Age of consent.

[Che a chara]

Following on from a discussion on another thread:


There's nothing wrong with having a crush :blushing:

Besides, isn't a person with 16yo of age?


Here in Washington they are. Not sure about everywhere else.

Reminds me of this thing I heard on the radio today about sex offenders. They interviewed this guy who had a sexual relationship with his 15 year old girlfriend when he was 18, and therefore is a registered sex offender, and it's damn near impossible for him to get a job and everything. That's BS if you ask me. :glare:


depend, was he in a position of authority toward her?


Nope, they were just a high school couple, and everything they did was consensual.

I'm sure someone will argue that a 15 year old cannot consent to sex, but wherever you stand on that, you still have to admit that there's a huge difference between this 18 year old having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old, and a true rapist or a creepy pedophile sitting outside of a school or something.


I don't want to sound controversial, but young teenage girls (13-17) are impressionable and are easily swayed by emotion and affection and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that 18+ year old men know this and would be willing to take advantage of that fact. Either way, for me it's creepy and wrong for a person of 16 and under to be in a relationship with an 18+ year old. But that's just me. I'd even go to saying that anyone under the age of 18 shouldn't be in a relationship with anyone over the age of 18.


In the USA, it varies from 16-18, the majority sets it at 16. 18 in Oregon, which surprises me a little. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Oklahoma

In the UK, it's 16. The age of consent in England and Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_and_Wales) is 16, as specified by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003) (section 9) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_2#pt1-pb5-l1g9). However it is illegal for a person to engage in sexual activity with an individual under the age of 18 if they are in a position of trust in relation to that individual (teacher, warder, carer, guardian, etc)

In Spain, it's still 13. In Mexico, it's as low as 12.

Looks like Hayenmill's off the hook legally. But I detect sheepishness on his part. So deep down he knows she's too young for him. (I should charge for all this psychiatric advice.:lol:)

The girl needs a more sensitive and mature individual to bring her along... someone like ... oh, I don't know.;)

on edit, looks like it's 17 in Ireland. This girl's Irish.


So 16 and 17 year old teenagers can have sex with each other, but when one of them turns 18 its suddenly not okay? :rolleyes:

Eh, I disagree with that. These are all broad generalizations, but 16 is about the age where people are conscious of their decisions. Even if they make the wrong decisions, they can realize where they went wrong and take responsibility for it. I think 16-19 year olds have a similar level of maturity, so any relationship within this realm shouldn't be considered too "out there".

*shrug* it just depends on the individuals, I guess.


I don't really subscribe that a 16 year old has the same level of maturity to have the same judgement as someone of 18-19. In some countries 16 year olds are still classified as children and are treated as children, so I just can't see how they would have the same experiences or education in life to make certain 'conscious' judgements, especially one that may involve an 18 year old who might have influenced that person's decision.



I see where you're coming from here. But I feel there needs to be boundaries and limits set.

Say a 15 year old who is 16 next week and engages in a relationship with an 18 year old, would that be ok ?

(we might have to start a separate thread on this :p)


Well, we could recite "what ifs" ad nauseum. My whole point is that although there should be boundaries, the boundaries should be more fluid because it all depends on the individuals.


That's absolutely ridiculous.

And just because 14-18 year old girls are easily swayed by affection doesn't mean they're not capable of being mentally mature enough to have sex. "Easily swayed by affection" and "uninformed about safe sex" are two entirely different things.

(By the way, the age of consent in the majority of states in the US is 16)


having an opinion is 'absolutely ridiculous' !??

If we're not going to show some sort of boundary or approach that tackles an issue that could well be paedophilia or someone taking advantage of someone then let's drop the age consent rule altogether :rolleyes:

I don't know about you but I take such an issue seriously and I would hope that there is law in place that prohibits anyone vulnerable being a victim of any abuse of trust or being taking advantage of. A message needs to be sent out that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated and i think that this 'borderline ok' mentality is dodgy.


Thinking a 17 year old shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a 19 year old is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion, yes.


well as i say, it's a shady area that's dodgy. If there's no tough legislation, who's to say that there wont be those who take advantage of it or go a step further ?


Take advantage of it? A 17 year old person is mature enough to have sex. Your logic behind making it illegal is that some people might get into relationships thinking only about sex while their partner think it's something more meaningful. In other words, you want it to be a criminal offense to have a purely sexual motive going into a relationship because it might end up hurting someones feelings.

What boundaries should be set on the age of consent ?

I may have a slightly tough opinion on this. But i believe its important to stamp on an issue that may be a case of paedophilia or even hints at the suggestion that paedophilia is nearly ok. Such thinking could lead to someone going a step further because of a lack of authoritativeness on the issue.

[Havet]

I think its rather fairly simple. Ditch the age of consent. If someone is being forced to have sex with another person, then take action.

[Che a chara]

I think its rather fairly simple. Ditch the age of consent. If someone is being forced to have sex with another person, then take action.

