• Age of consent should be lowered.
    608 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BigOwl;28533307]The point was that homosexuals and pedophiles were terrible analogies guys. :v:[/QUOTE] And my point was that being a pedophile isn't a crime, and neither is homosexuality. Anyone molesting children is however a crime.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;28533244]OP, this was posted before a few pages back and you've yet to respond: Thirteen year olds are not emotionally developed or intelligent enough to understand the consequences, both mental, physical, and emotional, of their actions. The middle-aged person in question, on the other hand, understands this very, very well. Since there isn't actual consent from the child - the child not being CAPABLE of giving consent because the child does not share the same level of understanding as the older partner - it's exploitation. Rape. Whatever.[/QUOTE] Quoting this so the OP can actually respond to it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28533327]And my point was that being a pedophile isn't a crime, and neither is homosexuality.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Still waiting on op to admit his age.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;28533244]OP, this was posted before a few pages back and you've yet to respond: Thirteen year olds are not emotionally developed or intelligent enough to understand the consequences, both mental, physical, and emotional, of their actions. The middle-aged person in question, on the other hand, understands this very, very well. Since there isn't actual consent from the child - the child not being CAPABLE of giving consent because the child does not share the same level of understanding as the older partner - it's exploitation. Rape. Whatever.[/QUOTE] Thanks, Tacosheller. Is there a "creepy sonofabitch" rating?
[QUOTE=archangel125;28533336]Thanks, Tacosheller. Is there a "creepy sonofabitch" rating?[/QUOTE] The dumb rating will have to do.
[QUOTE=Lamar;28533233]so by your logic the majority of Japan's and Spain's parliament is composed of pedophiles?[/QUOTE] Those are other countries, it's their own choice if they want to have lower AOC. That doesn't mean other countries need to follow that move and all lower the AOC.
[QUOTE=archangel125;28533336]Thanks, Tacosheller. Is there a "creepy sonofabitch" rating?[/QUOTE] Yep, it's the little brown box all the way on the right.
That's what you get for living in a country run by bible-thumpers and puritans, OP... My suggestion? [img_thumb]http://alphastudiossoftware.nl/FP/getoutwithit.gif[/img_thumb] [QUOTE=aydin690;28532972]Move to Saudi Arabia or Yemen then. They're fuckin modern countries by your definition. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] I didn't even know the age of consent is 13 around here (Argentina)... then again, most people don't really care about it... So it's totally cool around here to be like, 28-30, and date 16-18 year old girls (jailbait in the US) :smug:
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;28533361]I didn't even know the age of consent is 13 around here (Argentina)... then again, most people don't really care about it... So it's totally cool around here to be like, 28-30, and date 16-18 year old girls (jailbait in the US) :smug:[/QUOTE] And the dude will be all like that bling frog emoticon.
.
[QUOTE=DarkDeliverence;28533403]What are your parameters?[/QUOTE] I believe he's begging the question.
[QUOTE=DarkDeliverence;28533403]What are your parameters?[/QUOTE] What's your vector victor. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] This is the part where he slinks away until the arguments he can't answer are on the previous page so he can pretend he hasn't seen them.
[QUOTE=archangel125;28533433]What's your vector victor. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] This is the part where he slinks away until the arguments he can't answer are on the previous page so he can pretend he hasn't seen them.[/QUOTE] Or his moment of dumb victory if he was a troll.
