TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Here's one for you Jay
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard So, children need to be cared for because they are mentally deficient compared to adults... okay I gottcha..... but what about adults that are mentally deficient compared to other adults. You still have not addressed my question with regard to addicts.... they are incapable of making a responsible decision due to their addiction... should we not care for them? If so, why not... because they're older then 18? Does that not seem a somewhat flimsy and arbitrary reason? What I'm getting at is you cannot have it both ways. If you are going to legislate morality or socially engineer any one group then all groups must be fair game. I cannot believe you, Mr. Libertarian, of all people cannot see that. (BTW, I don't support 14 year olds gettin' freaky)

so we should ban everything because someone MIGHT become an addict? Addicts should have access to all the help they need. But the government should NOT treat everyone as potential addicts. Most people gamble and drink for fun. Most people smoke for pleasure. A small portion of those become addicts. So we should take away the leisure activities for most because some may abuse it?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 so we should ban everything because someone MIGHT become an addict? Addicts should have access to all the help they need. But the government should NOT treat everyone as potential addicts. Most people gamble and drink for fun. Most people smoke for pleasure. A small portion of those become addicts. So we should take away the leisure activities for most because some may abuse it?

I don't think we should ban any of these things, nor do I think that the government should pick an arbitrary age for when people can have sex. This is my point Jay, I don't believe in social engineering therefore I don't support any social engineering initiatives.... you apparently agree with me except if the social engineering is in line with those values ascribed to by the Conservative Party of Canada. You can't have it both ways, either you do or do not support such things. By choosing to support this one initiative, the only one born of the conservative party you have shown yourself to be a partisan hack.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't think we should ban any of these things, nor do I think that the government should pick an arbitrary age for when people can have sex. This is my point Jay, I don't believe in social engineering therefore I don't support any social engineering initiatives.... you apparently agree with me except if the social engineering is in line with those values ascribed to by the Conservative Party of Canada. You can't have it both ways, either you do or do not support such things. By choosing to support this one initiative, the only one born of the conservative party you have shown yourself to be a partisan hack.

No.. as i said before... i support the protection of children from adults. And i also agree that ADULT decisions should be made by ADULTS and the children should not be allowed to make ADULT decisions.

Now make a case for lower the legal definition of adult to 13 and maybe we will talk. Of course that would be ludicris wouldnt it?


Heres the diff so far between this conservative law and liberal laws

Liberals want to protect adults from themselves

Conservatives want to protect children from adults

its a big difference

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 No.. as i said before... i support the protection of children from adults. And i also agree that ADULT decisions should be made by ADULTS and the children should not be allowed to make ADULT decisions. Now make a case for lower the legal definition of adult to 13 and maybe we will talk. Of course that would be ludicris wouldnt it? Heres the diff so far between this conservative law and liberal laws Liberals want to protect adults from themselves Conservatives want to protect children from adults its a big difference

But does this law not effectively protect children from children.... two 15 year olds can't have sex.... which one is the adult? Notwithstanding your erred view of this legislation as simply an attempt to protect children from adults it is social engineering nonetheless. IF you view social engineering as incorrect, unacceptable, and intolerable as you claim to then you would not support this bill. Clearly your claims and your beliefs are in conflict.

BTW, given that humans reach sexual maturity between the ages of 10 and 14 one could easily argue that when it comes to sexuality one can be considered an adult by age 14.



are we having fun?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard But does this law not effectively protect children from children.... two 15 year olds can't have sex.... which one is the adult? Notwithstanding that your erred view of this legislation as simply an attempt to protect children from adults it is social engineering nonetheless. IF you view social engineering as incorrect, unacceptable, and intolerable as you claim to then you would not support this bill. Clearly your claims and your beliefs are in conflict. BTW, given that humans reach sexual maturity between the ages of 10 and 14 one could easily argue that when it comes to sexuality one can be considered an adult by age 14. are we having fun?

the law doesnt say that two 15 year olds cant have sex. Thats why i support it. If it did then i wouldnt support the law. Go back and reread the beginning of the thread

So again, no conflict here.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 the law doesnt say that two 15 year olds cant have sex. Thats why i support it. If it did then i wouldnt support the law. Go back and reread the beginning of the thread

Damnit Craig.... learn to read (I recalled an earlier proposal that made the age of consent for sex et al 16 thus making 14 year olds and 15 year olds incapable of providing consent in any situation... just assumed this was unchanged).

quote:

So again, no conflict here.