How do you mean 'forced' ? raped ? what if someone is groomed from an early age ?

[John_Jordan]

I think its rather fairly simple. Ditch the age of consent. If someone is being forced to have sex with another person, then take action.

I pretty much agree with this.

If somebody feels taken advantage of, they can say so, and it can be worked on from there.

Things like "age of consent" are just arbitrary lines drawn to make some people feel better. It doesn't seem to help anybody anywhere.

[Glenn Beck]

I think its rather fairly simple. Ditch the age of consent. If someone is being forced to have sex with another person, then take action.

How the hell would you decide that? How bloody impractical. You can't just conceive rules as ethical principles but also grapple with how they would/could be implemented.

[Che a chara]

I pretty much agree with this.

If somebody feels taken advantage of, they can say so, and it can be worked on from there.

Things like "age of consent" are just arbitrary lines drawn to make some people feel better. It doesn't seem to help anybody anywhere.

You're going to get all sorts of creeps grooming and taking advantage of children. How does a child have a voice ? Paedo priests will get away with it all again. Nip it in the bud folks !!

[gorillafuck]

If somebody feels taken advantage of, they can say so, and it can be worked on from there.
I'm skeptical of this. I'm extremely doubtful that a child who has been abused sexually will come forward and say it. Children most often have trouble speaking about being sexually abused even when they are encouraged to, I can't imagine them just coming forward and saying it.

[Havet]

How the hell would you decide that? How bloody impractical. You can't just conceive rules as ethical principles but also grapple with how they would/could be implemented.

By democratic vote, no? Or is democracy impractical now?

[Glenn Beck]

By democratic vote, no? Or is democracy impractical now?

Are you fucking serious?

Hold on gimme a sec.

Are you seriously advocating making "democratic voting" (I'm assuming you mean small-scale direct democracy) as the primary manner of deciding matters of both guilt and punishment on a case by case basis?

Seriously?

[Havet]

Are you fucking serious?

Hold on gimme a sec.

Are you seriously advocating making "democratic voting" (I'm assuming you mean small-scale direct democracy) as the primary manner of deciding matters of both guilt and punishment on a case by case basis?

Seriously?

No, not on a case by case basis. More like on an intersubjective consensus manner. General democratic rules pre-established in a society.

Would you mind explaining what's wrong with democratic vote in this case, and what would you propose as an alternative?

[Bud Struggle]

I think if you read these articles it's pretty obvious that physiologically a teenage brain isn't really well developed enough to make quality life decisions. Anyone "excusing" bad behavior towards teengers is denying science. I don't believe there is anything here that is subjective--it is objective brain physiology.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/the-teen-brain.html

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtml

[Havet]

I think if you read these articles it's pretty obvious that physiologically a teenage brain isn't really well developed enough to make quality life decisions. Anyone "excusing" bad behavior towards teengers is denying science. I don't believe there is anything here that is subjective--it is objective brain physiology.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/the-teen-brain.html

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtml

It's not obvious, because in neither of those articles there is an objective exact year in which the brain swifts enough for us to consider it worthy of responsibility. It is a gradual process.

[Glenn Beck]

No, not on a case by case basis. More like on an intersubjective consensus manner. General democratic rules pre-established in a society.

Would you mind explaining what's wrong with democratic vote in this case, and what would you propose as an alternative?

Okay lets review: you advocated ditching the age of consent and going case by case. I said "How?". You said: by democratic vote.

So, unless there was a fundamental error of communication between us, you are advocating judging cases in a "court of public opinion" based on whether the majority (or a consensus) believe that the act in question was in fact rape.

Now you are saying that actually you don't support judgment on a case-by-case basis but based on pre-determined rules (with the rules determined democratically). However you provided no rules (ie. laws) that could be used to determine what is or isn't forced sex, or even more importantly, how to determine how we determine what is or isn't forced sex. So in essence we are left with a subjective determination on a case-by-case basis.

Now in case you haven't figured this out, we know what happens in this scenario. In societies without codified laws regarding rape and/or without institutions set up capable of dealing with it the phenomenon of rape was dealt with (insofar as it was dealt with at all) in one or two ways: lynching and feuding. The former was a direct-democratic decision by either the consensus or the majority of a community that a particular individual was guilty of a particular crime at which point a sentence was carried out. In the latter a particular group simply decides to skip sentencing and go straight to punishment.

See the problem?

[Bud Struggle]

It's not obvious, because in neither of those articles there is an objective exact year in which the brain swifts enough for us to consider it worthy of responsibility. It is a gradual process.

Agreed to an extent--but it have to be over what 16? 17? 18? Besides for safety sake you have to take the highest possible age as the norm.

I mean you don't want to make a mistake, do you? It's BRAIN issue...nothing less. Take a brain scan of the "victim" and if you she's "of age", fine. Is she's not: 30 years for statutory rape. That's OK with me.

[Havet]

Okay lets review: you advocated ditching the age of consent and going case by case. I said "How?". You said: by democratic vote.

