Miami's tent city for sex offenders

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

That said, the "sex with a minor is OK if it consensual" line of argument is not just wrong, but evil and naseauting.

Seems to be a bit of emotional exaggeration, don't you think? Logic and rationality are everything, so we should try to ignore and suppress emotions as much as possible. They are naught but a hinderance to correct thinking.

[Allanea]

That said, the "sex with a minor is OK if it consensual" line of argument is not just wrong, but evil and naseauting.

Are we going by minor as in under the age of 18, or under the legal age of consent?

I'm not going to quibble about it. You either understand that adults having sex with children is wrong or you don't.

Not everybody who is legally a minor is a "child", and especially not in America, where many states peg the age of consent at 18.

[Lizardiar]

That said, the "sex with a minor is OK if it consensual" line of argument is not just wrong, but evil and naseauting.

Seems to be a bit of emotional exaggeration, don't you think? Logic and rationality are everything, so we should try to ignore and suppress emotions as much as possible. They are naught but a hinderance to correct thinking.

Stop being a vulcan.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Are we going by minor as in under the age of 18, or under the legal age of consent?

I'm not going to quibble about it. You either understand that adults having sex with children is wrong or you don't.

Not everybody who is legally a minor is a "child", and especially not in America, where many states peg the age of consent at 18.

That is arguable and rather irrelevant. Use whatever language you like, the crime remains the same.

What shouldn't be arguable is that a 30-year-old man that had "sexual relations" (that may or may not have included force or violence) with a 16-year-old in Florida did nothing wrong.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

That said, the "sex with a minor is OK if it consensual" line of argument is not just wrong, but evil and naseauting.

Seems to be a bit of emotional exaggeration, don't you think? Logic and rationality are everything, so we should try to ignore and suppress emotions as much as possible. They are naught but a hinderance to correct thinking.

Stop being a vulcan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmku ... annel_page

There is some emotionality to it (which should be ignored), but it gets the main point across. The quality of life that we experience today can be almost entirely attributed to science. (in other words, to logic and reason)

[Blouman Empire]

What shouldn't be arguable is that a 30-year-old man that had "sexual relations" (that may or may not have included force or violence) with a 16-year-old in Florida did nothing wrong.

Of course he was 28 at the time and if it wasn't Florida but another state where the age is lower then what he did was perfectly alright.

[Jocabia]

*sigh*

I have called attention to similar problems created in California by "get tough on sex offender" laws that are counter-productive.

Unless we are prepared to lock up everyone who commits a sex crime for life (which would backfire by making convictions even harder to get), we need to be proactive about rehabilitating these offenders and re-integrating them into society.

Exactly. I feel the same way about the laws that have turned peeing in a park or two teenagers having sex into a sex offense that puts under the same category and restrictions as child molesters.

[L3 Communications]

Why should child-molesters get a break?

:facedesk:

In the eyes of nature, a 16-year old is pretty damn sexually mature.

[Derscon]

That said, the "sex with a minor is OK if it consensual" line of argument is not just wrong, but evil and naseauting.

Why?

[The Romulan Republic]

Why should child-molesters get a break?

:facedesk:

In the eyes of nature, a 16-year old is pretty damn sexually mature.

They have the nessissary body parts. I contest weather the typical 16 year old is mentally, emotionally, or socially mature. Ever heard of "to young to give consent?"

[Grays Harbor]

You're lying or ignorant, which is it?

wtf gives you the "right" to determine that your own point of view is so righteously sanctimonious that anybody who disagrees has to be either ignorant or lying. it is only because i do not want to raise the ire of the mods i do not tell you precisely what i think in no uncertain terms.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Why should child-molesters get a break?

:facedesk:

In the eyes of nature, a 16-year old is pretty damn sexually mature.

They have the nessissary body parts. I contest weather the typical 16 year old is mentally, emotionally, or socially mature. Ever heard of "to young to give consent?"

In some societies, girls and boys are already married by the age of 16, and an understanding of biology will show that on some visceral level, 16 year olds want to go off on their own to start a family. In other societies, the age of consent is quite high, in some cases over 20. The particular age of consent of a society seems rather arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground.

[The Cat-Tribe]

What shouldn't be arguable is that a 30-year-old man that had "sexual relations" (that may or may not have included force or violence) with a 16-year-old in Florida did nothing wrong.

Of course he was 28 at the time and if it wasn't Florida but another state where the age is lower then what he did was perfectly alright.

(1) You are making several assumptions based on one sentence of self-reporting of his crime.

(2) I don't think you've thought this through. If I rape a 13-year old in a jurisdiction where 13 is the age of consent, have I done anything wrong?

(3) Legal =/= "perfectly alright" anymore than illegal = evil.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

You're lying or ignorant, which is it?

wtf gives you the "right" to determine that your own point of view is so righteously sanctimonious that anybody who disagrees has to be either ignorant or lying. it is only because i do not want to raise the ire of the mods i do not tell you precisely what i think in no uncertain terms.

Either lying or ignorant because the implication was that everyone on this island was a child molester, which is a disingenuous thing to imply, namely because it's not true.

[The Cat-Tribe]

In some societies, girls and boys are already married by the age of 16, and an understanding of biology will show that on some visceral level, 16 year olds want to go off on their own to start a family. In other societies, the age of consent is quite high, in some cases over 20. The particular age of consent of a society seems rather arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground.

In some societies, there is no such thing as rape. In some societies, victims of rape are required to marry their rapist. Does that make all laws punishing sexual violence "arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground"?

