|
Please stop posting that he shouldn't have invited her into his bed since that's apparently not what happened... read the OP and links BEFORE commenting. |
On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot.
And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o
|
On July 06 2011 06:34 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o
Sure, sure. Casual sex is meangingless pleasure to 16 year-olds. They never have false-perceptions as to what the relationships will amount to. Right. And there's nothing bad that could come from a 16 year-old having casual sex with a 40 year-old man, she can go on without worrying about any sort of social-stigmas haunting her.
And when 16 year--old girls want casual sex, they always go for 40 year-old men, as opposed to someone their own age.
/sarcasm
|
On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
Oh this is what i was trying to say, but refreshed and noticed you'd already hit the nail on the head.
if you follow the news at all in the last 10-20-30-40 years, you'd know straight away that the law has nothing to do with sense or morality, rather control and (in some cases) profit/ease of distribution.
Especially relevant to US laws lol
|
On July 06 2011 06:37 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:34 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o Sure, sure. Casual sex is meangingless pleasure to 16 year-olds. Right. And when they want casual sex, they always go for 40 year-old men, as opposed to someone their own age. /sarcasm
Pleasure isn't meaningless.
This man wasn't conscious either.
straw man to the maximum good sir
|
On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground.
There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument.
16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
|
On July 06 2011 06:40 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:37 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:34 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o Sure, sure. Casual sex is meangingless pleasure to 16 year-olds. Right. And when they want casual sex, they always go for 40 year-old men, as opposed to someone their own age. /sarcasm Pleasure isn't meaningless. This man wasn't conscious either. straw man to the maximum good sir
No, the strawman in this argument is your idea that sex is a simple pleasure.
Sex is anything but simple, and it most often is life-changing, especially to someone of a young age.
EDIT; I'm done, as I'm now arguing about the immorality of 40 year-old men sleeping with teenagers, and what's the point? If you can't see how that's immoral, you're quite clueless.
|
On July 06 2011 06:41 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground. There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument. 16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber.
Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't.
I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion...
EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
|
On July 06 2011 06:46 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:41 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground. There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument. 16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber. Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't. I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion... EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves.
Yes, I do. And I did.
That's exactly what opinions are for.
EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough.
If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
|
Whomever told the 16 year old child to get into the bed should be charged with negligence causing bodily harm or something along those lines. If the person who told the 16yr old to go sleep there knew of the guys condition then there is premeditation to add in there too.
|
On July 06 2011 06:43 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:40 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 06:37 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:34 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. And in the rest of the world, we recognise that having sex doesn't have to be a life changing decision. You know.. outside of church-group.. majority of people have sex for pleasure, not reproduction? 0_o Sure, sure. Casual sex is meangingless pleasure to 16 year-olds. Right. And when they want casual sex, they always go for 40 year-old men, as opposed to someone their own age. /sarcasm Pleasure isn't meaningless. This man wasn't conscious either. straw man to the maximum good sir No, the strawman in this argument is your idea that sex is a simple pleasure. Sex is anything but simple, and it most often is life-changing, especially to someone of a young age.
Sex isn't most often life changing at all. Please stop putting your minority views onto the rest of the world.
Sex is largely engaged in for pleasure. Also your putting words into my mouth, "strawmanning" me again by wording your response in such a way to seem like i'd said sex was simple.
I stated that sex (and the pleasure derived from it) isn't meaningless.
you responded "durrr sex isnt a simple pleasure" (which kind of agrees with what im saying, but from a very very very conservative and ignorant standpoint)
Don't make things up please.
also, for your perusal i've attained a link that goes over some of the basics of animal sexuality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour
For example, the act of sex for purely pleasure
|
On July 06 2011 06:48 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:46 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:41 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground. There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument. 16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber. Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't. I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion... Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for.
Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent.
And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
|
On July 06 2011 06:43 Leporello wrote:I'm done, as I'm now arguing about the immorality of 40 year-old men sleeping with teenagers, and what's the point? If you can't see how that's immoral, you're quite clueless.
Nice logical fallacy.
|
On July 06 2011 06:54 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:43 Leporello wrote:I'm done, as I'm now arguing about the immorality of 40 year-old men sleeping with teenagers, and what's the point? If you can't see how that's immoral, you're quite clueless. Nice logical fallacy.
the guy seems pretty backwards and ultra conservative (+ maybe a little mentally off balance..) i think we should just leave him alone now..
|
On July 06 2011 06:51 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:48 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:46 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:41 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground. There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument. 16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber. Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't. I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion... Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for. Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent. And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it".
Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden".
If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults.
Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself
EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
|
On July 06 2011 06:48 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:46 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:41 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground. There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument. 16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber. Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't. I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion... EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves. Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for. EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough. If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do.
Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way.
And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder.
If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder.
People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
|
why is there no questioning about why he would even have a 16 yr stay over nite anyhow??
|
On July 06 2011 06:57 SolHeiM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:48 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:46 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:41 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground. There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument. 16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber. Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't. I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion... EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves. Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for. EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough. If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do. Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way. And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder. If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder. People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead.
The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants.
Semantics, strawmen? Really?