So, unless there was a fundamental error of communication between us, you are advocating judging cases in a "court of public opinion" based on whether the majority (or a consensus) believe that the act in question was in fact rape.

Now you are saying that actually you don't support judgment on a case-by-case basis but based on pre-determined rules (with the rules determined democratically). However you provided no rules (ie. laws) that could be used to determine what is or isn't forced sex, or even more importantly, how to determine how we determine what is or isn't forced sex. So in essence we are left with a subjective determination on a case-by-case basis.

Now in case you haven't figured this out, we know what happens in this scenario. In societies without codified laws regarding rape and/or without institutions set up capable of dealing with it the phenomenon of rape was dealt with (insofar as it was dealt with at all) in one or two ways: lynching and feuding. The former was a direct-democratic decision by either the consensus or the majority of a community that a particular individual was guilty of a particular crime at which point a sentence was carried out. In the latter a particular group simply decides to skip sentencing and go straight to punishment.

See the problem?

OK, I see the problem. I don't see any immediate problems with lynching, but I want to first ask if you have worked out a better way to deal with this problem?

[Glenn Beck]

OK, I see the problem. I don't see any immediate problems with lynching, but I want to first ask if you have worked out a better way to deal with this problem?

Yeah. Laws and courts.

[Havet]

Agreed to an extent--but it have to be over what 16? 17? 18? Besides for safety sake you have to take the highest possible age as the norm.

I mean you don't want to make a mistake, do you? It's BRAIN issue...nothing less. Take a brain scan of the "victim" and if you she's "of age", fine. Is she's not: 30 years for statutory rape. That's OK with me.

Actually, you may be onto something. Taking brain scans of victims to determine their responsability and conscious awareness might not be a bad idea to help judge if they were naive and subject to suggestions by the offender or they were smart enough to make their own decisions.

[Havet]

Yeah. Laws and courts.

So you think the current capitalist system works well in this regard?

[Bud Struggle]

Actually, you may be onto something. Taking brain scans of victims to determine their responsability and conscious awareness might not be a bad idea to help judge if they were naive and subject to suggestions by the offender or they were smart enough to make their own decisions.

But that's what it's all about, isn't it? You would definitely reject taking advantage of some person that was brain damaged or retarded in some way--why not the same for an underdeveloped brain?

[Glenn Beck]

So you think the current capitalist system works well in this regard?

No, because from my perspective as a Marxist we are living under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and thus the legal and judicial institutions are rigged in favor of capitalist interests. Just like the economy is geared primarily towards profit rather than fulfilling human needs the legal system s part of the bourgeois state and is geared towards maintaining the ideal conditions for the continuation of the capitalist system rather than guaranteeing justice and security.

Also there are many different actual and conceivable systems that have both codified laws and specialized institutions for interpreting those laws (courts) so I don't see how upholding the value of laws and courts necessarily commits me to embrace any particular system.

[Havet]

No, because from my perspective as a Marxist we are living under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and thus the legal and judicial institutions are rigged in favor of capitalist interests. Just like the economy is geared primarily towards profit rather than fulfilling human needs the legal system s part of the bourgeois state and is geared towards maintaining the ideal conditions for the continuation of the capitalist system rather than guaranteeing justice and security.

Also there are many different actual and conceivable systems that have both codified laws and specialized institutions for interpreting those laws (courts) so I don't see how upholding the value of laws and courts necessarily commits me to embrace any particular system.

So I take it you agree that the laws should be decided upon democratically, and that courts should be subject to democratic vote as well, yes? After all, feedback is an important process in every single human endeavor.

[Bud Struggle]

So I take it you agree that the laws should be decided upon democratically, and that courts should be subject to democratic vote as well, yes? After all, feedback is an important process in every single human endeavor.

And no science at all?

[Glenn Beck]

So I take it you agree that the laws should be decided upon democratically, and that courts should be subject to democratic vote as well, yes? After all, feedback is an important process in every single human endeavor.

Yes, but I suspect we have different concepts of what democracy means. I have a Republican conception of democracy based on the idea of universal citizenship rights and civic inclusion rather than any given procedural criteria for decision making. IMO: in a democracy everyone has a say, and everyone is held responsible; but depending on the nature of the decision not everyone has to have an equal level of input or responsibility. Nor does it need to be carried out a certain way. In fact it might be un-democratic to give all opinions equal weight or to hold everyone equally accountable for a given decision. This is why I am against direct democracy in jurisprudence. This is also, incidentally, my philosophical justification for revolution, but that's another topic :P.

[Havet]

And no science at all?

Yes, and science as well.

[John_Jordan]

You're going to get all sorts of creeps grooming and taking advantage of children. How does a child have a voice ? Paedo priests will get away with it all again. Nip it in the bud folks !!

