[QUOTE=Contag;28535626]If one is rational enough to have sex and reproduce, they are certainly rational enough to do the others.
[editline]11th March 2011[/editline]
That's only for men, and in any case, more developed is better than less developed.
[editline]11th March 2011[/editline]
Laws enshrine the normative moral values of the population.[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to make the same sort of argument Detective P made earlier about 14 year olds being able to drive, but replacing driving with potential sex? Seems like either way, younger people can be responsible enough to have sex.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;28535711]Note that these ages are already different. Thus destroying your argument[/QUOTE]
How does that destroy my argument?
It only indicates the current system is silly and illogical.?
I have absolutely no idea why someone can smoke but not drink until 21.
[QUOTE=Contag;28535684]It stops them having sex with 30 year olds.[/QUOTE]
Why does it matter the age of the person? They can still have an STD, they can still be abusive; no matter the age. I'd like a logical reason why 14 year olds can't have consenting sex with an 18 year old
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;28535730]You are aware that "protecting people from others" is a moral view, right? And the minutia therein?[/QUOTE]
No it's not, it's about protecting the rights to life, liberty, and property. Not morality
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28535738]Are you trying to make the same sort of argument Detective P made earlier about 14 year olds being able to drive, but replacing driving with potential sex? Seems like either way, younger people can be responsible enough to have sex.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they [I]can[/I] be responsible enough, which is why discretion is applied when there is very little difference in age, but not all are responsible enough.
[QUOTE=Contag;28535770]Yes, they [I]can[/I] be responsible enough, which is why discretion is applied when there is very little difference in age, but not all are responsible enough.[/QUOTE]
Why does that matter at all? I'm sick of arguments regarding sex and age of consent. All people do is state emotional, moral bullshit as fact and then ridicule anybody who disagrees.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;28535536]Ooo, look at this guy coming from a moral high ground.
First off, civilized is an arbitrary term and morals are subjective. You have no right to impose your morals on others. Anybody can think anything is moral or immoral, unless you are religious there is no standard for morality, and there shouldn't be.[/QUOTE]
I agree with the principle behind your argument because ethnocentricism is outdated and bigoted. That said, surely you agree that the greater violation of rights is for a pedophile to impose his twisted sense of morality on his victims, which occurs for all practical purpose even when so-called 'consent' is given through exploitation, manipulation or coercion.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;28535746]Why does it matter the age of the person? They can still have an STD, they can still be abusive; no matter the age. I'd like a logical reason why 14 year olds can't have consenting sex with an 18 year old
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
No it's not, it's about protecting the rights to life, liberty, and property. Not morality[/QUOTE]
AND THE BELIEF THAT LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE PROTECTED IS A MORAL FUCKING VIEW
I give up, you're all pedophiles.
WHY WOULD YOU EVEN WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN?
[QUOTE=Contag;28535743]How does that destroy my argument?
It only indicates the current system is silly and illogical.?
I have absolutely no idea why someone can smoke but not drink until 21.[/QUOTE]
There isn't a logical reason for the drinking age. But voting one is about being a legal adult at 18
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;28535808]There isn't a logical reason for the drinking age. But voting one is about being a legal adult at 18[/QUOTE]
Your brain is mostly done developing at the age of 21, drinking before it could damage it.
[QUOTE=Jookia;28535836]Your brain is mostly done developing at the age of 21, drinking before it could damage it.[/QUOTE]
You're kidding, right? That's your rationalization for drinking laws?
[QUOTE=Contag;28535794]AND THE BELIEF THAT LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE PROTECTED IS A MORAL FUCKING VIEW
I give up, you're all pedophiles.
WHY WOULD YOU EVEN WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN?[/QUOTE]
It's a legal view.
And constantly ridiculing your opponents just makes you look weak. Do note that not everyone is like you or shares your values you narcissistic pig. I'm not a pedophile anyway. I just take a purely logical view on government, and I don't agree with restricting people's rights because of morals.
What if the majority decided video games were immoral and banned them? That would be ok by you right?
[editline]10th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jookia;28535836]Your brain is mostly done developing at the age of 21, drinking before it could damage it.[/QUOTE]
Drinking damages your brain no matter your age.
Drinking and smoking laws should not exist. It is no more than a way for your government to say "I know what's best for you, and your body is ours."
[QUOTE=Sanius;28535856]You're kidding, right? That's your rationalization for drinking laws?[/QUOTE]
Alcohol is a good thing historically, but it really is poison. Why would it be wrong to say that people who are developing should not have it?
Anyways, where I'm from its legal to have a drink as long as your folks give it to you, so parents have the option of demystifying it or not. I've had my fair share of alcohol, and I'm way below the legal age. Just not too much in one night.
[QUOTE=Azaer;28535939]Alcohol is a good thing historically, but it really is poison. Why would it be wrong to say that people who are developing should not have it?
[/QUOTE]
No, it would not be wrong to say that, but it would be wrong to force your morality on others, which is what drug laws are.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28535904]Drinking and smoking laws should not exist. It is no more than a way for your government to say "I know what's best for you, and your body is ours."[/QUOTE]
This would be true if they were not widely supported by the population. Honestly good luck going out on the streets and trying to find more than a couple people who would agree that two things that have a very good chance of harming you require no regulation.
Edit: [QUOTE=Sanius;28535981]No, it would not be wrong to say that, but it would be wrong to force your morality on others, which is what drug laws are.[/QUOTE]
This is where I will give up ground: There is truth to the movements for the legalization of certain drugs, but what I'm saying is cigarettes, which are addictive and have no medical benefit are worthy of regulation.
I can't tell if we're derailing or not.
