• Age of consent should be lowered.
    608 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Robbobin;28536939](even if he expressed any attraction to anyone under the age of consent in the first place).[/QUOTE] He did not, which is what really pisses me off about those comments. I don't know why people have this mentality: if somebody defends something, they must accept and partake in it themselves.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;28536962]Yeah you're right. I'm just being stupid.[/QUOTE] Haha yeah I sensed you didn't mean what you were saying so I wanted to avoid sounding too much like a twat in that response :keke:
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;28536893]Op should realize that 14 year olds are stupid, always will be stupid, and always have been stupid. Your brain doesn't really stabilize until the mid 20s. 14 year olds just aren't in a sound state of mind for that on the whole due to hormones and I wouldn't really want my 14 year old kid having sex at all, even with a kid their own age as hormones make you do stupid stupid shit. Also OP by definition is a pedophile.[/QUOTE] We already went over how that isn't always true. And really, "by definition is a pedophile"? I've already addressed that one topic alone [B]twice[/B]. Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children and defending the potential freedom to have sex with 13-15 year olds doesn't make one a pedophile.
I don't think it should be lowered. I am not saying that the people below it shouldn't have sex, but if they are both around the same age, then most people ignore the law and there is usually no issue with it. Otherwise, the only one wanting to have sex with someone that age would be a pedo. Especially with most states having a Romeo and Juliet law, this is pointless.
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;28537032]I don't think it should be lowered. I am not saying that the people below it shouldn't have sex, but if they are both around the same age, then most people ignore the law and there is usually no issue with it. [B]Otherwise, the only one wanting to have sex with someone that age would be a pedo. [/B]Especially with most states having a Romeo and Juliet law, this is pointless.[/QUOTE] Did you just ignore every other post in this thread?
I think there's definitely [i]something[/i] in the justification of AoC. Certainly when you take into account the rate in which children learn to speak, it's quite surprising how uniformly people develop intellectually (though I'm not sure how uniform it is for puberty: no doubt considerably less). My argument is that merely stating "X isn't intellectually developed" isn't by itself justification for the law.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28536890]I hate to use this example, but I very much doubt you'd be singing the same tune if it was something else, say slavery. But then again, if the majority thinks it, it's logical to make a law for it! :downs:[/QUOTE] We did and there was. And then we abolished it because the majority of the populace decided it was wrong, bringing into mind the third sentence in my post you quoted. If we change our mind, we can change the laws.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28537074]Did you just ignore every other post in this thread?[/QUOTE] Yes.
I wouldnt say it should be lowered, but just allowed more discretion in court. It should be up to the court to decide instead of a black and white 'You are this age, she is this age" kinda thing.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;28537092]We did and there was. And then we abolished it because the majority of the populace decided it was wrong, bringing into mind the third sentence in my post you quoted. If we change our mind, we can change the laws.[/QUOTE] So you still think slavery was morally justified, despite ruining the lives of entire cultures, purely because the majority thought it was okay?
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;28537099]Yes.[/QUOTE] Same, I'm surprised how fast this thread took off. Probably facepunch talking about morals, lol
I think the particular topic in question is probably quite overstated. In practice courts are probably given a great deal of discretion in cases of statutory rape (if they're not, they ought to be) and its hence not as big a problem as it seems. But it's definitely an interesting enquiry into the legitimacy of laws.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;28537198]I think the particular topic in question is probably quite overstated. In practice courts are probably given a great deal of discretion in cases of statutory rape (if they're not, they ought to be) and its hence not as big a problem as it seems. But it's definitely an interesting enquiry into the legitimacy of laws.[/QUOTE] My church group thought that I performed statutory rape on a girl because I walked in on her changing during a retreat, only saw her bra. I don't associate with them any longer.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;28537127]So you still think slavery was morally justified, despite ruining the lives of entire cultures, purely because the majority thought it was okay?[/QUOTE] You misread. I'm not saying [I]I[/I] think it was morally justified, but the people who owned slaves back then did think so, which is why they had laws that agreed. Then when people started realizing what they were doing, their morals changed, and so did the laws (well, except in the southern United States, they lost their "right" to own a slave (note my sarcastic quotations) during the Civil War). I believe Slavery is wrong, a sentiment shared by my fellow countrymen, which is one of the reasons why anti-slavery laws exist and persist. The point I'm trying to make is that Morals ensure flexibility, so that laws can be made, changed, or abolished based on how the people feel about the subject of said laws.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;28537328]You misread. I'm not saying [I]I[/I] think it was morally justified, but the people who owned slaves back then did think so, which is why they had laws that agreed. Then when people started realizing what they were doing, their morals changed, and so did the laws (well, except in the southern United States, they lost their "right" to own a slave (note my sarcastic quotations) during the Civil War). I believe Slavery is wrong, a sentiment shared by my fellow countrymen, which is one of the reasons why anti-slavery laws exist and persist. The point I'm trying to make is that Morals ensure flexibility, so that laws can be made, changed, or abolished based on how the people feel about the subject of said laws.[/QUOTE] I see your point, and I think laws should largely be context dependant as you say. But in the case of slavery, where the context is a society where one group is establishing a hegemony over another, stripping them of their most basic liberties, based on something as arbitrary race, is it really justified just because there's a majority of people who find the ownership of a person expedient?