I personally think the age of consent should be lowered to 14. The only reason why 'sex is bad hurr' is because of religious tradition and lack of proper education. Given the proper education and the proper means of protection, sex is a safe and healthy activity, and with the rising amount of media portrayal of sex and sexuality in younger individuals, it would only make sense. At 14, most people's bodies in the West are sexually developed. At 14, most people in the West have access to sexual media, are knowledgeable of it. At 14, many individuals already have consensual sex. At 14, consensual sex is a punishable crime in most of America and Canada. At 14, consensual sex with anyone over 18 is a sex offense for the adult. Sex is only negative because of the 'sex are bad keep mind pure' attitude, however: Sex is only viewed this way because of religious culture. Sex is a health and natural activity given proper protection. Sex at 14 is not a traumatic nor mentally harmful experience if done healthily, consensually, and with protection. Pregnancy and disease transmission can be drastically lowered given proper education and protection. Critics here argue "Why should we allow it?" The question should be "Why do these critics wish to deny it?" Mentality also generally doesn't play a part- I know people that are 13 who are far more mature than people who are 20, I know people who are more knowledgeable at sex who are younger than my peers. Mentality and emotional preparedness is an individual trait, and we can't simply deny everyone the ability just because some may not be mentally prepared- which is itself a consequence of lack of education. Don't know how the argument went since OP, but I have to agree, I think it should be lowered,a nd I figure that 14 is a fair age because all it's really doing is criminalizing something that's occurring anyhow and hardly harms anyone most of the time.
He's not even viewing the thread anymore, wouldn't be inaccurate to say he could have been a troll.
[QUOTE=Warriorx4;28533521]He's not even viewing the thread anymore, wouldn't be inaccurate to say he could have been a troll.[/QUOTE] It would also be accurate to say that there is a world outside of computers and he may be doing something else in that vast, unknown world.
[QUOTE=Detective P;28533517] Critics here argue "Why should we allow it?" The question should be "Why do these critics wish to deny it?"[/QUOTE] "Here's my idea. What? I'm supposed to convince you it's good? No no, you tell me why it's a bad one first". [QUOTE=Sanius;28533580]It would also be accurate to say that there is a world outside of computers and he may be doing something else in that vast, unknown world.[/QUOTE] Most of it probably involving jerking it to jailbait.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;28533588]"Here's my idea. What? I'm supposed to convince you it's good? No no, you tell me why it's a bad one first". [/QUOTE] None of the points in his post can be logically argued against. And no, appeal to emotion is not a logical argument.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28533628]None of the points in his post can be logically argued against. And no, appeal to emotion is not a logical argument.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that. I just find it weird that he's trying to present an argument and then saying we're supposed to tell him why it's bad. Usually it's the other way around.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28533580]It would also be accurate to say that there is a world outside of computers and he may be doing something else in that vast, unknown world.[/QUOTE] Nah I doubt it.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;28533588]"Here's my idea. What? I'm supposed to convince you it's good? No no, you tell me why it's a bad one first". [/QUOTE] I did. Sex is a natural liberty- that is, it's something that happens at nature at that age anyhow- it's only government or cultural prevention that removes that liberty. While it is necessary to do this in many cases, why should we deny a liberty? It's basically similar to this: You don't have the right to vacuum your house. Everyone has vacuums, but no one uses them. It's normal to vacuum your house, but because the government says so and other naturally accept that we just shouldn't vacuum our house, we don't. When asked, people say; "Well, why should we be able to vacuum our house? What possible use could come of that? I don't want to vacuum my house, why should anyone?" The real question should be, "Why deny the ability to vacuum the house? Just because the majority accept that we shouldn't vacuum our houses, why deny the right for everyone? There are people who want to vacuum their houses. Why stop them?"
[QUOTE=Lamar;28531737]Kids are having sexual intercourse at earlier ages, shouldn't we lower the age of consent to accommodate this?[/QUOTE] A lot of people murder other people, shouldn't we allow murder to accommodate this? :downs: [QUOTE=Sanius;28533774]Don't ever compare sex to murder if you want to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] I think you missed the point. He's saying that we should allow older people to have sex with little kids because a lot of little kids aren't practicing abstinence. It's similar to saying that we should let people kill other people because people do it. And that is true, sex and murder really shouldn't be compared.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;28533748]A lot of people murder other people, shouldn't we allow murder to accommodate this?[/QUOTE] Don't ever compare sex to murder if you want to be taken seriously.