Okay, I'm a bit confused. "Taking advantage of children" is defined as what exactly? When we say children, what are we talking about here? Biological children, those who haven't hit puberty, or societal children, those who haven't hit around 18 yet? When you say "taking advantage of" do you mean abusive rape? Do you mean something like fondling without permission? Whenever people talk about this subject, there are always dozens of definitions floating around. I want to be clear.

And what do you mean, how does a child (either biological children or -18 "children") have a voice? If a child cries rape, everybody listens. For that matter, if anybody accuses anybody else of something like paedophilia or child molestation, even without a shred of proof it's difficult to rub the stain of the accusation off your sleeve.


I'm skeptical of this. I'm extremely doubtful that a child who has been abused sexually will come forward and say it. Children most often have trouble speaking about being sexually abused even when they are encouraged to, I can't imagine them just coming forward and saying it.

It's difficult to help people who have trouble helping themselves and age of consent laws don't help much in this regard. Further, it's not a matter of "children" here. People in general have trouble speaking about being sexually abused even when encouraged to do so.

For an age of consent law to take affect, it must already be known that sex is happening. If you already know that, it's not hard to tell if it was really consensual or not.

[gorillafuck]

It's difficult to help people who have trouble helping themselves and age of consent laws don't help much in this regard. Further, it's not a matter of "children" here. People in general have trouble speaking about being sexually abused even when encouraged to do so.

For an age of consent law to take affect, it must already be known that sex is happening. If you already know that, it's not hard to tell if it was really consensual or not.
Yes, but children often don't know that what happened was wrong whereas someone who's older will have trouble speaking about it but will be much more likely to be aware that what happened was wrong and that they were abused. And so a child might admit that it happened, but they won't say they feel they were taken advantage of. You specifically said the person has to say that they feel they were taken advantage of.

[John_Jordan]

Yes, but children often don't know that what happened was wrong whereas someone who's older will have trouble speaking about it but will be much more likely to be aware that what happened was wrong and that they were abused. And so a child might admit that it happened, but they won't say they feel they were taken advantage of. You specifically said the person has to say that they feel they were taken advantage of.

I admit that a child who "does not know it was wrong" will be able to speak about it.

But a child who adamantly denies that they were taken advantage of was probably not really taken advantage of. It is a difficult thing to find out who really was and who was not (among deniers). But assuming they were taken advantage of by virtue of age is not the way to go as far as I am concerned.

[Wolf Larson]

I think its rather fairly simple. Ditch the age of consent. If someone is being forced to have sex with another person, then take action.

Another prime example of your fukt mind. So an 11 year old girl who has no practical life experience can be manipulated into having sex with her creepy bearded 40 year old neighbor who's been crawling into her window at night to bring her toys and candy for a year working his way up to trust/friendship as predators do? It would all be OK so long as the little girl didn't feel raped?

[Che a chara]

Agreed to an extent--but it have to be over what 16? 17? 18? Besides for safety sake you have to take the highest possible age as the norm.

I mean you don't want to make a mistake, do you? It's BRAIN issue...nothing less. Take a brain scan of the "victim" and if you she's "of age", fine. Is she's not: 30 years for statutory rape. That's OK with me.

How many 16 year olds are of age 'brain wise' ? not many imo, and that again proves my point. It's dangerous to think otherwise.

[Che a chara]

Okay, I'm a bit confused. "Taking advantage of children" is defined as what exactly?

Taking advantage by creating a friendship with a child and abusing that trust. Taking advantage of lax laws that deem under age sex/relationships are near enough acceptable. Taking advantage of a child who is not mature enough to make a conscious decision.


When we say children, what are we talking about here? Biological children, those who haven't hit puberty, or societal children, those who haven't hit around 18 yet?

A child's a child, it doesn't matter what blood relation it is to a person. A child from birth to 18 (imo). Someone who isn't mature enough to make a judgement based on a relationship with an adult.


When you say "taking advantage of" do you mean abusive rape? Do you mean something like fondling without permission? Whenever people talk about this subject, there are always dozens of definitions floating around. I want to be clear.

Wll yes, rape, touching, emotionally abusing, abuse of trust. It's common sense to know what taking advantage of a child entails.


And what do you mean, how does a child (either biological children or -18 "children") have a voice? If a child cries rape, everybody listens. For that matter, if anybody accuses anybody else of something like paedophilia or child molestation, even without a shred of proof it's difficult to rub the stain of the accusation off your sleeve.

Some others have already answered this.

A child finds it difficult to speak about such crimes. Either they don't understand, or they are told keep quiet, or they think it's ok because someone has groomed them. Again it's abuse of trust and emotional 'blackmail.'

[gorillafuck]

I admit that a child who "does not know it was wrong" will be able to speak about it.

