NATION

PASSWORD

Age of Consent.....Should it be lowered?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
I Want to Smash Them All
Diplomat
 
Posts: 906
Founded: Oct 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby I Want to Smash Them All » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:51 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:I may have misunderstood.
Then i'll return to my point that you are conflating capability with the possibility of capability. We cannot know the young person is capable of understanding the information, just as we cannot know someone is capable of driving.
They are only potentially capable, and sans a test, we should err on the side of caution.


This is true...and something I'll have to mull over. Thanks.

EDIT: It seems you've put me in a position where I'm forced to either concede that everyone should have to take a test before having sex (which is impractical), or an age of consent (which was my complaint in the first place). Haha.

It seems without perfect knowledge, a completely just solution is impossible.

Really? You've argued adamantly for a position on this issue that you insisted repeatedly is the only reasonable one, but you'd never actually considered this?

I am glad Ostroeuropa finally got through to you on this point, but variations of this same objection have been raised several times and it is actually a pretty obvious problem. Perhaps you should not bluster so when you have not really thought through what you are advocating.
Goodbye. I have scrambled my password. Bob Mould, Stupid Now; Tom Waits, I Don't Want to Grow Up; Pixies, Hey; Cracker, Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me; The Jesus and Mary Chain, Reverence; L7, Shove; Liz Phair, Polyester Bride; Jane's Addiction, Ain't No Right; Amanda Fucking Palmer, Want It Back; Hole, Violet; Butthole Surfers, Pepper; Grateful Dead, New, New Minglewood Blues; Woody Guthrie's I Ain't Got No Home performed by Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
Aurora Novus
Senator
 
Posts: 4067
Founded: Jan 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aurora Novus » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:58 am

I Want to Smash Them All wrote:Really? You've argued adamantly for a position on this issue that you insisted repeatedly is the only reasonable one, but you'd never actually considered this?

I am glad Ostroeuropa finally got through to you on this point, but variations of this same objection have been raised several times and it is actually a pretty obvious problem. Perhaps you should not bluster so when you have not really thought through what you are advocating.


Having been shown a better solution does not mean I did not think about the position. There was just an issue I hadn't considered. Don't be an ass. I do not have perfect knowledge of everything. I'm sure there are plenty of subjects where you've thought of something, yet were shown a better position later that you were not aware of. There is no reason to be ashamed of this. If anything, it is to be praised. Shaming people for admitting their own mistakes and misjudgments only makes them less inclined to do so. Perhaps it is you who needs to think more before speaking. ;)

I argue adamantly for what I think, because I think I'm right. But I also back down when I'm shown I'm wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. I dare say everyone should be like that.
Last edited by Aurora Novus on Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:04 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
I Want to Smash Them All
Diplomat
 
Posts: 906
Founded: Oct 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby I Want to Smash Them All » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:23 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
I Want to Smash Them All wrote:Really? You've argued adamantly for a position on this issue that you insisted repeatedly is the only reasonable one, but you'd never actually considered this?

I am glad Ostroeuropa finally got through to you on this point, but variations of this same objection have been raised several times and it is actually a pretty obvious problem. Perhaps you should not bluster so when you have not really thought through what you are advocating.


Having been shown a better solution does not mean I did not think about the position. There was just an issue I hadn't considered. Don't be an ass. I do not have perfect knowledge of everything. I'm sure there are plenty of subjects where you've thought of something, yet were shown a better position later that you were not aware of. There is no reason to be ashamed of this. If anything, it is to be praised. Shaming people for admitting their own mistakes and misjudgments only makes them less inclined to do so. Perhaps it is you who needs to think more before speaking. ;)

I argue adamantly for what I think, because I think I'm right. But I also back down when I'm shown I'm wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. I dare say everyone should be like that.

I am glad you can acknowledge errors and that this quality is praiseworthy. But this same "issue" had been raised before and you brushed it off or ignored it. I was simply expressing frustration that you changed your tune (albeit correctly and admirable) merely and only because someone who generally agreed with you raised the issue yet again in a slightly different manner.
Last edited by I Want to Smash Them All on Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Goodbye. I have scrambled my password. Bob Mould, Stupid Now; Tom Waits, I Don't Want to Grow Up; Pixies, Hey; Cracker, Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me; The Jesus and Mary Chain, Reverence; L7, Shove; Liz Phair, Polyester Bride; Jane's Addiction, Ain't No Right; Amanda Fucking Palmer, Want It Back; Hole, Violet; Butthole Surfers, Pepper; Grateful Dead, New, New Minglewood Blues; Woody Guthrie's I Ain't Got No Home performed by Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
I Want to Smash Them All
Diplomat
 
Posts: 906
Founded: Oct 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby I Want to Smash Them All » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:42 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Pretty much. It's what got me around to the position anyway. The importance is recognizing it is arbitrary and flexible, and that while we aren't sure where the line is, we know it when we see it.