Most societies recognize that there is a process of development of cognitive and emotional (as well as physical) maturity over time. The fact that we cannot all agree on the exact point that minor becomes capable of consenting to sex does not mean we should just do away with the concept of age of consent. Nor does it excuse those that violate a jurisdictions fairly-enacted laws about the age of consent.

[The Cat-Tribe]

*sigh*

I have called attention to similar problems created in California by "get tough on sex offender" laws that are counter-productive.

Unless we are prepared to lock up everyone who commits a sex crime for life (which would backfire by making convictions even harder to get), we need to be proactive about rehabilitating these offenders and re-integrating them into society.

Exactly. I feel the same way about the laws that have turned peeing in a park or two teenagers having sex into a sex offense that puts under the same category and restrictions as child molesters.

I believe we are in complete agreement on that subject.

[The Cat-Tribe]

That said, the "sex with a minor is OK if it consensual" line of argument is not just wrong, but evil and naseauting.

Why?

'Cuz I said so.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

In some societies, girls and boys are already married by the age of 16, and an understanding of biology will show that on some visceral level, 16 year olds want to go off on their own to start a family. In other societies, the age of consent is quite high, in some cases over 20. The particular age of consent of a society seems rather arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground.

In some societies, there is no such thing as rape. In some societies, victims of rape are required to marry their rapist. Does that make all laws punishing sexual violence "arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground"?

Most societies recognize that there is a process of development of cognitive and emotional (as well as physical) maturity over time. The fact that we cannot all agree on the exact point that minor becomes capable of consenting to sex does not mean we should just do away with the concept of age of consent. Nor does it excuse those that violate a jurisdictions fairly-enacted laws about the age of consent.

If the age of consent is to be a successful policy, then it must rest completely on a scientific investigation as to what age of consent benefits the stability and evolutionary success of a population defined by national boundaries. Otherwise, it's just random guessing, which is pointless.

[Conserative Morality]

That is arguable and rather irrelevant. Use whatever language you like, the crime remains the same.

What shouldn't be arguable is that a 30-year-old man that had "sexual relations" (that may or may not have included force or violence) with a 16-year-old in Florida did nothing wrong.

I would not consider a person who is 16-years of age to be a child. In Florida, he did something wrong. In many other states, this would not be so.

[Conserative Morality]

'Cuz I said so.

[Grays Harbor]

In some societies, girls and boys are already married by the age of 16, and an understanding of biology will show that on some visceral level, 16 year olds want to go off on their own to start a family. In other societies, the age of consent is quite high, in some cases over 20. The particular age of consent of a society seems rather arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground.

In some societies, there is no such thing as rape. In some societies, victims of rape are required to marry their rapist. Does that make all laws punishing sexual violence "arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground"?

Most societies recognize that there is a process of development of cognitive and emotional (as well as physical) maturity over time. The fact that we cannot all agree on the exact point that minor becomes capable of consenting to sex does not mean we should just do away with the concept of age of consent. Nor does it excuse those that violate a jurisdictions fairly-enacted laws about the age of consent.

And it could also be added to your fine list that in some societies, mainly the middle east, rape victims are the ones prosecuted and on occassion stoned to death.

"Age of consent" is put in place for a reason. Cat tribe has the right idea. Just because some folk want to get touchy-feely "I feel so bad for the convicted felons, we should bend over backwards for them" is not a good reason to forget that the convicted sex offenders and child molesters are not the victims.

[The Cat-Tribe]

In some societies, girls and boys are already married by the age of 16, and an understanding of biology will show that on some visceral level, 16 year olds want to go off on their own to start a family. In other societies, the age of consent is quite high, in some cases over 20. The particular age of consent of a society seems rather arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground.

In some societies, there is no such thing as rape. In some societies, victims of rape are required to marry their rapist. Does that make all laws punishing sexual violence "arbitrary and not based on any solid rational ground"?

Most societies recognize that there is a process of development of cognitive and emotional (as well as physical) maturity over time. The fact that we cannot all agree on the exact point that minor becomes capable of consenting to sex does not mean we should just do away with the concept of age of consent. Nor does it excuse those that violate a jurisdictions fairly-enacted laws about the age of consent.

If the age of consent is to be a successful policy, then it must rest completely on a scientific investigation as to what age of consent benefits the stability and evolutionary success of a population defined by national boundaries. Otherwise, it's just random guessing, which is pointless.

*double sigh*

1. Why is the "stability and evolutionary success of a population defined by national boundaries" ethically relevant?

2. Please scientifically define "successful," "benefits," "stability," and "success." Until you do, your comment is pointless.

[Allanea]

What shouldn't be arguable is that a 30-year-old man that had "sexual relations" (that may or may not have included force or violence) with a 16-year-old in Florida did nothing wrong.

Don't you think if violence was involved, then the article would have mentioned he was a rapist?

You're right. It should not be arguable that a 28-year-old man who had sexual relations with a 16-year-old in Florida did nothing wrong. Because he indeed did nothing wrong.

[The Cat-Tribe]

'Cuz I said so.

Um. Did I need a smilie to make it clear that response was facetious?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

1. Why is the "stability and evolutionary success of a population defined by national boundaries" ethically relevant?

2. Please scientifically define "successful," "benefits," "stability," and "success." Until you do, your comment is pointless.

1. It is the only scientifically valid criterion with which to test.

2. Success as defined by biological evolution. It's somewhat of a complex definition, but I think someone of your educational level probably knows what it is.