But a child who adamantly denies that they were taken advantage of was probably not really taken advantage of. It is a difficult thing to find out who really was and who was not (among deniers). But assuming they were taken advantage of by virtue of age is not the way to go as far as I am concerned.
I don't see how one can have sex with, say, a 6 year old with it not being abuse. A six year old's brain is obviously not going to be able to determine that what is about to be done to them is wrong and they will likely defend their abuser, since most sexual abuse comes from loved ones and a six year old wouldn't want to cause anything bad to happen to their father (if in that scenario the father was the abuser). And if it can't be determined that it's abuse if the six year old defends their abuser there's no case against the abuser, which there should be in my opinion because that sort of thing can seriously mess up someone psychologically.


How many 16 year olds are of age 'brain wise' ? not many imo, and that again proves my point. It's dangerous to think otherwise.
I'm fairly sure that 16 years old is about when most people lose their virginity (though I may be mistaken). I really don't see how having sex at 16 is "dangerous" unless it's unsafe sex.

[Glenn Beck]

I don't really think the psychological capacity to give informed consent has anything to do with some kind of subjective sense of maturity. There might be a very small grey area, like a year or two, but in principle there would be an age before which informed consent is pretty much impossible.

Of course the reason we have the age of consent laws we have now is not because of the capacity to give informed consent but because of the age we consider someone an adult. That age is socially determined and has a lot to do with political economy. I think for that reason a lot of this is talking in circles because given that the age of consent can be associated with social or reproductive maturity there is going to be a trade-off either way. Only if we either went back to or developed a new society where social adulthood happens either before or at roughly the same time as reproductive maturity would this become a non-issue. Until that happens we will have people we consider children having sex, and anything we do about it is going to be a compromise between our desire to let people freely engage in sexual relationships and our desire to protect people we consider children from sexual exploitation.

Since hypothetical solutions are always welcome in OI how about this one: we create a new legal category corresponding to adolescents and legally codify the transition between childhood and adolescence as taking place at a certain age. Then we'll have a parsimonious way of imposing different laws on different age groups. We can place the age of consent at the transition between childhood and adolescence so adolescents can fuck each other all they want without being charged with rape or whatever (along with resolving plenty of other non-sexual issues where adolescents are in a position where it might be unjust to treat them as either children or full adults) but society can still impose legal sanctions to protect youth from sexual exploitation. These legal sanctions, being no longer tied to the age of consent, wouldn't have to be considered de facto rape so we can recognize that while the guys Chris Hansen busted were doing something shitty they weren't necessarily raping somebody and treat them accordingly, so people don't get the sense that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

That's the closest to a win/win solution I can come up with besides going back to life on the farm.

[Robert]

We create a new legal category corresponding to adolescents and legally codify the transition between childhood and adolescence as taking place at a certain age.
Fine, but I think what we have in most states already corresponds to this already: in Texas, sex assault (some form of intercourse, by an adult [person 17 or older], forcible or not) with a child under 17 is a second degree felony (2-20 years), sex with a child under 14 is a first degree felony (5-99 years, but probation is an option.) If the child is under 6, it's minimum 25 to life, and you're never getting out of prison.

(None of the foregoing applies to consensual sex among kids [both under 17]. Those are juveniles and they don't even get processed legally unless the sex is forcible.)


These legal sanctions, being no longer tied to the age of consent, wouldn't have to be considered de facto rape so we can recognize that while the guys Chris Hansen busted were doing something shitty they weren't necessarily raping somebody and treat them accordingly, so people don't get the sense that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.Not sure I understand the first part, but all those guys Hansen busted had actually gotten in the car and clearly traveled with the intent to commit statutory rape. It bothers me that the "victim" was in fact an adult pretending to be a child, but that usually gets washed out in the sentencing process from what I've seen. They're looking at 0 - 30 years upon conviction. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2423.html)

So the court has plenty opportunity there to distinguish those guys from actual rapists.

[Che a chara]

Fine, but I think what we have in most states already corresponds to this already: in Texas, sex assault (some form of intercourse, by an adult [person 17 or older], forcible or not) with a child under 17 is a second degree felony (2-20 years), sex with a child under 14 is a first degree felony (5-99 years, but probation is an option.) If the child is under 6, it's minimum 25 to life, and you're never getting out of prison.

(None of the foregoing applies to consensual sex among kids [both under 17]. Those are juveniles and they don't even get processed legally unless the sex is forcible.)

Do you or anyone else know what the the crime rate of sex offences is in Texas ? Do the lengthy sentences act as a deterrent in comparison to another state or country to that matter ?

[khad]

John Jordan has been banned for arguments legitimizing child rape. Not only is this talk reactionary, but it invites scrutiny from the authorities. Please refrain from "pushing" this issue, or this thread will be closed and trashed.

[Che a chara]

John Jordan has been banned for arguments legitimizing child rape. Not only is this talk reactionary, but it invites scrutiny from the authorities. Please refrain from "pushing" this issue, or this thread will be closed and trashed.

:thumbup1: Good job and that's why I have such a strong feel on this issue. it needs to be weeded out of society and that even in thinking in a 'borderline grey' area is dangerous.

[Bud Struggle]

:thumbup1: Good job and that's why I have such a strong feel on this issue. it needs to be weeded out of society and that even in thinking of a 'borderline grey' area is dangerous.