Here's an idea that just popped into my head.

What if we had an age of consent, but, had some form of tests available for those who wished to go beyond the age of consent.

How exactly this would work as a practical matter? What would such a test would measure, how it would measure it, who would administer it, and who would judge the results?

Also, you do realize almost all relevant sex crime laws vary by state and every state would be able to write a different test? Would this alone not defeat your objectives because any state wishing to maintain criminal barriers to sex involving someone under the age of consent could simply write a very difficult to pass test?

Finally, this still leaves the question of what the default age of consent would be, correct?

Aurora Novus wrote: Statutory "rape" isn't the common of a thing anyways, in comparison to relative-same age relationships, so how impractical would it really be?

Interesting premises. Any reason to believe they are true? Do you have any evidence as to the number of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for sex crimes based on the age of one or more participant?

Do you have evidence as to the number of incidents of sex where one or more individuals is below the age of consent but all involved are of relatively the same age? Finally, how many of these are part of "relationships" that extend significantly beyond the relevant sex acts?

Aurora Novus wrote:If you want to start a relationship or continue one that would violate the age of consent, you just both take a test of some kind that displays you are both of mental capability to make sound decisions. In this scenario, it doesn't even really matter what the age of consent is. It's more there as a safety barrier than anything.

Again, could you please stop referring to age of consent as relevant to "relationships" and not sex? And stop assuming that age of consent is only or primarily an issue in relationships where all involved are below the age of consent or of relatively the same age?

Aurora Novus wrote:And since the test isn't forced upon someone every single time, for every relationship, but instead is a choice for those rare would-be couples who want to want to go around the age of consent, it's a lot more practical.

So if two or more individuals are involved in a sex act and one is below the age of consent, you are fine with any and all individuals involved being criminally penalized for rape if any individual involved is below the age of consent and had not passed this test? Or are we still at square one?
Goodbye. I have scrambled my password. Bob Mould, Stupid Now; Tom Waits, I Don't Want to Grow Up; Pixies, Hey; Cracker, Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me; The Jesus and Mary Chain, Reverence; L7, Shove; Liz Phair, Polyester Bride; Jane's Addiction, Ain't No Right; Amanda Fucking Palmer, Want It Back; Hole, Violet; Butthole Surfers, Pepper; Grateful Dead, New, New Minglewood Blues; Woody Guthrie's I Ain't Got No Home performed by Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
Aurora Novus
Senator
 
Posts: 4067
Founded: Jan 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aurora Novus » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:43 am

I Want to Smash Them All wrote:I am glad you can acknowledge errors, but this same "issue" had been raised before and you brushed it off or ignored it. I was simply expressing frustration that you changed your tune (albeit correctly and admirable) merely and only because someone who generally agreed with you raised the issue yet again in a slightly different manner.


The manner it which it was raised however was precisely why I was able to agree to it. It's not just the central points of arguments that matter, it's also how they are constructed. You can make a case for X = Y, but if it's done poorly, or in a manner which has it's flaws, even if the point is true, it can be dismissed, and people will not recognize the central truth behind the flawed presentation.

You can say "X = Y" a thousand different ways. But not all a thousand ways will be a strong argument.

User avatar
I Want to Smash Them All
Diplomat
 
Posts: 906
Founded: Oct 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby I Want to Smash Them All » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:46 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
I Want to Smash Them All wrote:I am glad you can acknowledge errors, but this same "issue" had been raised before and you brushed it off or ignored it. I was simply expressing frustration that you changed your tune (albeit correctly and admirable) merely and only because someone who generally agreed with you raised the issue yet again in a slightly different manner.


The manner it which it was raised however was precisely why I was able to agree to it. It's not just the central points of arguments that matter, it's also how they are constructed. You can make a case for X = Y, but if it's done poorly, or in a manner which has it's flaws, even if the point is true, it can be dismissed, and people will not recognize the central truth behind the flawed presentation.