[QUOTE=Azaer;28535994]This would be true if they were not widely supported by the population. Honestly good luck going out on the streets and trying to find more than a couple people who would agree that two things that have a very good chance of harming you require no regulation.[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about regulation? I was talking about drinking age laws, not regulation of alcohol in general.
People ought to have enough discretion for the age of consent laws to not be an issue.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;28535746]Why does it matter the age of the person? They can still have an STD, they can still be abusive; no matter the age. I'd like a logical reason why 14 year olds can't have consenting sex with an 18 year old[/QUOTE]
Because most women aren't biologically ready to bear the burden of pregnancy until they're between 17-20 years old? As in, if they get pregnant before their bodies are formed enough, they could be put under serious trauma or even die in childbirth, unless medical procedures like the C-Section are underwent?
That's what I was taught in sex-ed.
And before you say it, it doesn't matter what preventative measures are taken. There's always the chance, no matter how small, that an accident could occur (broken condoms, anyone?). At such a young age, do you really think that girl will be unafraid to ask her parents if she could get an abortion? No, chances are she'll hide it until it's too late.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536022]Who said anything about regulation? I was talking about drinking age laws, not regulation of alcohol in general.[/QUOTE]
Ah, sorry about the miscommunication. I'm just filing "age restriction" into "regulation laws" in my head.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;28531683]It shouldn't be lowered, but there should be some lenience if you're within 3 years or something.
You shouldn't go to jail for having sex with your girlfriend of 2 years on your 18th birthday.[/QUOTE]
You can. Most states have laws imposed where the age of consent is considered nullified assuming both participants consented to the activity and they were within 3-4 years of age. If the gap is too big, even if consent is given by both parties, then it starts turning into statutory rape.
There's a lot of people in this thread saying "X is morally wrong", "laws are X", "morality is X" but few people (if any) are justifying these claims. I think it's a lot more difficult to justify the condemnation of two rational actors having sex than most people think.
:q:
[QUOTE=Robbobin;28536197]There's a lot of people in this thread saying "X is morally wrong", "laws are X", "morality is X" but few people (if any) are justifying these claims. I think it's a lot more difficult to justify the condemnation of two rational actors having sex than most people think.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but my argument has been based on the fact that one party, or 'actor', where there is a very large age gap and there is a minor involved, can't be considered 'rational'.
[QUOTE=archangel125;28536234]Sure, but my argument has been based on the fact that one party, or 'actor', where there is a very large age gap and there is a minor involved, can't be considered 'rational'.[/QUOTE]
Why not? I'm not refuting the point you're making here, just asking for some clarification on why we should consider someone of 20 years of age rational and not someone who's 15, and how we define the cut-off point. I'd say a lot of adults leave something to be desired as far as rationality goes... we don't we call cases like those rape?
[QUOTE=archangel125;28536234]Sure, but my argument has been based on the fact that one party, or 'actor', where there is a very large age gap and there is a minor involved, can't be considered 'rational'.[/QUOTE]
There is no rationality involved. Sex is sex, it doesn't matter what the age gap is. I wish people would admit that their arguments involving age of consent are based purely on moral and emotional concerns.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;28536268]Why not? I'm not refuting the point you're making here, just asking for some clarification on why we should consider someone of 20 years of age rational and not someone who's 15, and how we define the cut-off point. I'd say a lot of adults leave something to be desired as far as rationality goes... we don't we call cases like those rape?[/QUOTE]
That's a good point. Hm. Maybe naivety is a factor? Most adults, by a certain age, have had enough experience in life to have developed a complete identity and a perspective. Furthermore, people under the age of sixteen are still in a transitional stage in their lives and so are very impressionable and easy to manipulate. They have not yet developed fully as people.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;28535536]Ooo, look at this guy coming from a moral high ground.
First off, civilized is an arbitrary term and morals are subjective. You have no right to impose your morals on others. Anybody can think anything is moral or immoral, unless you are religious there is no standard for morality, and there shouldn't be.[/QUOTE]
There is a standard for morality, and it's determined by what is beneficial or destructive to society.
[QUOTE=Contag;28535794]I give up, you're all pedophiles.
WHY WOULD YOU EVEN WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN?[/QUOTE]
Of course, they're defending the freedom to do something, so they must automatically want to do it. I also hate to point this out [B]yet again[/B], but pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent kids. I don't think people here are saying do away with AoC altogether.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536332]There is no rationality involved. Sex is sex, it doesn't matter what the age gap is. I wish people would admit that their arguments involving age of consent are based purely on moral and emotional concerns.[/QUOTE]
They may be based on morals, but they're based on widely accepted morals. You keep saying it like only the Government holds these morals when in reality the majority of the citizens hold the same moral stance. Otherwise there'd be massive calls to change this law.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536332]There is no rationality involved. Sex is sex, it doesn't matter what the age gap is. I wish people would admit that their arguments involving age of consent are based purely on moral and emotional concerns.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry I have to ask this, but have you actually had sex? What were the circumstances? Do you know what the risks are, both emotionally and physically? Do you know what the potential consequences are, and how they affect an individual's development? Do you really think that kids who are exploited by adults at a young age develop into psychologically healthy human beings? There's tons of evidence in behavioral science that backs this up. Once someone has developed completely and is emotionally mature, there's no issue with them having sex with someone who is much, much older, because they make a choice to do so with full understanding of the ramifications. Someone still developing, like a child or young teenager, simply does not understand.
If you're an animal (other than a sapient species), you are not self-aware to the degree that you can reflect on your actions, and it really doesn't matter. The mind, however, of a sapient being, requires care.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.