[QUOTE=Detective P;28533517] At 14, most people's bodies in the West are sexually developed. At 14, most people in the West have access to sexual media, are knowledgeable of it. At 14, many individuals already have consensual sex. At 14, consensual sex is a punishable crime in most of America and Canada. At 14, consensual sex with anyone over 18 is a sex offense for the adult. Sex is only negative because of the 'sex are bad keep mind pure' attitude, however: Sex is only viewed this way because of religious culture. Sex is a health and natural activity given proper protection. Sex at 14 is not a traumatic nor mentally harmful experience if done healthily, consensually, and with protection. Mentality also generally doesn't play a part- I know people that are 13 who are far more mature than people who are 20, I know people who are more knowledgeable at sex who are younger than my peers. Mentality and emotional preparedness is an individual trait, and we can't simply deny everyone the ability just because some may not be mentally prepared- which is itself a consequence of lack of education. Don't know how the argument went since OP, but I have to agree, I think it should be lowered,a nd I figure that 14 is a fair age because all it's really doing is criminalizing something that's occurring anyhow and hardly harms anyone most of the time.[/QUOTE] It's more of a preventive law than an active one. It's also one big debate as to know if a 14 years old can actually give consent or not, because the AoC is exactly about this. You bring fair points, but I still think any 14 years old can't take their own decisions for themselves. They're not considered adults either. I also know 14 years old that are very childish and makes stupid decisions that endangers their lives. Every person can make a decision for themselves. The only difference is that someone older with more experience can probably make better ones than teenagers with sexual urges. Please note that I am an atheist, and that religion has nothing to do with my points.
[QUOTE=Detective P;28533733]I did. Sex is a natural liberty- that is, it's something that happens at nature at that age anyhow- it's only government or cultural prevention that removes that liberty. While it is necessary to do this in many cases, why should we deny a liberty? It's basically similar to this: You don't have the right to vacuum your house. Everyone has vacuums, but no one uses them. It's normal to vacuum your house, but because the government says so and other naturally accept that we just shouldn't vacuum our house, we don't. When asked, people say; "Well, why should we be able to vacuum our house? What possible use could come of that? I don't want to vacuum my house, why should anyone?" The real question should be, "Why deny the ability to vacuum the house? Just because the majority accept that we shouldn't vacuum our houses, why deny the right for everyone? There are people who want to vacuum their houses. Why stop them?"[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I fail to see how vacuuming your house is comparable to under-age sex. Also, juding by that last sentence, stoning should be legalized too. [QUOTE=Sanius;28533774]Don't ever compare sex to murder if you want to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] Fine. Just because a majority does it doesn't mean it's right.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;28533817] Also, juding by that last sentence, stoning should be legalized too.[/QUOTE] I don't know where you're getting that from. Stoning people is inherently harmful, sex and vacuuming are not, unless they are done at the same time.
Also, vacuums can't get pregnant, raped (with consent excuse), or contract STDs.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;28532345]I think the Age of Consent is a silly law. It doesn't dissuade kids from having sex because they're fine if they don't tell any adults and it sets up a system where stupid kids can call rape on consensual sex. Rape is rape, consensual sex is consensual sex - no matter how stupid or smart you are.[/QUOTE] Your idea of consensual sex: 56-year-old Carl: You know I love you very much. & you love me, right? 7-year-old Janis: Yes. Carl: You'll do this for me if you love me. Janis: Okay... Maturity/intelligence very much has to do with whether it's truly consensual or not.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28533841]I don't know where you're getting that from. Stoning people is inherently harmful, sex and vacuuming are not, unless they are done at the same time.[/QUOTE] [quote]There are people who want to vacuum their houses. Why stop them?[/quote] Let's rephrase that a bit: [quote]There are people who want to stone people to death freely. Why stop them?[/quote].
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;28533914]Let's rephrase that a bit: .[/QUOTE] No, let's not. You're putting words into his mouth in the dumbest way possible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.