You can say "X = Y" a thousand different ways. But not all a thousand ways will be a strong argument.

True. I do not wish to get into a pointless side-debate about how exactly this issue was raised repeatedly before and whether it was poorly constructed compared to Ostroeuropa's argument. I was expressing subjective frustration.
Goodbye. I have scrambled my password. Bob Mould, Stupid Now; Tom Waits, I Don't Want to Grow Up; Pixies, Hey; Cracker, Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me; The Jesus and Mary Chain, Reverence; L7, Shove; Liz Phair, Polyester Bride; Jane's Addiction, Ain't No Right; Amanda Fucking Palmer, Want It Back; Hole, Violet; Butthole Surfers, Pepper; Grateful Dead, New, New Minglewood Blues; Woody Guthrie's I Ain't Got No Home performed by Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
I Want to Smash Them All
Diplomat
 
Posts: 906
Founded: Oct 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby I Want to Smash Them All » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:53 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:Rape is sex without consent, or sex where the consent is compromised (e.g. consent under duress). Having sex with someone who hasn't consented (because they can't) is rape - that's not 'falsely calling people' anything.


According to this, a lover who wakes their partner up with a sexual act in the morning, which they both enjoy, has raped their partner. If that's what you want to call rape, fine; but rape loses all it's meaning then, as it can hardly be said to be a moral evil in all situations, let alone something that is always undesirable by or harmful to it's "victims". Which in turn, minimizes rape as a crime and the effects it can have on people.

You don't find that dangerous, immoral, or unwise at all?

So consent may now merely be implied by past sexual activity or a past or current "relationship"? Remember, age of consent is relevant to whether a crime has occurred and what must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. How as a concrete matter of practice differ from old laws that said even violent, non-consensual sex was not criminal unless the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) there was no "relationship" between/among the parties, (2) those involved had not previously had sex, and (3) nothing the alleged victim did, said, etc., raised a reasonable inference of implied consent?
Goodbye. I have scrambled my password. Bob Mould, Stupid Now; Tom Waits, I Don't Want to Grow Up; Pixies, Hey; Cracker, Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me; The Jesus and Mary Chain, Reverence; L7, Shove; Liz Phair, Polyester Bride; Jane's Addiction, Ain't No Right; Amanda Fucking Palmer, Want It Back; Hole, Violet; Butthole Surfers, Pepper; Grateful Dead, New, New Minglewood Blues; Woody Guthrie's I Ain't Got No Home performed by Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
I Want to Smash Them All
Diplomat
 
Posts: 906
Founded: Oct 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby I Want to Smash Them All » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:55 am

Meryuma wrote:To address the blue part, I believe that ideally consent would not be judged by a set age but that an age of consent set at 12 or 13 is about as good. This ties in with the question about "why wouldn't sex with a 3 year old be presumed to be consensual"; there would be a specific definition of consent still that would include full awareness of the act you are choosing to participate in. Such an approach would be preferable because it is more biologically sound, does not perpetuate alarmism about youth sexuality and marginalization of young people, and reduces the risks of people being apprehended as rapists for engaging in consensual relations.

Examples of laws I object to:

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

(2) Rape of a child in the third degree is a class C felony. [1988 c 145 § 4.]


I knew a boy (he was 16 when I talked to him) who at the age of 14 seduced a guy who was 19 and didn't originally plan on having sex with him. Under this law, the 14 year old would be considered a victim of rape and the man who he had sex with would be branded a felon, even though the younger boy initiated it in the first place.

Also, in the UK, the age of consent is 16 but the age of criminal responsibility is 10, and there are no close-in-age exemptions. This means that if two 15 year olds engage in sex with each other, each one is considered to have raped the other.

As for not mischaracterizing or overgeneralizing, I will admit that I have in the past, and realize I shouldn't in the future.

I have to go now, but I felt I shouldn't go too long without responding, seeing as I mentioned I would yesterday. I can probably respond to more when I get home.

I appreciate this thoughtful response. Although I we still disagree, I acknowledge the improvement (IMO) in your argument.
Last edited by I Want to Smash Them All on Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Goodbye. I have scrambled my password. Bob Mould, Stupid Now; Tom Waits, I Don't Want to Grow Up; Pixies, Hey; Cracker, Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me; The Jesus and Mary Chain, Reverence; L7, Shove; Liz Phair, Polyester Bride; Jane's Addiction, Ain't No Right; Amanda Fucking Palmer, Want It Back; Hole, Violet; Butthole Surfers, Pepper; Grateful Dead, New, New Minglewood Blues; Woody Guthrie's I Ain't Got No Home performed by Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
I Want to Smash Them All
Diplomat
 
Posts: 906
Founded: Oct 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby I Want to Smash Them All » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:06 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Xathranaar wrote:The problem with implied consent in a legal framework is that it is easy to abuse. If you can find a way to address this issue then I am all ears.