You still have a conflict. Social engineering is social engineering, if you disagree with the very concept then you cannot support it sometimes. We're still legislating morality.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Damnit Craig.... learn to read (I recalled an earlier proposal that made the age of consent for sex et al 16 thus making 14 year olds and 15 year olds incapable of providing consent in any situation... just assumed this was unchanged). You still have a conflict. Social engineering is social engineering, if you disagree with the very concept then you cannot support it sometimes. We're still legislating morality.

legistlating morality would be telling 15 year olds they cant screw each other. Legislating safety means telling 60 year olds they cant screw 15 year olds.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 legistlating morality would be telling 15 year olds they cant screw each other. Legislating safety means telling 60 year olds they cant screw 15 year olds.

How is that a safety issue? Seems more like morals.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 legistlating morality would be telling 15 year olds they cant screw each other. Legislating safety means telling 60 year olds they cant screw 15 year olds.

Can you imagine a 60 year old knocking up a 15 year old girl! LOL

that'd be crazy!

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 legistlating morality would be telling 15 year olds they cant screw each other. Legislating safety means telling 60 year olds they cant screw 15 year olds.

I strongly disagree...it's not a safety issue, it's a morality issue.

why is it any more "dangerous" for a 30 yr. old to f**k a 15 yr. old vs. an 18 yr. old f**king a 15 yr old?

If you listen to people, they're not saying "omg, that's so unsafe that the 15 yr old hooked up with an older person"...it's "omg, that's disgusting", "what a pervert", etc.

18 is the arbitrary age by which people are deemed an adult in the eyes of the law...though we see fit to let people drive at 16...and see fit to not let them drink until 19.

so why is 16 any better than 14? It's the morality of the CPC and likeminded voters, nothing more. There is *zero* evidence that I've seen presented thus far to suggest that 16 is that magical number by which an individual can make a more informed choice about with whom they will have sex.

again...this does little else than please paranoid, conservative voters.

it's FINE for us to think of this issue from a moral standpoint...I myself, from a non-religious perspective, feel that it's usually morally wrong for a 40 yr old to sleep with a 14 yr old. It does not follow that our gov't should introduce that moral thinking into, even if it's the majority view, into law.

a great man once said "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"

that applies here too. IMHO.

*awaits anti-Trudeau flames*

Why should the government have any say in what decisions children make. Should it not be the responsibility of the parents to govern their children and raise them appropriately?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard WHAT THE FUCK... Captain anti-social engineering is supporting a social engineering initiative.... WHAT ABOUT INDVIDUAL LIBERTIES???? Seriously, you've really just solidified to everyone reading this fourm that you are nothing more then a conservative party hack. How can you possibly bitch about every type of social engineering policy that comes along without regard for it's merits but then support this one? Why just this one? Oh, yeah, because the CPC thought of it. You've just blown all credibility you had with me.

this post is dead on.

