|
The adult has a child's mind, the child has an adult's mind. Who's the rapist? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SuspicionVandit |
| I don't think he's saying he wants to kids. I think he's questioning the morality of wasting his god given semen on a child's face rather than making her pregnant. No, actually he's not questioning it. The child is. An incredibly intelligent child, one that supersedes 99.999 percent of the human race and in effect, is raping a half-monkey/half-human/half-ox hybrid which has no sense of self conscious or worth, so he sit and he cry at night, wishing he die til' he throw on a rap record, and he sit and he vibe |
|
|
| Akridrot |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuspicionVandit
I don't think he's saying he wants to kids. I think he's questioning the morality of wasting his god given semen on a child's face rather than making her pregnant. |
Holy :eyes:
:stongue:
Damn, that was so... vulgar... |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well if those are the criteria then I think the real question is why we allow most people over 18 to engage in sexual relations... |
It's a generalization.. they find most young people lack the mental acuity to take responsibility for their actions (or in the case of very young people, to understand the act at all) and most older people manage to scrape over that low benchmark. So they pick an arbitrary age over which people will be considered adults and for whatever reason, the line is drawn at 18.
Most people over 18 aren't quite as easy to manipulate into bed (otherwise I'd be getting laid every weekend). And most are mature enough to know the risks or bear responsibility for the outcome - pregnancy, a torn rectum from letting a football team give it to her etc etc
| quote: | | Personally, I find such exacting standards both impracticable and unnecessary. |
For criminal codes those sorts of standards are far more practicable than anything more accurate or subjective.. like "was the person sufficiently mature to consent". What legal test could be more practicable than a numerical age? "Was she over 18? No? You're guilty.. Next"
| quote: | | It's a strange testament to how modern humans are so objectively secure and yet so subjectively insecure that something as ordinary as sex is given special status as a dangerous activity that we need to protect people from engaging in. |
putting the kettle on the stove, slicing a piece of cheese, crossing the road - all these things are ordinary activities, but I wouldn't let my 2 year old nephew engage in them cos I know the little retard would hurt himself. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
As someone uniquely qualified to answer this question, yes, you are all children in comparison; always have been, and even more so now.
I do not as a consequence consider myself a pedophile, though. I think pedophilia is best viewed purely in terms of physical sexual maturity. Anything beyond that seems to me to be largely a function of cultural context. |
What makes you 'uniquely qualified'?
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well if those are the criteria then I think the real question is why we allow most people over 18 to engage in sexual relations...
Personally, I find such exacting standards both impracticable and unnecessary. It's a strange testament to how modern humans are so objectively secure and yet so subjectively insecure that something as ordinary as sex is given special status as a dangerous activity that we need to protect people from engaging in. |
I think you know the answer to that question. How can a 10 year old child properly decide that they want to have sex with a 40 year old?
Astroboy's line of reasoning about pandering to the average member of the population is far more sensible (and, correct, I agree) than your own. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
It's a generalization.. they find most young people lack the mental acuity to take responsibility for their actions (or in the case of very young people, to understand the act at all) and most older people manage to scrape over that low benchmark. So they pick an arbitrary age over which people will be considered adults and for whatever reason, the line is drawn at 18. |
Who are "they?"
And, again, I have no gripe with "their" appropriately low estimation of the general level of "mental acuity" of those under 18, but I remain unpersuaded that a majority of those above 18 should be permitted to engage in sex if we genuinely believe it should be prohibited for those who do not possess the capacity to take responsibility for their actions.
| quote: | | Most people over 18 aren't quite as easy to manipulate into bed (otherwise I'd be getting laid every weekend). And most are mature enough to know the risks or bear responsibility for the outcome - pregnancy, a torn rectum from letting a football team give it to her etc etc |
Are you speaking from personal experience here? Personally I lack the comparative frame of reference to draw any such conclusion, but I'm willing to take your word for it if you do. Either way, though, the crucial words are "quite as."
| quote: | | For criminal codes those sorts of standards are far more practicable than anything more accurate or subjective.. like "was the person sufficiently mature to consent". What legal test could be more practicable than a numerical age? "Was she over 18? No? You're guilty.. Next" |
I never claimed numerical age was an impracticable criterion; indeed the very impracticability of the criteria you proposed (I quote: "I think it's best viewed as a function of mental maturity. Firstly the ability to comprehend and take responsibility for the act and its consequences (and hence the ability to freely consent in a meaningful way). Secondly whatever intangible factor it is that creates the power imbalance in negotiations between most adults and most children") that requires us to rely on numerical age for the sake of administrability.