Admittedly, I don't have an idea just at the moment. But I should think it wouldn't be too hard in most situations to determine whether or not consent was implied, or at the very least, misinterpreted.

On that subject, if it isn't already and I'm just unaware of it, I also think there should be a distinction between intentional rape and unintentional rape. After all, most human interaction is not verbal, especially when it comes to sexual matters. If someone were to misread signs and begin to have sex with someone without their consent, I think there should be a legally distinct term for that, instead of lumping it in with the same term that relates to knowledgeable sex against someone's will. The two aren't comparably the same in really any sense, other than the base problem itself. Sorta like how "murder" and "manslaughter" are distinct terms, based on the situation.

Perhaps you have not thought this through.

We are, obviously, talking about criminal laws. You have just suggested that, in addition to the many other various defenses that may be asserted when one is prosecuted for rape (mostly commonly something along the lines of the victim consented, liked it "rough," etc.), every case will have a new defense: even if the alleged victim did not consent it will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew there was no consent and intended to rape the alleged victim.

Similar provisions used to be common, care to guess why they were eliminated? If so, why was that reason for change wrong?
Goodbye. I have scrambled my password. Bob Mould, Stupid Now; Tom Waits, I Don't Want to Grow Up; Pixies, Hey; Cracker, Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me; The Jesus and Mary Chain, Reverence; L7, Shove; Liz Phair, Polyester Bride; Jane's Addiction, Ain't No Right; Amanda Fucking Palmer, Want It Back; Hole, Violet; Butthole Surfers, Pepper; Grateful Dead, New, New Minglewood Blues; Woody Guthrie's I Ain't Got No Home performed by Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43029
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Grave_n_idle » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:11 am

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:Rape is sex without consent, or sex where the consent is compromised (e.g. consent under duress). Having sex with someone who hasn't consented (because they can't) is rape - that's not 'falsely calling people' anything.


According to this, a lover who wakes their partner up with a sexual act in the morning, which they both enjoy, has raped their partner. If that's what you want to call rape, fine; but rape loses all it's meaning then...


You invented a strawman and therefore the actual laws are irrelevant?

I really don't have any interest in indulging your horsecrap.
WASSER IST LEBEN

User avatar
Lord Tothe
Minister
 
Posts: 2632
Founded: Dec 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Lord Tothe » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:04 pm

I Want to Smash Them All wrote:
Lord Tothe wrote:It seems rather arbitrary for the government to be able to decree a universal rule applying to all individuals in the first place. While it's certainly obvious that there is a problem with people engaging in sexual activity with children, and that most teens are nowhere near ready for the responsibility of potential parenthood, a one-size-fits-all rule will never satisfy anyone and arguing over what that rule should be will never lead to progress.

I agree. There should be no universal rules applying to all individuals.

No laws or rules regarding murder, which side of the road to drive on, contracts, free speech, torture, possession or use of nuclear weapons, child abuse, etc.

Paradise!

Nice strawman. I needed a scarecrow for the garden this year.
Last edited by Lord Tothe on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:[...] TLDR; welcome to the internet. Bicker or GTFO.
"Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed. What is he to do if he cannot control others? To be sure, he could mind his own business. But that is a fatuous answer, for those who are satisfied to mind their own business do not aspire to become authorities." ~ Thomas Szasz

User avatar
Meryuma
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14922
Founded: Jul 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Meryuma » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:38 pm

Aurora Novus wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:Rape is sex without consent, or sex where the consent is compromised (e.g. consent under duress). Having sex with someone who hasn't consented (because they can't) is rape - that's not 'falsely calling people' anything.


According to this, a lover who wakes their partner up with a sexual act in the morning, which they both enjoy, has raped their partner. If that's what you want to call rape, fine; but rape loses all it's meaning then, as it can hardly be said to be a moral evil in all situations, let alone something that is always undesirable by or harmful to it's "victims". Which in turn, minimizes rape as a crime and the effects it can have on people.

