying that providing hungry people food is likely to cause them to abuse food and become obese. expert/legal treatment of similar issues up to this point, Such as? Can you be more specific, because this is so vague as to be meaningless on its own. and maybe even those "experts" you casually dismiss as they don't offer the conclusion you want. You still haven't answered the first question...WHO ARE THESE SO-CALLED, HYPOTHETICAL EXPERTS? Are we talking the American Psychological Association, American Sexual Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization...  ? Just who are the "experts" you are referring to, and where are these "conclusions" that were supposedly reached? All I've seen so far is a claim made by Independent.co.uk that "Experts have warned that the compliant robots, built only to service their owners, could encourage objectification, abuse, rape and paedophilia", and claim that is never validated or qualified. And that only disordered individuals that need to be closely monitored would desire such devices. The same argument could be made about pornography in general, not to mention vibrators, dildos, fleshlights, and any other sex toy. And I have no doubt the average Christian fundamentalist does make that argument. But I don't see how that is relevant to the legality of having them be made available to those who desire it. Just because something is deemed "deviant behavior" doesn't necessarily mean it that anything that satisfies it is morally wrong. If there was actual evidence that sex robots would put actual children in danger of pedophiles, then that would make the legal availability of them dangerous. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that (or even any research that suggests this would be the case). The only "objective" is a shared subjective, so your last line is pure blather. So was yours!  What "principles of obscenity" are you talking about? If the question is too difficult for you to provide a straight answer too (because you were just talking out of your ass), then I'll understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 19:04:10 GMT
It's a possibility but I don't know of any evidence to suggest it's the case here. Even historically the closest thing we see are things like Pederasty where it was men with adolescent boys rather than young children. Was sex with prepubescent boys considered acceptable in places like Greece where Greek love was allowed though? Even if that was true that wouldn't really tell us much considering teenagers who have gone/are going through puberty would be considered much more attractive to the average person interested in males. Also societies were Greek love was acceptable were ancient societies, the historians of ancient societies only documented the lives of the elite and all the written records we have are from the elite. Traditionally the elite have more attractive partners. From the standpoint of a society that accepts sex with pubescant and prepubescent children the former would be considered more attractive. Edit: Let us not also forget that prepubescent children are not very interested in sex. Edit 2: Are you familiar with the Bambi effect in psychology? This coukd be considered evidence for what I said about the Little Albert experiment. Not sure about your question, but it certainly wasn't as common and practically institutionalized like Pederasty was (if it was I'd be surprised that we don't hear about it being such the way we do with the latter). So I think it's pretty safe to safe that prepubescent sex has rarely (if ever) been as common as pubescent (and adult) sex. RE Edit 1: Children can be interested in anything and everything, even if it's only in the form of a passing question. They certainly aren't interested in sex the way adolescents and adults are (in that they experience hormonal, sexual urges). RE Edit 2: Never heard of it, but it seems a plausible explanation for why people are more sympathetic to some animals. I think it's a stretch to say that it's an explanation for pedophilia, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 19:08:32 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:The sad thing is that is not anything I was specifically arguing nor caring about, regardless of how often you frolic off to it in the attempt to avoid that deezen advocates 4 year-olds being available to adults for sexual abuse. Your conclusions aren't even bad; the arguments are so sideways and dishonest that the conclusions are simply rambled irrelevancies. I don't even think you understand what the conclusions are, nor do I think you understand the arguments. This thread is a monument to your failure to grasp even basic and common definitions of words, and your willingness to contort them when you think it gives you an advantage by appealing to reactionary moral outrage as opposed to rational rebuttals. It occurred to me that the best way to demonstrate how wrong you are in this argument is by analogy. I don't know if I've read (or remembered) your stance on abortion, but I'm going to assume that you're pro-choice. Does being pro-choice mean you advocate for the killing of unborn babies? If you say yes, then at least you're consistent (wrong, but consistent); if you say no, then that would make you a hypocrite because it's the exact same situation as the consent-only/sex-with-four-year-olds debate. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 19:11:56 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:That's the difference between you and me. I'll ride your "talk so much to yourself that you'll greenlight 4 year-olds being made available to adults for sex" for however long you choose to shovel the up is down bizarro world stuff. Being able to dialogue yourself right out of the real world doesn't mean that you'll be able to prate others numb to the horrors of the rapacious aspiration. Via whomever is wanting to abuse them. As their natural inclination is to want to please and be like grown-ups and to just be grown up. As the criteria would be the guide that would supposedly be followed. Once again, to discount them as subject to abuse by predatory adults simply because they haven't already been pre-groomed through the simple steps required to lead them to meet the advocated pedophile fantasy criteria is pure la-la dystopian predator land stuff.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 15, 2017 19:21:54 GMT
It must be tough marketing a product to the perv demographic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 19:27:41 GMT