Not available for comment.

quote:

Originally posted by 7-4-7 this post is dead on.

you obviously have not yet read the rest of this thread

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I strongly disagree...it's not a safety issue, it's a morality issue. why is it any more "dangerous" for a 30 yr. old to f**k a 15 yr. old vs. an 18 yr. old f**king a 15 yr old? If you listen to people, they're not saying "omg, that's so unsafe that the 15 yr old hooked up with an older person"...it's "omg, that's disgusting", "what a pervert", etc. 18 is the arbitrary age by which people are deemed an adult in the eyes of the law...though we see fit to let people drive at 16...and see fit to not let them drink until 19. so why is 16 any better than 14? It's the morality of the CPC and likeminded voters, nothing more. There is *zero* evidence that I've seen presented thus far to suggest that 16 is that magical number by which an individual can make a more informed choice about with whom they will have sex. again...this does little else than please paranoid, conservative voters. it's FINE for us to think of this issue from a moral standpoint...I myself, from a non-religious perspective, feel that it's usually morally wrong for a 40 yr old to sleep with a 14 yr old. It does not follow that our gov't should introduce that moral thinking into, even if it's the majority view, into law. a great man once said "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" that applies here too. IMHO. *awaits anti-Trudeau flames*

so you are saying that sex predators should be allowed to exploit children that are 14 and 15?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 you obviously have not yet read the rest of this thread

incorrect, the part where he writes you off is dead on.

quote:

Originally posted by 7-4-7 incorrect, the part where he writes you off is dead on.

care to explain why?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 so you are saying that sex predators should be allowed to exploit children that are 14 and 15?

A sex predator isn't going to stop diddling 14 and 15 year olds just because you raise the age to 16.

The government has no business in the bedroom.....even a 14 year olds bedroom....the parents have that responsibility. I am sure Mr. Harper will eventually be preaching along side his bed pal George.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced A sex predator isn't going to stop diddling 14 and 15 year olds just because you raise the age to 16.

DING!

Just because you make it illegal doesn't mean people will stop doing it. It's illegal for people to have sex with 5 year olds yet pedophiles are still out there. It's illegal to traffic in narcotics yet I can still buy them with ease. It's illegal to murder people yet some poor bastard got stabbed to death last night because he was wearing the wrong colours in the wrong neighbourhood.

This law will do nothing to stop 14 and 15 year olds from getting plowed by 22 year olds.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced A sex predator isn't going to stop diddling 14 and 15 year olds just because you raise the age to 16.

maybe not..but at least now we can prosicute him for it

quote:

The government has no business in the bedroom.....even a 14 year olds bedroom....the parents have that responsibility. I am sure Mr. Harper will eventually be preaching along side his bed pal George.

i see, so you think that the government has a right to legislate adult decisions but should allow children to have their rights left alone?

Very strange indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 maybe not..but at least now we can prosicute him for it i see, so you think that the government has a right to legislate adult decisions but should allow children to have their rights left alone? Very strange indeed.

The government should legislate the same laws for children as it does for adults.....agreed there may be variations on those laws, however, the parents need to be the ones who govern their children and provide them with the base to make good moral decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced The government should legislate the same laws for children as it does for adults.....

so what you are basically saying is there should be no drinking minimum age and no smoking minimum age among other things.

Either that or a total prohibition on such things for both adults and children.

right?

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced agreed there may be variations on those laws, however, the parents need to be the ones who govern their children and provide them with the base to make good moral decisions.

aaah so you contradict yourself

so you are in agreement that children need restrictions such as no smoking, screwing or drinking.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 so what you are basically saying is there should be no drinking minimum age and no smoking minimum age among other things. Either that or a total prohibition on such things for both adults and children. right? aaah so you contradict yourself so you are in agreement that children need restrictions such as no smoking, screwing or drinking.

No...personally, I don't think there should be any age limit on smoking, drinking, or sex. There are certain things such as driving or joining the army and work force that yes there needs to be age restrictions. On things that are a moral decision the government shouldn't have any say.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced No...personally, I don't think there should be any age limit on smoking, drinking, or sex. There are certain things such as driving or joining the army and work force that yes there needs to be age restrictions. On things that are a moral decision the government shouldn't have any say.

cue the drunk, smoking 6 year olds!

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 cue the drunk, smoking 6 year olds!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.