You don't find that dangerous, immoral, or unwise at all?


Please stop making me look bad.
ᛋᛃᚢ - Social Justice Úlfheðinn
Potarius wrote:
Neo Arcad wrote:Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass.


In layman's terms, orgy time.


Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.


Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."


Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.



Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.

Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...

*puts on sunglasses*

blow out of proportions."

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

...so here's your future

User avatar
I Want to Smash Them All
Diplomat
 
Posts: 906
Founded: Oct 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby I Want to Smash Them All » Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:19 pm

Lord Tothe wrote:
I Want to Smash Them All wrote:I agree. There should be no universal rules applying to all individuals.

No laws or rules regarding murder, which side of the road to drive on, contracts, free speech, torture, possession or use of nuclear weapons, child abuse, etc.

Paradise!

Nice strawman. I needed a scarecrow for the garden this year.

So did you or did you not say (emphasis added):
Lord Tothe wrote:It seems rather arbitrary for the government to be able to decree a universal rule applying to all individuals in the first place. While it's certainly obvious that there is a problem with people engaging in sexual activity with children, and that most teens are nowhere near ready for the responsibility of potential parenthood, a one-size-fits-all rule will never satisfy anyone and arguing over what that rule should be will never lead to progress.

Even if you meant to object only to the government setting "a universal rule applying to all individuals in the first place" in the context of sex or age of consent, you gave absolutely no reason why your objection would make sense in that context and not others. Nor did you suggest any possible alternative to "a one-size-fits-all rule."

I merely applied your objection to other "arbitrary" rules.

If you wish to say you did not mean what you said, reductio ad absurdum is still a valid response. There was no strawman, but nice try.
Goodbye. I have scrambled my password. Bob Mould, Stupid Now; Tom Waits, I Don't Want to Grow Up; Pixies, Hey; Cracker, Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me; The Jesus and Mary Chain, Reverence; L7, Shove; Liz Phair, Polyester Bride; Jane's Addiction, Ain't No Right; Amanda Fucking Palmer, Want It Back; Hole, Violet; Butthole Surfers, Pepper; Grateful Dead, New, New Minglewood Blues; Woody Guthrie's I Ain't Got No Home performed by Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
Lord Tothe
Minister
 
Posts: 2632
Founded: Dec 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Lord Tothe » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:46 pm

And my point is that we need a better measure of "capability to consent" than an arbitrary age decree.
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:[...] TLDR; welcome to the internet. Bicker or GTFO.
"Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed. What is he to do if he cannot control others? To be sure, he could mind his own business. But that is a fatuous answer, for those who are satisfied to mind their own business do not aspire to become authorities." ~ Thomas Szasz

User avatar
Ceannairceach
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26606
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ceannairceach » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:50 pm

Personally, I think that the age of consent laws need to be revised. Children are maturing quicker, socially and mentally. Lowering it is a good step towards ensuring that victimless crimes are no longer in existence.

@}-;-'---

"But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most..." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 48574
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:55 pm

Ceannairceach wrote:Personally, I think that the age of consent laws need to be revised. Children are maturing quicker, socially and mentally. Lowering it is a good step towards ensuring that victimless crimes are no longer in existence.


Actually I heard there was a tendency toward us maturing SLOWER. (If you take the view that "Maturing" is a process that "ends" at the end of puberty.)
(This makes complete sense when you realize what neoteny is. A prolonged period of childhood and puberty causing you to remain growing and such for longer. The result will be humans who are slightly larger, and with larger more developed brains, etc.)
This is why domesticated animals are typically "smarter." we force neoteny on them because CUTE BABBY ANIMULS. It's also why we're babyfaced apes.

it also makes humanity a much, much creepier fucking species.
We're old-children apes that kidnap other creatures and turn them into old-children while wielding magic powers.
We're the elves.
(Don't take their food, lest they trap you forever in their realm.)
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Ceannairceach
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26606
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ceannairceach » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:57 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Ceannairceach wrote:Personally, I think that the age of consent laws need to be revised. Children are maturing quicker, socially and mentally. Lowering it is a good step towards ensuring that victimless crimes are no longer in existence.