Agreed. I constantly find it amazing how in other respects well thought out and well spoken people could then turn around and make arguments (even if only theoretical) for the rape of children.

[Robert]

Do you or anyone else know what the the crime rate of sex offences is in Texas ? Do the lengthy sentences act as a deterrent in comparison to another state or country to that matter ?

It seems impossible to answer either question. Hopelessly speculative.

If you mean, "what percent of all convicted felons in Texas are sex offenders," you can research that online easily enough. Looks like "rape" makes up about 7% of the prison population per official stats. Unclear if that includes indecency (offensive touching). It doesn't consider sex offenders sentenced to probation either.

You have to dig around for it, but it's in here (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/pages/crimestatistics.htm).

Now I'm OUTTA here.

[LeftSideDown]

By democratic vote, no? Or is democracy impractical now?

You cannot democratically vote something true or right. If a group of people vote for the murder of an innocent person its still wrong. IF a group decides 2+2 =5 its still wrong. IF people decide that a 5 year old can consent its wrong.

[LeftSideDown]

I'm skeptical of this. I'm extremely doubtful that a child who has been abused sexually will come forward and say it. Children most often have trouble speaking about being sexually abused even when they are encouraged to, I can't imagine them just coming forward and saying it.

Exactly, and how does a child really know that something terrible has transgressed? I mean I guess it won't sit well with him, but if hes really young he has no basis for comparison.

[LeftSideDown]

a

[LeftSideDown]

So I take it you agree that the laws should be decided upon democratically, and that courts should be subject to democratic vote as well, yes? After all, feedback is an important process in every single human endeavor.

The majority is no basis for establishing morality.

[mollymae]

Just a question for anyone who thinks that teens (that is, 16+) are not capable of consenting to sex: Does this mean that you support abstinence-only education?

[Bud Struggle]

Just a question for anyone who thinks that teens (that is, 16+) are not capable of consenting to sex: Does this mean that you support abstinence-only education?

I support teaching abstinence. But I also support the teaching of the complete course on sex education also. A kind should be taught the full range of options.

[gorillafuck]

The majority is no basis for establishing morality.
Couldn't you argue that they do if entering the community is voluntary?

[LeftSideDown]

Couldn't you argue that they do if entering the community is voluntary?

No. If I enter a community voluntarily, and, after doing nothing wrong, they vote to kill me it it still immoral.

[Havet]

Another prime example of your fukt mind. So an 11 year old girl who has no practical life experience can be manipulated into having sex with her creepy bearded 40 year old neighbor who's been crawling into her window at night to bring her toys and candy for a year working his way up to trust/friendship as predators do? It would all be OK so long as the little girl didn't feel raped?

Dude, what the fuck?

Did you even read my other replies after that one? Why don't you stop trolling and flamebaiting?

[Havet]

You cannot democratically vote something true or right. If a group of people vote for the murder of an innocent person its still wrong. IF a group decides 2+2 =5 its still wrong. IF people decide that a 5 year old can consent its wrong.

I know, but we are dealing with subjective criteria. There is no objective year at which a teenager starts making responsible decisions. It is a gradual process.

[LeftSideDown]

I know, but we are dealing with subjective criteria. There is no objective year at which a teenager starts making responsible decisions. It is a gradual process.

So why vote on it? They will be wrong in some cases; seems to me it needs to be examined in a case by case basis.

[Havet]

So why vote on it? They will be wrong in some cases; seems to me it needs to be examined in a case by case basis.

Examined - by whom? how?

[LeftSideDown]

Examined - by whom? how?


Courts? Judges? Psychologists/Psychiatrists? Hell, even doctors? Not by the uniformed masses.

[Havet]

Courts? Judges? Psychologists/Psychiatrists? Hell, even doctors? Not by the uniformed masses.

Who elects those courts and judges?

[Bud Struggle]

I know, but we are dealing with subjective criteria. There is no objective year at which a teenager starts making responsible decisions. It is a gradual process.

So in order not to hurt anyone we should fix the year at the top most area of the spectrum. It's better that some more mature girls go "without" than have some less mature girls raped.

Sound reasonable?

[mollymae]

So in order not to hurt anyone we should fix the year at the top most area of the spectrum. It's better that some more mature girls go "without" than have some less mature girls raped.

Sound reasonable?

You're forgetting the fact that in the end, the law doesn't really mean anything. Nobody is going to "go without". If a teenager wants to have sex, they're going to do it. They're not going to say, "well I want to get laid, but it's illegal, so I guess I can't do it."

[LeftSideDown]

Who elects those courts and judges?

Judges come into their judgedom through merit. Its not like you can vote someone to become a judge who has no qualifications, so if it is democratic you are still only selecting those who have the skills required to make these calls. These are only one of the people I listed, and I'm certain that judges would work in conjunction with those other careers to make the best decision possible.

