|
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 07:02 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:57 Leporello wrote: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.
First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you.
Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems.
|
On July 06 2011 07:02 SolHeiM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote: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?
Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult.
Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult.
So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
To summarize: I don't think 16 year olds should be treated as adults. I think any man having sex with a 16 year-old girl should be arrested for a crime.
In response to this position I have been called, in this thread, "conservative", "kindergarden", "mentally unbalanced". I understand we have philosophical differences, and that semantical arguments get messy. But, uh, I feel like I kept the high-ground.
Peace.
|
On July 06 2011 07:06 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:02 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 06:57 Leporello wrote: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. First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you. Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems.
Confirmed for trolling?
In almost every other first world country the age of consent is 16, as low as 14 in a lot of places. having sex with a 16 year old is not statutory rape here (where the incident happened).
You should really just leave like you said you would, at every turn your nonsense has been countered by other posters giving you facts, and evidence. whilst you continue to grasp at an illusory moral high ground whilst spouting absolute nonsensical strawman garbage.
|
On July 06 2011 07:09 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:02 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote: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? Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult. Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult. So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
But if a 16 year-old wants to have sex with a 40 year-old and 16 is the age of consent in that state, country or whatever then they are allowed to have sex with whomever they want. They do have the right to choose their partner regardless of age, when they have reached the age of sexual consent. Just because you object and frown upon the age gap doesn't mean that 16 year-olds shouldn't have the right to choose who they have sex with.
|
The world is so fucked up, everything has a "condition". It's like whats next? I'm going to shoot you in the fucking head condition.. my bad?
|
On July 06 2011 07:11 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:06 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:02 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 06:57 Leporello wrote: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:
[quote]
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. First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you. Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems. Confirmed for trolling? In almost every other first world country the age of consent is 16, as low as 14 in a lot of places. having sex with a 16 year old is not statutory rape here (where the incident happened). You should really just leave like you said you would, at every turn your nonsense has been countered by other posters giving you facts, and evidence. whilst you continue to grasp at an illusory moral high ground whilst spouting absolute nonsensical strawman garbage.
What evidence? What facts? Prove to me that a 16 year-old has the maturity of an adult. That is the only evidence your argument needs. I don't care that your country's laws are different than mine, I think they should change. That's my opinion that started this whole thing.
Also, you call me a troll, and yet you previously called me "mentally unbalanced". And yet are still responding to my posts.
I'm starting to wonder how much this issue personally means to you? You got some jail-bait or something? Are you robbing the cradle?
|
On July 06 2011 07:09 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:02 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote: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? Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult. Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult. So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want.
I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on.
Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint?
I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts.
It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues.
It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications.
It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit:
"i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X"
|
On July 06 2011 07:12 SolHeiM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:09 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:02 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult. Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult. So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want. But if a 16 year-old wants to have sex with a 40 year-old and 16 is the age of consent in that state, country or whatever then they are allowed to have sex with whomever they want. They do have the right to choose their partner regardless of age, when they have reached the age of sexual consent. Just because you object and frown upon the age gap doesn't mean that 16 year-olds shouldn't have the right to choose who they have sex with.
THANK YOU. Very reasonably put. Yes, I disagree and frown upon that law and think the age should be raised from 16 to 18. It's laughable that such a simple and reasonable opinion could draw such vitriol from some people. I'm astounded, and a bit disappointed.
|
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.
Is that really your perception of how the discussion has passed?
My response was to:
1) Point out that in most other countries age 14-16 was the age at which one would be considered old enough to decide about having sex.
2) Point out that your own country was inconsistent by itself and before trying to claim moral highground you would need to solve that.
3) Point out that at age 16 you are in a legal sense "adult" or at least adult enough to know that your actions has consequences and thus you can be judged on the same basis for as an adult.
4) When you chose to ignore all that (except responding with something along the lines of "18 or kid") I pointed out that what you had was an opinion an unless this is a dictatorship you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to do or not (I probably could've explained that clearer, my apologize, consider it done now instead) unless you could provide some solid argument to back up your opinion - YOU are the one to make a claim, YOU should be the one to back it up, not have me disprove it before you prove why it is a sensible claim.
5) Yes I compared you to a kid in the kindergarden - that is the only name I've called you and it was not until after you actually DID argue like a kid in kindergarden ("Yes, I do. And I did.")
6) I think I've already made it clear that in my view a 16 year-old is definitely old enough to decide if he/she wants to have sex. Who she wants to have sex with is none of my concern, as long as they are old enough to give consent as well. Funnily enough, the majority of the world shares my view and not yours. Speaking further in my advance is that a 16 year old is old enough to be convicted of murder with the same punishment as an adult would recieve, thus we already concider them legally mature enough to understand consequences (even in the states) of their actions.
|
I hope I don't develop this disease... 
|
On July 06 2011 07:17 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:09 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:02 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult. Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult. So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want. I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on. Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues. It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications. It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit: "i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X"
Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me?
I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative.
Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave.
|
On July 06 2011 07:17 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:11 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 07:06 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:02 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 06:57 Leporello wrote: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:
[quote]
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. First of all: cool it. Less insults please, just because I have a different opinion than you. Secondly, that is how the world works. The "age of consent" directly ties into the laws of statutory rape. I'm arguing that any sex between a 16 year old and an adult is statutory rape, and you disagree, rather strongly it seems. Confirmed for trolling? In almost every other first world country the age of consent is 16, as low as 14 in a lot of places. having sex with a 16 year old is not statutory rape here (where the incident happened). You should really just leave like you said you would, at every turn your nonsense has been countered by other posters giving you facts, and evidence. whilst you continue to grasp at an illusory moral high ground whilst spouting absolute nonsensical strawman garbage. What evidence? What facts? Prove to me that a 16 year-old has the maturity of an adult. That is the only evidence your argument needs. I don't care that your country's laws are different than mine, I think they should change. That's my opinion that started this whole thing. Also, you call me a troll, and yet you previously called me "mentally unbalanced". And yet are still responding to my posts. I'm starting to wonder how much this issue personally means to you? You got some jail-bait or something? Are you robbing the cradle?
Quite the opposite, i was freshly 16 when i met my now wife nearly 6 years ago. She was turning 20 at the time. Best set of decisions in my entire life, and i made them at 16. (you probably think she's a paedophile or something?) I was 6ft2, fully biologically mature, and running my own business. I just wish you'd cut all this crap about 16 year olds being useless, immature, unstable etc. It's simply not true, and the ONLY thing your basing it on is your countries age of consent.
I also know of many many other people who were sexually active at the ages of 14-16 without any regrets. And as a bonus they don't have any of this "i object to it so its obviously morally wrong and against god" attitude.
|
On July 06 2011 07:21 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:17 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 07:09 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:02 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult. Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult. So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want. I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on. Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues. It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications. It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit: "i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X" Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me? I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative. Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave.
I suppose i'm responding to you out of shock.
The sheer tenacity of your tactical posting is just astounding.
You claim such radical nonsense, draw out disapproval from every other poster, and then try to paint an illusion that I, or others, are being unreasonable.
Of course, you bypass by request for you to state clearly your opinion as you don't actually have a fully formed one, you're just typing on-the-go and making up things which fit into your shallow world view.
You really need to stop changing your stance so much, and hiding behind semantics.. (or just barefaced avoidance) it's very frustrating to read the postings of somebody like you.
|
On July 06 2011 03:41 Simberto wrote:
This is strange.
And both those articles fail very hard in delivering a lot of facts that might make it less strange. What was the relationship between that girl and the family? Why was she at that house? Who told her to sleep in the bed with a sexsomniac? Why did she listen to that person?
I for one am pretty sure that i would try pretty hard to avoid to sleep in one bed with my mother, and pretty much under no circumstances sleep in the bed of other middle-aged women. And i would especially not get into the bed of someone already sleeping there without them even knowing that unless there is an intimate relationship already. And i somehow imagine that 16-year old girls would be even more careful as to with whom they share a bed.
So i really would appreciate if someone had a version of this story with a lot less holes in it. Because at the moment, there are by far more holes in that story than anything else.
This is how I feel about it. And these are only some of my concerns with the story.
With so little to go on, there is really nothing to say.
|
On July 06 2011 07:19 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:57 Leporello wrote: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. Is that really your perception of how the discussion has passed? My response was to: 1) Point out that in most other countries age 14-16 was the age at which one would be considered old enough to decide about having sex. 2) Point out that your own country was inconsistent by itself and before trying to claim moral highground you would need to solve that. 3) Point out that at age 16 you are in a legal sense "adult" or at least adult enough to know that your actions has consequences and thus you can be judged on the same basis for as an adult. 4) When you chose to ignore all that (except responding with something along the lines of "18 or kid") I pointed out that what you had was an opinion an unless this is a dictatorship you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to do or not (I probably could've explained that clearer, my apologize, consider it done now instead) unless you could provide some solid argument to back up your opinion - YOU are the one to make a claim, YOU should be the one to back it up, not have me disprove it before you prove why it is a sensible claim. 5) Yes I compared you to a kid in the kindergarden - that is the only name I've called you and it was not until after you actually DID argue like a kid in kindergarden ("Yes, I do. And I did.") 6) I think I've already made it clear that in my view a 16 year-old is definitely old enough to decide if he/she wants to have sex. Who she wants to have sex with is none of my concern, as long as they are old enough to give consent as well. Funnily enough, the majority of the world shares my view and not yours. Speaking further in my advance is that a 16 year old is old enough to be convicted of murder with the same punishment as an adult would recieve, thus we already concider them legally mature enough to understand consequences (even in the states) of their actions.
1) This was already known. I know my opinion isn't the same as what most country's laws state. In fact, that's directly what my opinion addressed. Country's should change their laws on this.
2) Laws usually are inconsistent.
3) I don't entirely agree. There is a difference between knowing what the laws are and knowing how much those laws and your decisions can effect your life. This is what maturity is about, and 16 year-olds generally lack it.
4) I have ignored it because it's meaningless. None of those things change my opinion that 16 year-olds aren't mature enough to be legally adults, in my opinion.
5) You told me I don't have the right to an opinion. So I guess the feeling is mutual. Say something simple and nonsensical, and you'll get a likewise response.