Bryce was talking about what the "experts" said about the sex dolls, and your post is unclear whether your "they" is referring to the experts or the sex-dolls ("they should be disqualified... etc."). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 19:28:54 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:I'm sure you don't, because with your social ineptitude and self-babble to nonsense you're frequently going over sense cliffs. More like a monument of you nattering yourself into being ok with making 4 year-olds f!ck fodder for adults. Regardless of whether you have confidence you can energizer bunny (pi!) your bellybutton blather through, in real life there are reality checks. And one is where you ok 4 year-olds being available for abuse by predator adults, regardless of your "use" and gross misuse of basic reason, positively demented tangents, and ineptly fielded juvenile proclamations. Not all things are equal, and and some things are horrifically outrageous, and beeping yourself into 4 year-olds as sex-available is one of them. I think "unborn babies", like so much of what you guys field, is pathetic obfuscation to try to steer the conversation. I've never really jumped into the nitty-gritty of abortion, because there is some cognitive dissonance involved and the best I can come up with is compromise that is only marginally less horrible than the alternatives. But if you'd like to f!ck a fetus, you'd need to be locked up as well.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 19:40:25 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:That's the difference between you and me. I'll ride your " talk so much to yourself that you'll greenlight 4 year-olds being made available to adults for sex" for however long you choose to shovel the up is down bizarro world stuff. Now you're just blatantly lying because nowhere either in this thread or any of the threads on iMDB have I "greenlighted," either implicitly or explicitly, the consent-only approach. I don't know if there's any more proof needed of your complete lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. In your warped mind, the desire to accurately represent an argument, argue against it rationally, and avoid committing fallacies like strawmanning and misusing common terms/words is "greenlighting" the other person's argument. Right, but I haven't denied any of this. Under Eddie's consent-only approach, sex with four-year-olds would only be a possibility if they were taught about sex either from parents or predators and they wanted to do it. What we disagreed about was your assertion that this would apply to "the bulk of 4-year-olds," and I have no idea where you got "bulk" from because most 4-year-olds are not taught about sex by their parents, nor are they targeted by predators. So what in the world did you mean by "the bulk?" |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 19:41:00 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said:If you specify some "confusion" that's not pure diverting caviling bullsh!t, you ought to be able to specify where that "confusion" lies. Sure, which is why it would pop into your cognitively ruptured head. Positive experience in the simulation would lead to projecting positive experience with the real thing. People who really enjoy olestra chips are likely to look favorably upon Pringles as well if they can stand a fat instead of a stinky ass. No. You can look up child porn and the like if you like. I wasn't interested in your vague convenient "question" you had for the article. If you wish to impugn the article, knock yourself out. Until then it's just you yapping because it undercuts your supported outcome. Sure, for the sick bastards who want to use those with kids. Sure, for those who want it, it's all just unfairness to them. But there are differences, and anybody who wants to f!ck kids, simulated or otherwise, needs to be closely tracked and potentially segregated away from any possible uncontrolled access. And since "sex robots" haven't existed, the only basis is analogous situations, which have in fact been made illegal. Well, yours was blather about "objective"; what are you suggesting was the blather in mine? Or are you just sh!itting out yet more facile pap. Well, at least not out of a simulated child's ass. If you don't know about the legalities of obscenity in your country or how to look them up, well, I don't care. 
I'm saying that if slavery was actually employed as a way of life and in accordance with the instructions God gave to the Israelites, and the behavior that Jesus outlines for Christians, then there is nothing wrong it it. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 19:46:01 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:More like a monument of you nattering yourself into being ok with making 4 year-olds f!ck fodder for adults. Lying again. What is this "you guys field" stuff referring to? Whether your pro-choice or not, do you agree or disagree that it's accurate to claim that those who are pro-choice are advocating for the killing of unborn babies (or fetuses or whatever the hell you want to call them)? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 19:47:20 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:So you're saying that "they are disqualified both by the assumption that they encourage a horrific pathology and by extension facilitate harm to minors, and secondly under the principles of obscenity" could apply to "experts" and is not patently obviously referring to the dolls on question?  You guys really are some bizarre combination of unscrupulous + mental.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 19:52:53 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:So you're saying that "they are disqualified both by the assumption that they encourage a horrific pathology and by extension facilitate harm to minors, and secondly under the principles of obscenity" could apply to "experts" and is not patently obviously referring to the dolls on question? Up until the "facilitate harm to minors" it seems like your're referring to the experts. Bryce's post that you responded to said this: "I suppose else can just take it at face value and base it on the fact that they are "experts". Of course that does bring us to the next obvious question of what qualifies them as experts in the first place." When your response to a question about what makes experts qualified begins with "they are disqualified," it very much seems like you're referring to the experts. It was only once I got to the "facilitate harm to minors" did I suspect you actually meant the sex-dolls, and the "principles of obscenity" kinda sealed it. But if you have even a basic reading comprehension level you should be able to understand the confusion. |
|
? Just who are the "experts" you are referring to, and where are these "conclusions" that were supposedly reached? All I've seen so far is a claim made by Independent.co.uk that "Experts have warned that the compliant robots, built only to service their owners, could encourage objectification, abuse, rape and paedophilia", and claim that is never validated or qualified. 