[Havet]

Judges come into their judgedom through merit. Its not like you can vote someone to become a judge who has no qualifications, so if it is democratic you are still only selecting those who have the skills required to make these calls. These are only one of the people I listed, and I'm certain that judges would work in conjunction with those other careers to make the best decision possible.

Right, so you concede that judges would be elected - democratically - through their own merit? Or are you claiming that they will be elected undemocratically?

[gorillafuck]

No. If I enter a community voluntarily, and, after doing nothing wrong, they vote to kill me it it still immoral.
So when it comes to living somewhere such as an apartment, it's perfectly fine for the landlord to do whatever (s)he wants in regards to rules because you could switch jobs. But if you move to a community where people voluntarily agree to rules (they could move if they don't agree), it's not acceptable for them to impose rules on you?

[danyboy27]

i think the age of consent is not something that should be deternined by the public, but by psychologists and experts, if i am not mistaken its already the case in some places already.

16 is often repeated in many code of laws, and the notion figure of authority has well for those verry reasons.

There might be SOME verry rare exceptions, and that where justice institutions fuck up most of the time, condemning those verry rares exceptions all together with pedophiles and maniacs.

[Havet]

i think the age of consent is not something that should be deternined by the public, but by psychologists and experts, if i am not mistaken its already the case in some places already.

16 is often repeated in many code of laws, and the notion figure of authority has well for those verry reasons.

There might be SOME verry rare exceptions, and that where justice institutions fuck up most of the time, condemning those verry rares exceptions all together with pedophiles and maniacs.

I can agree with this, but don't you think that those psychologists/scientists/experts should try to look at the problem case by case instead of making a one-size-fits-all rule?

[danyboy27]

I can agree with this, but don't you think that those psychologists/scientists/experts should try to look at the problem case by case instead of making a one-size-fits-all rule?

Sometimes in psychology some basic principles remain statics, there are exceptions, and they should be studied, but lets face it, a teacher of 26 who have sexual relation with a teen of 15 is not sane and put children under his responsability at risk.

most of the time the set of rules determined by psychologists, set of rule that should constantly be updated, should be enough to manage the bulk of the situations, then certain particular situation should be studied in order to determine if the relationship x is functionnal or not.

that where the current system fail big time. We have currently a verry static set of rule, that cannot be changed by the person who have the ability and the knowledge to do it, the psychologists.

There is no political or religious interpretation to this, beccause the safety of young peoples is not a political topic, its all about rationality and logic, and the preservation of the human mind of undeveloped peoples.

There are some verry dangerous people out there, people that we should probably lock down for life beccause their mind is damaged beyond repair.

its not about killing or punishing them, its about protecting the weak and fragile people against rapist and sexual predator

then again its up to the specialist to determine that, not some snobby judge or politician charged to apply the law.

[LeftSideDown]

So when it comes to living somewhere such as an apartment, it's perfectly fine for the landlord to do whatever (s)he wants in regards to rules because you could switch jobs. But if you move to a community where people voluntarily agree to rules (they could move if they don't agree), it's not acceptable for them to impose rules on you?

Yes, but its not in their best interest to... oh, say make everyone bow down to the landlord and call him Supreme Overlord or something. It just wouldn't be smart, he wouldn't get very many customers. If you move to a community and they stipulate that in order to live there you abide by a certain set of rules, than its acceptable. However, even if one of the rules is that all decisions made democratically are moral and binding, its still wrong for them to vote to kill someone who has done nothing wrong. In this I'm a libertarian and I believe in the non-aggression axiom firmly.

[gorillafuck]

Yes, but its not in their best interest to... oh, say make everyone bow down to the landlord and call him Supreme Overlord or something. It just wouldn't be smart, he wouldn't get very many customers. If you move to a community and they stipulate that in order to live there you abide by a certain set of rules, than its acceptable. However, even if one of the rules is that all decisions made democratically are moral and binding, its still wrong for them to vote to kill someone who has done nothing wrong. In this I'm a libertarian and I believe in the non-aggression axiom firmly.
Obviously in the case we're speaking of, you voluntarily agreed to rules that can result in you receiving the death penalty. If you say you will kill me if I try to rob you in your home, and I still break into your home and try to rob you, wouldn't that justify killing me upon entry?

[LeftSideDown]

Obviously in the case we're speaking of, you voluntarily agreed to rules that can result in you receiving the death penalty. If you say you will kill me if I try to rob you in your home, and I still break into your home and try to rob you, wouldn't that justify killing me upon entry?

Even if they agree to the rules, that does not make the choices moral. I still hold that it is immoral to aggress against others unless they aggress against you. If a landlord made a contract that his decisions, no matter what are binding and above the law, he would still be immoral (objectively, not subjectively) for beating his tenants as he is violating the non-aggression axiom. This thread is annoying because you're making me mix economics (value-free) with libertarianism (it is a value-ethic).