6) GOOD. THAT is what you should've told me from the get go. I respectfully disagree with your opinion though. The only "evidence" that could factor into this argument would be a scientific study that showed 16 year-olds possess significantly better decision-making skills than younger age groups, and is at near on-par with adults. I do agree that there is inconsistency in America's "age of consent" laws. I agree with that entirely, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on other country's laws as well.
Otherwise, we both just have opinions. Try to respect mine.
|
On July 06 2011 07:25 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:21 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:17 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 07:09 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:02 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult. Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult. So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want. I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on. Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues. It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications. It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit: "i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X" Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me? I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative. Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave. I suppose i'm responding to you out of shock. The sheer tenacity of your tactical posting is just astounding. You claim such radical nonsense, draw out disapproval from every other poster, and then try to paint an illusion that I, or others, are being unreasonable. Of course, you bypass by request for you to state clearly your opinion as you don't actually have a fully formed one, you're just typing on-the-go and making up things which fit into your shallow world view. You really need to stop changing your stance so much, and hiding behind semantics.. (or just barefaced avoidance) it's very frustrating to read the postings of somebody like you.
You were far from reasonable. And still are.
|
On July 06 2011 07:31 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:25 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 07:21 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:17 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 07:09 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:02 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:57 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 06:48 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:46 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
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? Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult. Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult. So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want. I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on. Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues. It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications. It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit: "i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X" Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me? I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative. Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave. I suppose i'm responding to you out of shock. The sheer tenacity of your tactical posting is just astounding. You claim such radical nonsense, draw out disapproval from every other poster, and then try to paint an illusion that I, or others, are being unreasonable. Of course, you bypass by request for you to state clearly your opinion as you don't actually have a fully formed one, you're just typing on-the-go and making up things which fit into your shallow world view. You really need to stop changing your stance so much, and hiding behind semantics.. (or just barefaced avoidance) it's very frustrating to read the postings of somebody like you. You were far from reasonable. And still are.
It's hard to apply reason to your madness.
Of course, you'll never actually respond to any point made, since you don't have a fully formed opinion yet. you have a shambling grasp of the situation, but no real appreciation for the diversity of it.
This is usually dubbed "ignorance"
|
United States42363 Posts
|
Kwark said what I wanted to with fewer words....
|
On July 06 2011 07:33 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:31 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:25 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 07:21 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:17 Eleaven wrote:On July 06 2011 07:09 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 07:02 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 07:01 Leporello wrote:On July 06 2011 06:57 SolHeiM wrote:On July 06 2011 06:48 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
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? Yes, because we're arguing about whether 16 year olds deserve all the rights of an adult. Your example about kids deciding between divorcing parents is talking about the rights of a child. Children have rights, but they don't have the rights of an adult. So your example was completely meaningless. Yes, children have rights, but that doesn't mean they can have sex with whomever they want. I think you'd have a heart attack if you ever left your gated church community.. a lot of people have a lot of sex around the ages of 14-16, also your changing your argument so frequently its hard to keep up with which iteration of bollocks your currently on. Could you make a post that cleanly states your viewpoint? I'td be great if you could avoid the illusory high ground you've created throughout your other posts. It'd also be great if you could avoid confusing separate issues. It's very hard to discuss with people like you, since you talk mostly from a point of ignorance, you have no problem rewording your arguments to have completely different meanings and implications. It'd do this thread a lot of good if you could cut out all the crap and just come out and honestly admit: "i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm in the minority on this opinion, and i don't have any facts to back up why my morality should be the highest level, but i believe X" Again, if you think I'm mentally unstable, why are you still responding to me? I'm not a christian, I'm not a conservative. Please stop insulting me with sensationalist bullshit. I've asked you nicely several times over. Either cool down or leave. I suppose i'm responding to you out of shock. The sheer tenacity of your tactical posting is just astounding. You claim such radical nonsense, draw out disapproval from every other poster, and then try to paint an illusion that I, or others, are being unreasonable. Of course, you bypass by request for you to state clearly your opinion as you don't actually have a fully formed one, you're just typing on-the-go and making up things which fit into your shallow world view. You really need to stop changing your stance so much, and hiding behind semantics.. (or just barefaced avoidance) it's very frustrating to read the postings of somebody like you. You were far from reasonable. And still are. It's hard to apply reason to your madness. Of course, you'll never actually respond to any point made, since you don't have a fully formed opinion yet. you have a shambling grasp of the situation, but no real appreciation for the diversity of it. This is usually dubbed "ignorance"
Points you've made? No I missed them entirely. Your points have mostly been that I'm a bible-thumping christian conservative.
I'm none of those things.
So yeah, call me ignorant again. Just let me know when I make dumb, insulting, blind assumptions about who you are.
I don't need to tell you you're "ignorant". Get it?
Also, regarding your personal experience. I think it's nice, and I'm glad you found your love at that age and that it worked out. There is perhaps leeway when the age-gap is small enough. Maybe the laws could reflect on that. But if your law states that a 16 year-old can have legal consensual sex with a 40 year-old, I'm sorry, but that's really, really immoral in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