Actually I heard there was a tendency toward us maturing SLOWER. (If you take the view that "Maturing" is a process that "ends" at the end of puberty.)
(This makes complete sense when you realize what neoteny is. A prolonged period of childhood and puberty causing you to remain growing and such for longer. The result will be humans who are slightly larger, and with larger more developed brains, etc.)
This is why domesticated animals are typically "smarter." we force neoteny on them because CUTE BABBY ANIMULS. It's also why we're babyfaced apes.

it also makes humanity a much, much creepier fucking species.
We're old-children apes that kidnap other creatures and turn them into old-children while wielding magic powers.
We're the elves.
(Don't take their food, lest they trap you forever in their realm.)

Thanks for giving me nightmares, Ost.

@}-;-'---

"But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most..." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 48574
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:03 pm

Ceannairceach wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Actually I heard there was a tendency toward us maturing SLOWER. (If you take the view that "Maturing" is a process that "ends" at the end of puberty.)
(This makes complete sense when you realize what neoteny is. A prolonged period of childhood and puberty causing you to remain growing and such for longer. The result will be humans who are slightly larger, and with larger more developed brains, etc.)
This is why domesticated animals are typically "smarter." we force neoteny on them because CUTE BABBY ANIMULS. It's also why we're babyfaced apes.

it also makes humanity a much, much creepier fucking species.
We're old-children apes that kidnap other creatures and turn them into old-children while wielding magic powers.
We're the elves.
(Don't take their food, lest they trap you forever in their realm.)

Thanks for giving me nightmares, Ost.


You're welcome.
Remember, even though neoteny is the only way we know for a species to get this intelligent, the chance of you being abducted by aliens who look like 50 year old toddlers is quite small. Distance between stars and all that.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43029
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Grave_n_idle » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:04 pm

Ceannairceach wrote:Personally, I think that the age of consent laws need to be revised. Children are maturing quicker, socially and mentally. Lowering it is a good step towards ensuring that victimless crimes are no longer in existence.


Lowering the age of consent only removes the 'crime' part of 'victimless crime' - not the 'victim' part.

If some little kid is coerced into penetration because she doesn't know any better, lacks the confidence to say 'no', and feels like she has to do everything grown-ups say - lowering the age at which that's legal isn't helping anyone except the guy with the creepy kid fetish.
WASSER IST LEBEN

User avatar
Ceannairceach
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26606
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ceannairceach » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:05 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Ceannairceach wrote:Personally, I think that the age of consent laws need to be revised. Children are maturing quicker, socially and mentally. Lowering it is a good step towards ensuring that victimless crimes are no longer in existence.


Lowering the age of consent only removes the 'crime' part of 'victimless crime' - not the 'victim' part.

If some little kid is coerced into penetration because she doesn't know any better, lacks the confidence to say 'no', and feels like she has to do everything grown-ups say - lowering the age at which that's legal isn't helping anyone except the guy with the creepy kid fetish.

I'm more talking about unreasonably high ages of consent; the nineteen, twenty limits and whatnot. Age of consent should certainly exist. But at a certain point it becomes pure moralistic nonsense.

@}-;-'---

"But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most..." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43029
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Grave_n_idle » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:12 pm

Ceannairceach wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
Lowering the age of consent only removes the 'crime' part of 'victimless crime' - not the 'victim' part.

If some little kid is coerced into penetration because she doesn't know any better, lacks the confidence to say 'no', and feels like she has to do everything grown-ups say - lowering the age at which that's legal isn't helping anyone except the guy with the creepy kid fetish.

I'm more talking about unreasonably high ages of consent; the nineteen, twenty limits and whatnot. Age of consent should certainly exist. But at a certain point it becomes pure moralistic nonsense.


Which point?

We're aware, from a scientific point of view, that brains are an evolving organ - and that the brain of an infant is simply not the same as the brain of an adult. We understand that it's a spectrum, and that certain functionality is transitional - for example, we know that the part of the brain that deals with cause-and-effect (so, understanding the repercussions of your decisions) is something that matures, and gets better at the task for which it is intended.

And that's a progression, which means if we go the other way, the part of the brain that handles that stuff must have been less and less capable, the further back you go.

So at some point - brains just aren't competent for the purpose of deciding serious issues, with serious repercussions.

So what is the point where it becomes 'moralistic nonsense'? Because our western societies actually assume an ability to give 'consent' considerably before full maturation of the relevant brain biology. If anything, we're allowing consent too early.
WASSER IST LEBEN

User avatar
AETEN II
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12949
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby AETEN II » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:14 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Ceannairceach wrote:I'm more talking about unreasonably high ages of consent; the nineteen, twenty limits and whatnot. Age of consent should certainly exist. But at a certain point it becomes pure moralistic nonsense.