[QUOTE=Sanius;28536944]People who think this are stupid, always will be stupid, and always have been stupid. Everybody develops differently; mentally and physically.[/QUOTE] While this is true it's difficult to quantify emotional maturity so we use age as an approximation, which I don't think is unreasonable.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;28537416]I see your point, and I think laws should largely be context dependant as you say. But in the case of slavery, where the context is a society where one group is establishing a hegemony over another, stripping them of their most basic liberties, based on something as arbitrary race, is it really justified just because there's a majority of people who find the ownership of a person expedient?[/QUOTE] It's hard to make a convincing argument when someone throws something ugly like Slavery in your face and you have to find a way to make it seem acceptable in the same context as you put something more subjective and less ethically-questionable like AoC laws. So I'm going to respectfully drop out of this argument instead of burying myself any deeper. I don't find it shameful to concede when there's no way out of the hole I dug myself in.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;28537582]It's hard to make a convincing argument when someone throws something ugly like Slavery in your face and you have to find a way to make it seem acceptable in the same context as you put something more subjective and less ethically-questionable like AoC laws. So I'm going to respectfully drop out of this argument instead of burying myself any deeper. I don't find it shameful to concede when there's no way out of the hole I dug myself in.[/QUOTE] I wasn't necessarily attacking your view or anything, just trying to test the model of justification you were giving :dance: Slavery is definitely an extreme example, but those tend to be the best ones to test if a model fits.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;28537639]I wasn't necessarily attacking your view or anything, just trying to test the model of justification you were giving :dance: Slavery is definitely an extreme example, but those tend to be the best ones to test if a model fits.[/QUOTE] I guess mine doesn't then. :clap: Good show, sir.
That sounds like something Hitler would say.
everyone loves fucking little girls thread makes that evident
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28537444]While this is true it's difficult to quantify emotional maturity so we use age as an approximation, which I don't think is unreasonable.[/QUOTE] Using age as an approximation is perfectly fine, but laws which are based on such approximations are flawed. There is no real set age where people can be considered emotionally mature. I would be fine with sexual consent laws if they were based strictly on sexual maturity, a biological factor, but they are not. They are essentially based on what the populace thinks is okay, which is completely arbitrary. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Moose;28538186]everyone loves fucking little girls thread makes that evident[/QUOTE] Your post makes it evident that you did not read this thread before posting and you're incredibly immature.
If you lower the age of consent it's like suggesting everyone should have sex at a younger age, which would just result in a higher rate of teen pregnancies and such.
[QUOTE=iPat;28538325]If you lower the age of consent it's like suggesting everyone should have sex at a younger age, which would just result in a higher rate of teen pregnancies and such.[/QUOTE] If the age of consent was dropped to 14, for example, nothing would change. Seriously. People that young have sex all the time and it's perfectly fine. I don't know what universe you come from where teenagers figure out about the age of consent and think, "well shit, I can't get my dick sucked now."
If a middle aged man is going home to bang a 14 year old every night, then he must be a loser to not be able to get someone his own age. I mean really. It's almost better to have two 12 year olds have sex than some 45 year old and a 14 year old. It's the age that really puts the shit in the can.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28538418]If the age of consent was dropped to 14, for example, nothing would change. Seriously. People that young have sex all the time and it's perfectly fine. I don't know what universe you come from where teenagers figure out about the age of consent and think, "well shit, I can't get my dick sucked now."[/QUOTE] I think you misunderstood me. Of course no one gives a fuck about the age of consent, that's why lowering it wouldn't help anyone who legitimately wants to have sex. I'm saying that if it were lower, it'd be like saying the standard is to have sex at whatever age they set it to, which could motivate more kids to do it at younger ages because they feel that's the societal norm.
[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] Canada has laws like that. You can have sex as young as 13 so long as your partner's age is a 1 year difference.
drop age of consent abortions skyrocket
.
only a 18+ year old pedo would want to fuck a 14 year old
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.