I do agree with your last sentence though. Maturity never stops, but I think 18 does a lot better than 16, and that the laws should reflect that.
|
On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:57 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 06:48 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:46 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:41 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground. There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument. 16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber. Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't. I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion... EDIT: Good thing you are done, because you didn't actually have anything to base your argument on from the beginning. You are trying to grasp a moral highground which you have no claim to - your opinion shouldn't be the one to govern other peoples lives, that would be a violation of their right to decide for themselves. Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for. EDIT: to your EDIT: Minors don't have a right to think for themselves. We don't let children think for themselves. That's the point. I'm arguing that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to be making life-changing decisions. They aren't responsible enough. If you disagree that's fine. But you're essentially telling me I don't even have the right to an OPINION on the matter. And, sorry, but I obviously do. Minors do have a right to think for themselves. Where the fuck did you ever hear such an asinine statement? In Sweden, children are asked in court which parent they want to live with if the mom and dad can't stop bickering about who should have custody and most often the court will let the kid have his way. And to reply to your post above me.. You want evidence for when 16 year-olds are mature enough? Murder. If a 16 year-old kills someone in the US he's tried as an adult because in the eyes of the law and everyone else he was mature enough to know what he was doing, and had the mental acuity to decide for himself to commit the murder. People grossly underestimate how smart you are when you're 16. You might mature as you grow older, but that doesn't stop once you hit the magical 18. You keep maturing all the way until you drop dead. The court will let the kid decide between his parents. It doesn't make the kid an adult. It doesn't mean the kid can go out and have sex with whomever he/she wants. Semantics, strawmen? Really?
You just said that minors have no rights. I provided you with an example of where children have rights, and you throw strawman out there?
|
On July 06 2011 06:57 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:51 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:48 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:46 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:41 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:33 Ghostcom wrote:On July 06 2011 06:03 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 05:49 Eleaven wrote:
Biologically/reproductively nothing really changes in females between 16-17-18.
Consent has nothing to do with biological or reproductive maturity. Yes, 16 year-olds are biologically capable of sex. Some might even argue that a girl is fully capable of a sexual relationship by the time she's TWELVE, biologically speaking. Fully. It's about maturity of the MIND. In the States, we recognize that 16 year-olds, as a general whole, don't have nearly enough life-experience to be making life-changing decisions. And it's true. I was 16 once. And I was just smart and mature enough to think I knew what I was doing, but then you REALLY grow up and realize that you were actually an idiot. Yet in the states you also think 16 year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which can lead not only to their own death, but also that of other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians. A 16 year old is also in most countries old enough (in a lot of countries 14 years is the limit) to be charged as an adult within the criminal system. So until you've sorted out your own countries morally inconsistent laws, perhaps you would refrain from commenting on other countries laws? Because you really haven't got any sort of moral highground. There is something to be argued about raising the driving limit to age 18. People have brought it up, and I think it deserves an argument. 16 year-olds are more likely to cause an accident than an 18 year-old. Because they're younger, and dumber. Funny, here in DK there is a lot of talk about increasing the amount of trust society has to 16 year-olds - it is being rather seriously discussed wheter or not 16 year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I can't see any reason why they shouldn't. I'm terribly sorry, but you don't get to tell anyone else that their laws needs to be fixed based on your own opinion... Yes, I do. And I did. That's exactly what opinions are for. Only if you actually have a solid argument for your opinion which you've failed to represent. And now you actually sound like a kid in the kindergarden: "I'm right because I said it". Not at all. I've presented an opinion: that 16 year-olds are not responsible enough to be legally held independent and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men, and you're response has been to call me names, call me "kindergarden". If you think 16 year-olds should have all the rights of an adult, try providing a study that PROVES it, and shows that 16 year-olds, on average, possess enough maturity to be called adults. Or else, you're just being an ultimate hypocrite right now. Notice that "hypocrite" is the worse thing I've called you. I'll let you keep the "kindergarden" insults to yourself EDIT: And I'm anything but conservative. Unless it's on the topic of letting 16 year-old girls sleep with 40 year-old men. In that particular case, you can call me a conservative I guess, but I think it's a joke.
your a fucking joke. You're either trolling or really really stupid.
We're discussing the age of consent relative to maturity, and other more serious acts such as driving and murder. Not the "morality" of age gap sex.
You seem to be intent on blending the 2 different idea's into one. Unfortunately (for you) that's not how the legal system, or the world, works.
|
On July 06 2011 05:45 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 05:18 SolHeiM wrote:
The girl doesn't need to be wet for you to be able to push it in there. You think actual rape victims get "sopping wet" when they are being raped?
And some people don't wake as easily. I've said this numerous times before that not everyone wakes up at the slightest touch, so there is nothing strange about the fact that she accordingly woke during full blown intercourse. No, a legit rapist would use artificial lubricant, or spit usually(or the blood). As to your comment on it being "not strange" you seem to have disassociated from your previous sentence, you know she is dry, you know it takes a lot of force. We're not discussing the "slightest touch" waking someone up or not.. this is the discussion on how a 43 year old males erect penis ends up inside a dry 16 year old vagina. That's going to require an unreasonable amount of force. Thus the strangeness. Even if conditions were perfect, it takes a fair amount of positioning, movement and force to get a limp sleeping body into a required position 0_o. "nothing strange" indeed. Im not suggesting any blame onto anybody, but these conditions SURELY are strange, i mean if this isn't fucking strange, what is?
Girls aren't always dry. Also sleepwalkers have been able to do complex actions such as driving. Taking her clothes off, spitting into her vagina, and sticking it inside of her wouldn't be as complex as driving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