You have aggressed against my house (breaking in), but you are only really justified in killing (no matter of contractual agreements) if you are threatened/there might be a threat of death, otherwise you can resolve the conflict by less permanent actions.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The age of consent is up to the person confronting that issue. If you are very young then you probably aren't ready but if you think you are and you are smart then go ahead, i and no one else has any say in what you do.

[gorillafuck]

If a landlord made a contract that his decisions, no matter what are binding and above the law, he would still be immoral (objectively, not subjectively) for beating his tenants as he is violating the non-aggression axiom.
How can something be objectively immoral?

[LeftSideDown]

How can something be objectively immoral?

Violate libertarian "Non-aggression Axiom".

[gorillafuck]

Violate libertarian "Non-aggression Axiom".
Violating the non-aggression axiom doesn't make something objectively immoral. It's impossible to do anything at all that is "objectively immoral" because no morality is objective.

[SouthernBelle82]

Young children aren't informed enough to have an age of consent. So that's definitely tough. I remember a story a couple of yrs ago of a teenager in I think Georgia where the guy was dating a girl and he was 17 and she was 16. The guy was a very hard working student and never got into trouble and played football and was just a very good kid. He had sex with his girlfriend and was taken to court over statutory rape. He had to go to prison but I remember he was released. That was just awful I think because I don't think they were that much a part in their age too.

[LeftSideDown]

Violating the non-aggression axiom doesn't make something objectively immoral. It's impossible to do anything at all that is "objectively immoral" because no morality is objective.

It is wrong for me to kill someone for no reason outright. This is universal.

[gorillafuck]

It is wrong for me to kill someone for no reason outright. This is universal.
I personally agree with that moral sentiment, but I'll just say it simply...

Prove it.

[LeftSideDown]

I personally agree with that moral sentiment, but I'll just say it simply...

Prove it.

Prove gravity.

[gorillafuck]

Prove gravity.
If I drop a golf ball and a cotton ball from the same height at the same time, the golf ball will hit the ground first. This is because the golf ball has more mass than a cotton ball, so the pull of gravity pulls it down to the ground faster. But we're not talking about gravity because it obviously has nothing to do with morality being objective.

Prove to me that it's objectively immoral to kill someone.

[IcarusAngel]

If I drop a golf ball and a cotton ball from the same height at the same time, the golf ball will hit the ground first. This is because the golf ball has more mass than a cotton ball, so the pull of gravity pulls it down to the ground faster. But we're not talking about gravity because it obviously has nothing to do with morality being objective.

Gravity pulls them towards the earth at the SAME speed, regardless of the mass - the reason the golf ball hits the ground first is because of air resistance. Air resistance does alter the motion of things like feathers, but it doesn't affect objects with more mass. For example, a 2-kg iron brick and a 1-kg iron brick will land land at approximately the same time since both weigh more than air. *** To find the speed of the object set v = gt = 9.8 * t, where t is time in seconds (i.e., it's speed after 1 second is 9.8 m/s, etc.).

Apparently, Aristotle thought elements were made up of fire, water, wind, air, and so on, and that things with less "air" would be more resistant to go to the ground. This Aristotelian physics was disproven by Galileo and by Newtonian Mechanics.

Not only is what you're saying highly inaccurate but it undermines a perfectly valid point that we can use experiments with science to confirm our beliefs that we cannot do with reality or "mises axioms."

You could conduct your own experiment to prove what you're saying is false. You could put the feather and the golf ball in a tube and suck all the air out with a vacuum pump, then they would have the same acceleration when you tilted it around.

Or, grab a hardback textbook that is larger than a normal book, such as your Algebra textbook. Hold it parallel to the floor and put the cotton ball on top of it. Hold it diagonal with your two hands and let it go. The book will block the air resistance and you will see that gravity pulls both the book and the cotton ball toward the earth at the same speed.


*** Air resistance will still play a role even with, say, the golf ball and the tennis ball. Mathematics only approximates the physical world, the more accurate the better but usually even Newtonian physics will suffice for most people.

[Bob George]

Age of consent is a very tricky thing. One day before someone turns 16 they are a victim of abuse, a day after they are an abuser. It doesn't really make a lot of sense.

[LeftSideDown]

If I drop a golf ball and a cotton ball from the same height at the same time, the golf ball will hit the ground first. This is because the golf ball has more mass than a cotton ball, so the pull of gravity pulls it down to the ground faster. But we're not talking about gravity because it obviously has nothing to do with morality being objective.

Prove to me that it's objectively immoral to kill someone.

So you prove it by experimentation. Now go out and kill someone for no reason and see what happens. Make sure its in public.

[Havet]

Now go out and kill someone for no reason and see what happens. Make sure its in public.

Then its subjective, not objective. ie: its only immoral because other people are watching and find it immoral too.

[gorillafuck]

So you prove it by experimentation. Now go out and kill someone for no reason and see what happens. Make sure its in public.
Yes, the vast majority of people find it immoral so they would react according to that. That's irrelevant to whether it's objectively immoral.