Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The point is [b]Consent is there. Do you agree or not ? You, my freind, are the one who keeps dodging the point.You can't account for every individual 14 year old, and neither can I. So let's drop this whole " a 14 year old can or can't handle it" bullshit...it's headed no where.
I simply feel that it should be up to the parent to decide what to do about their child being sexually active. Not the government. Not unless an actual rape occurs. [/B]
He has a point though. A 14-year-old shouldn't be having sex with...oh say...a 30-year-old. Even if the parents actually condone that, it still shouldn't be allowed.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah I see...there is no logical answer. There are no arguments and reasons for that. You just pulled it out of your ass. You could be a theology major.
Yes there is, which is there are laws against it. A 14-year-old couldn't psychologically handle it.
Seriously though, somethings are too obvious they don't require explanation. But some people like things spelled out for them either for cheap entertainment or because they are unable or unwilling to figure it out on their own. This is one of those things.
Originally posted by Frigid Soul
Yes there is, which is there are laws against it. A 14-year-old couldn't psychologically handle it.
yes, because there is a law against it, thats the reason its wrong.
textbook circular argument.
Originally posted by Frigid Soul
Seriously though, somethings are too obvious they don't require explanation.
anything that is "too obvious" should be painfully simple to explain, yet you cant.
Originally posted by Frigid Soul
But some people like things spelled out for them either for cheap entertainment or because they are unable or unwilling to figure it out on their own. This is one of those things.
so lets attack the person who asked the question, to cover up our inability to answer it 👆
Originally posted by Frigid Soul
Yes there is, which is there are laws against it. A 14-year-old couldn't psychologically handle it.Seriously though, somethings are too obvious they don't require explanation. But some people like things spelled out for them either for cheap entertainment or because they are unable or unwilling to figure it out on their own. This is one of those things.
That's bullshit. A 14 year old that wants to have sex won't have any psychological scars.
Except for that look at what PVS said.
the truth is that the one factor which is constant and is "common sense" is that a female is old enough to have sex when she is old enough to get pregnant. biologically its just that simple. the laws WE as humans place on age are based on what is the minimum age we feel a parent is capable of being functional. i agree that a 14 year old is not capable of being a functional parent in our society and should not be allowed. that does not make it hardwired common sense. its just a hazey law which we put in place because its the best we can think of. not too long ago, a 14 year old getting married was common. now, according to your "common sense" it isnt. now what of the future? what if, 50 years from now, its "common sense" to not allow an 18 year old to have sex? does that make us all degenerate perverts?
Originally posted by PVS
the truth is that the one factor which is constant and is "common sense" is that a female is old enough to have sex when she is old enough to get pregnant. biologically its just that simple. the laws WE as humans place on age are based on what is the minimum age we feel a parent is capable of being functional. i agree that a 14 year old is not capable of being a functional parent in our society and should not be allowed. that does not make it hardwired common sense. its just a hazey law which we put in place because its the best we can think of. not too long ago, a 14 year old getting married was common. now, according to your "common sense" it isnt. now what of the future? what if, 50 years from now, its "common sense" to not allow an 18 year old to have sex? does that make us all degenerate perverts?
No. it's called progressive thinking, I do not believe that any time in the future society will deem someone of 18 years to be more child like, 'we' realize that we mature at certain ages and that is why we have age restrictions of varying levels. If you want to dish up and repeat the 'it was acceptable before' argument as done by Bardock with his ancient Greek analogies, that is a moot point. Lots of things were acceptable 50, 100 or 1,000+ years ago. Luckily society has 'evolved' if you will.
Originally posted by Robtard
No. it's called progressive thinking, I do not believe that any time in the future society will deem someone of 18 years to be more child like, 'we' realize that we mature at certain ages and that is why we have age restrictions of varying levels. If you want to dish up and repeat the 'it was acceptable before' argument as done by Bardock with his ancient Greek analogies, that is a moot point. Lots of things were acceptable 50, 100 or 1,000+ years ago. Luckily society has 'evolved' if you will.
That's not my only point though. And it certainly beats your "But it's the law now".
Originally posted by Robtard
No. it's called progressive thinking, I do not believe that any time in the future society will deem someone of 18 years to be more child like, 'we' realize that we mature at certain ages and that is why we have age restrictions of varying levels. If you want to dish up and repeat the 'it was acceptable before' argument as done by Bardock with his ancient Greek analogies, that is a moot point. Lots of things were acceptable 50, 100 or 1,000+ years ago. Luckily society has 'evolved' if you will.
i see the truthiness of it.
"evolved" as if we become better with every law passed. like those jim crow laws. evolution.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The point is [b]Consent is there. Do you agree or not ? You, my freind, are the one who keeps dodging the point.You can't account for every individual 14 year old, and neither can I. So let's drop this whole " a 14 year old can or can't handle it" bullshit...it's headed no where.
I simply feel that it should be up to the parent to decide what to do about their child being sexually active. Not the government. Not unless an actual rape occurs. [/B]
And I have told you that I do not think it exist and I have explained it to you so many different ways that I lost count. Let me repeat one of the things again; children and teenagers want to do many things, but we have age restrictions for a reason. At 14 I wanted to drink because I saw older people that did it and I wanted to be like them; should they have allowed be to booze it up because I gave my consent and said I could handle it? Answer is no.
Now you switched, first it is up to the 14 year old because by your accounts, a 14 year old is mature enough and has the 'wisdom' is you will to make the decision of having sex like an adult and with an adult by themselves and for themselves. Now it should be up to the parents? That does seem a bit more logical in a sense and I would be inclined to accept that because I truly feel the majority of parents would not allow their child or teenager to have sex with a far older adult no matter how hard they begged and pleaded.
Originally posted by Robtard
Are you being sarcastic? Because Jim Crow ended in 1964, that's an example of progression.
progression (by which i mean simply the course of events/ideas) brought the law into being in the first place. so what if the age law changes? does that mean its progression or do you get to selectively tag it as "regression"?
Originally posted by PVS
progression (by which i mean simply the course of events/ideas) brought the law into being in the first place. so what if the age law changes? does that mean its progression or do you get to selectively tag it as "regression"?
Yes, just as if society brought back slavery. That would be "regression" as you put it.