Which point?

We're aware, from a scientific point of view, that brains are an evolving organ - and that the brain of an infant is simply not the same as the brain of an adult. We understand that it's a spectrum, and that certain functionality is transitional - for example, we know that the part of the brain that deals with cause-and-effect (so, understanding the repercussions of your decisions) is something that matures, and gets better at the task for which it is intended.

And that's a progression, which means if we go the other way, the part of the brain that handles that stuff must have been less and less capable, the further back you go.

So at some point - brains just aren't competent for the purpose of deciding serious issues, with serious repercussions.

So what is the point where it becomes 'moralistic nonsense'? Because our western societies actually assume an ability to give 'consent' considerably before full maturation of the relevant brain biology. If anything, we're allowing consent too early.

Except there's a pint where it simply becomes ridiculous and punishes intelligent people. Society shouldn't cater to the illogical morons. If they so wish to be burned by the fire by jumping in, by all means, let them, they'll certainly never do it again. Also, 'morals' should have no place in the law, as it should be rid of them.
"Quod Vult, Valde Valt"

Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.


Nationstatelandsville wrote:"Why'd the chicken cross the street?"

"Because your dad's a whore."

"...He died a week ago."

"Of syphilis, I bet."

Best Gif on the internet.

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43029
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Grave_n_idle » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:24 pm

AETEN II wrote:Except there's a pint where it simply becomes ridiculous and punishes intelligent people. Society shouldn't cater to the illogical morons. If they so wish to be burned by the fire by jumping in, by all means, let them, they'll certainly never do it again. Also, 'morals' should have no place in the law, as it should be rid of them.


I'm not talking about 'illogical morons' or 'intelligent people' or 'morals'.

...to be honest, I'm wondering why you quoted me - that post seems to have nothing to do with my post.
WASSER IST LEBEN

User avatar
AETEN II
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12949
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby AETEN II » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:27 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
AETEN II wrote:Except there's a pint where it simply becomes ridiculous and punishes intelligent people. Society shouldn't cater to the illogical morons. If they so wish to be burned by the fire by jumping in, by all means, let them, they'll certainly never do it again. Also, 'morals' should have no place in the law, as it should be rid of them.


I'm not talking about 'illogical morons' or 'intelligent people' or 'morals'.

...to be honest, I'm wondering why you quoted me - that post seems to have nothing to do with my post.

More of a response to earlier posts. There is no problem with and older man having relations with a young girl- you are capable of giving consent when sixteen. Your brain is capable of understanding sex and its consequences. However, your main defense for the older age of consent, or at least the example, has been a 'creep factor', which the law should not care about. If a sixteen-year-old can drive a car, they can give consent.
"Quod Vult, Valde Valt"

Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.


Nationstatelandsville wrote:"Why'd the chicken cross the street?"

"Because your dad's a whore."

"...He died a week ago."

"Of syphilis, I bet."

Best Gif on the internet.

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43029
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Grave_n_idle » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:39 pm

AETEN II wrote:More of a response to earlier posts. There is no problem with and older man having relations with a young girl-


That seems like an opinion, rather than an objective assessment, and not an entirely valid one for several reasons I've already covered.

AETEN II wrote:...you are capable of giving consent when sixteen.


Biologically debatable. And by 'debatable', I mean 'untrue'.

AETEN II wrote:Your brain is capable of understanding sex and its consequences.


In purely academic terms, sure. In terms of actually fully comprehending the ramifications of following the pleasure principle - no, and it's already been covered why this is true.

AETEN II wrote:However, your main defense for the older age of consent, or at least the example, has been a 'creep factor', which the law should not care about.


That's not true. My 'main defense' has been the biology of the adolescent brain.

The 'creep factor' is just my personal feelings about adults that are predatory on children.

AETEN II wrote:If a sixteen-year-old can drive a car, they can give consent.


And, when you have to start a car by persuading it to let you stick your cock in it, that will be a relevant parallel.
WASSER IST LEBEN

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Conserative Morality, Doing it Rightland, Dresderstan, El-Amin Caliphate, Heloin, Infected Mushroom, Kipiria, Kowani, Len Hyet, Novus America, Ors Might, Rezua, Samudera Darussalam, South Pacific Republic, States Of Union, The Hobbesian Metaphysician, Yahoo [Bot], Yusseria, Zizou

Advertisement

Remove ads