The problem is that by your own standard (I quote you again: "as long as a law protects vastly more people than it restricts then it's justifiable") the particular age chosen (or indeed any age) would be severely underinclusive. If we genuinely care about protecting people from themselves (rather than merely rationalizing a cultural taboo), then why not use some sort of certification process like we do for driving. If we really think sex is so dangerous, why open the flood gates the minute someone reaches their 18th birthday?
| quote: | | putting the kettle on the stove, slicing a piece of cheese, crossing the road - all these things are ordinary activities, but I wouldn't let my 2 year old nephew engage in them cos I know the little retard would hurt himself. |
I understand the paternalistic desire to protect the helpless from themselves, I really do.
But in the end, it does more harm than good. We need to weed these folks out while they're still young. A practice of keeping people safe who require such constant supervision is how the George Bushes and Sarah Palins of the world make it to adulthood, not to mention their throngs of supporters. If we're going to control the minuteae of their lives to make sure that they don't do anything incredibly stupid while they are children, then we at the very least have to take responsibility for the adults we're creating and continue to oversee them for their entire lives. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
What makes you 'uniquely qualified'? |
I was being facetious. Apparently not very well, considering the responses my post has garnered, but I have decided to try to make the best of it.
| quote: | | How can a 10 year old child properly decide that they want to have sex with a 40 year old? |
As opposed to improperly deciding? |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Who are "they?" |
Law reform commissions, lobby groups, judges, politicians... the vast body of people that are involved in creating law.
| quote: | | And, again, I have no gripe with "their" appropriately low estimation of the general level of "mental acuity" of those under 18, but I remain unpersuaded that a majority of those above 18 should be permitted to engage in sex if we genuinely believe it should be prohibited for those who do not possess the capacity to take responsibility for their actions. |
It's an arbitrary figure. I'd suggest the opposite.. I think people over the age of 14 or 15 are probably responsible enough to consent to sex but under 18s don't have a political voice, whereas their parents (ho were raised in a very different time and still have archaic notions) do.
| quote: | | Are you speaking from personal experience here? Personally I lack the comparative frame of reference to draw any such conclusion, but I'm willing to take your word for it if you do. Either way, though, the crucial words are "quite as." |
Both personal and common. A great number of ssingle young men on any given weekend are out trying to get laid. Their general failure is so commonplace as to be cliche and a common subject of jokes and urban mythology.
Are you suggesting you never try to pick women up, or that you always succeed?
| quote: | | The problem is that by your own standard (I quote you again: "as long as a law protects vastly more people than it restricts then it's justifiable") the particular age chosen (or indeed any age) would be severely underinclusive. If we genuinely care about protecting people from themselves (rather than merely rationalizing a cultural taboo), then why not use some sort of certification process like we do for driving. If we really think sex is so dangerous, why open the flood gates the minute someone reaches their 18th birthday? |
We will have to agree to disagree. While I am certain that most people of any age are extremely stupid. I think Most kids over the age of 15 or 16 are (or should be) mature enough to make their own decisions about their bodies. Raising it to 18 "just in case" or to fit in all the children of idiotic evangelical families that brought their children up believing in some form of Lala-land instead of the real world, is acceptible to me.
| quote: | I understand the paternalistic desire to protect the helpless from themselves, I really do.
But in the end, it does more harm than good. We need to weed these folks out while they're still young. A practice of keeping people safe who require such constant supervision is how the George Bushes and Sarah Palins of the world make it to adulthood, not to mention their throngs of supporters. If we're going to control the minuteae of their lives to make sure that they don't do anything incredibly stupid while they are children, then we at the very least have to take responsibility for the adults we're creating and continue to oversee them for their entire lives. |
Ofcourse allowing children to make mistakes is important. And if I have a kid I hope I will have raised them well enough for them to make their own decisions about their bodies in their teens. But I still wouldn't be happy if a rugby team could have sex with my 12 year old child and it not be a crime... And I doubt you'll find very many 2 year olds around who can cook themselves a meal without sustaining 3rd degree burns. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Well, we can agree that it's arbitrary. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of teenagers consenting to sex, nor do I mind prohibiting them from doing so. I would just like to see us treat them the same as adults of similar capacity. But, yes, political factors ensure that it's not going to happen. It would be a real heartbreaker if I thought it was a big deal, but it's just another minor flaw a system that is full of them.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Both personal and common. A great number of ssingle young men on any given weekend are out trying to get laid. Their general failure is so commonplace as to be cliche and a common subject of jokes and urban mythology. |
So you would say that you generally have more success seducing children as opposed to adults?
| quote: | | Are you suggesting you never try to pick women up, or that you always succeed? |
I do not fail often, but "always" is a very tough standard to meet, especially since I like a challenge. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
So you would say that you generally have more success seducing children as opposed to adults? |
:stongue: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
As someone uniquely qualified to answer this question, yes, you are all children in comparison; always have been, and even more so now.
|
uniquely qualified because you're in the 99th percentile, or because you engage in sexual relations with people decades older/younger than you? :tongue2 |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
uniquely qualified because you're in the 99th percentile, or because you engage in sexual relations with people decades older/younger than you? :tongue2 |
Could be either, or both! But it's a secret... |
|
|
|
|
