Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, legal does mean shit, seeing as it's what the law is based on.
The Law is a human construct, and is only means as much as we make it mean. It does not reflect reality, only collective agreement.
So you would agree that there is no difference between a 9 year old and a 16 year old, because they are both legally children ? 🙄
Originally posted by BackFire
It's called "Age of Consent" for a reason. Because whatever consent a person gives prior to being that age is invalid.
Invalid by law. Law, again is a human construct, which does not reflect nature or reality, and is entirely fallible.
Consent is Consent, regardless of whether we recognize it or not.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree that a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old is taking advantage, simply because Age difference gives the 40 year old better ability to sway a 14 year old into doing things that favor him or herself.However, it's not Rape when Consent is involved. You still have not prove otherwise.
The point is some people are not ready for sex regardless of thier age. Some people ARE regardless of thier age.
I WAS speaking for children...When I was 15 I had sex with a 24 year old, and I felt no pain...it was just fun. You claim that its always pain, when you have no fkn idea what you're talkn about.
How is it hypocritical to talk about my freind's experience when she was 14?
No, but we should allow him or her to have sex. 😉
Well, if you feel that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drink, drive, vote, own a gun and smoke why is this same 14 year old mature enough to have sex with a 40 year old?
Again, do not use your own personal experience to justify this sickness and as someone who never plans on having kids don't try and justify child rape. I didn't say there would always be pain, but the risk for physical and mental pain exist, especially the latter.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Legal don't mean shit. Technically, you are always a child to your parent.....A child and teenager are not the same thing. 😉
Well it is stratified based upon the perception of autonomy. A 16 year old is different from a child below the age of 13. Etc based on mental and emmotional maturity. Rights and freedoms come at periods where teenagers are judged to be sufficiently mature to handle them (voting being on of the last things given)
However full autonomy is not legally recognised until the age of 18. Till that time you still have guardians/wards. Beyond that point you are a free citizen, before that point there are still some limitations, despite the amount of freedoms possessed.
Legally there isn't a difference, morally there is. Two different sets of rules in place for each.
Law does reflect nature. Humans are a part of nature, law's were created by humans, thus our laws are based on nature and on the reality in which we live.
Yes, consent is consent, doesn't change the fact that consent before a certain age is meaningless.
Originally posted by BackFire
Legally there isn't a difference, morally there is. Two different sets of rules in place for each.Law does reflect nature. Humans are a part of nature, law's were created by humans, thus our laws are based on nature and on the reality in which we live.
Yes, consent is consent, doesn't change the fact that consent before a certain age is meaningly.
But you assume that a child is mature enough to give consent and mature enough to fully understand what they are consenting to and fully understand the consequences. If kids of that age were mature enough,we wouldn't have age limits on anything.
Originally posted by Robtard
Well, if you feel that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drink, drive, vote, own a gun and smoke why is this same 14 year old mature enough to have sex with a 40 year old?
If a 14 year old is mature enough to have sex at ALL, than they are mature enough to have sex with whoever...
Your logic on age difference is making no valid sense.
Originally posted by Robtard
Again, do not use your own personal experience to justify this sickness and as someone who never plans on having kids don't try and justify child rape. I didn't say there would always be pain, but the risk for physical and mental pain exist, especially the latter.
I am justifying no sickness. There is nothing sick about having sex with a sexual being (both 14 year olds and 40 year olds are sexual beings). Atleast I have personal experience to fall back on, while you have nothing but a bunch of meaningless bias and opinion. 👇
I NEVER[/d] tried to justify [b]Child Rape you idiot. Child Rape is when you FORCE a child to have sex, and there is no consent given.
If there is Consent, then it is NOT RAPE...get that through your thick ass head.
The risk for pain exists for EVERYONE not just 14 year olds. 😉
Originally posted by Robtard
But you assume that a child is mature enough to give consent and mature enough to fully understand what they are consenting to and fully understand the consequences. If kids of that age were mature enough, e would have age limits on anything.
What the hell are you talking about?
Originally posted by Robtard
But you assume that a child is mature enough to give consent and mature enough to fully understand what they are consenting to and fully understand the consequences. If kids of that age were mature enough, e would have age limits on anything.
Totally Untrue 👇
We have tons of unnecessary limits in Government and Law. The ban of Gay Marriage is a completely unnecessary act.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Legal don't mean shit. Technically, you are always a child to your parent.....A child and teenager are not the same thing. 😉
How can you debate legality and then say it doesn't mean shit?
Yes, it does. A human is a legal child until they are 18.
So when you have sex with a child over the age of 16, you having sex with a minor, but a minor who can consent legally.
I don't know why you're trying to tell me children and teens are different, you're a child until you're an adult, which is at 18.
-AC
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If a 14 year old is mature enough to have sex at ALL, than they are mature enough to have sex with whoever...Your logic on age difference is making no valid sense.
Well actually it, legally can. Dolby Incapax (though not working beyond the age of 14) states that while a child can do many things they lack the ability, the maturity, the rationality to understand causation. As such it has to be proved by the prosecution that they actually understood what they are doing, otherwise it is assumed they acted ignorantly. Obviously a a child from 5 up can pick up a gun and fire it - how ever being able to do the act does not equate into necessarily understanding it.
Of course it is all very debatable, and many agree these days 14 year olds are a lot more mature then given credit for. Still, there is enough date that makes completely ruling out both sides difficult.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How can you debate legality and then say it doesn't mean shit?Yes, it does. A human is a legal child until they are 18.
So when you have sex with a child over the age of 16, you having sex with a minor, but a minor who can consent legally.
I don't know why you're trying to tell me children and teens are different, you're a child until you're an adult, which is at 18.
-AC
1) So there is no difference between a 9 year old and a 16 year old ? Their level of consent is equivalent ?
2) There are different definitions of "child". According to Law, child simply means offspring dependent.
I am not using that defintion. I am using the definition of a child as a "young kid". A pre teen is child. a Teenager is not.
Originally posted by BackFire
What the hell are you talking about?
You said: "Yes, consent is consent, doesn't change the fact that consent before a certain age is meaningly."
I'm saying children are not mature enough to always give consent. That's why we have age limits.
Did I misunderstand your statement?
Originally posted by Robtard
You said: "Yes, consent is consent, doesn't change the fact that consent before a certain age is meaningly."I'm saying children are not mature enough to always give consent. That's why we have age limits.
Did I misunderstand your statement?
He is saying that thier consent means nothing in the eyes of the Law.
That's a given, but he recognizes that consent exists nonetheless.
You don't. You think every time a 14 year old has sex with someone above age 18, it's rape, and that's not the case.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If a 14 year old is mature enough to have sex at ALL, than they are mature enough to have sex with whoever...Your logic on age difference is making no valid sense.
I am justifying no sickness. There is nothing sick about having sex with a sexual being (both 14 year olds and 40 year olds are sexual beings). Atleast I have personal experience to fall back on, while you have nothing but a bunch of meaningless bias and opinion. 👇
I [b]NEVER[/d] tried to justify [b]Child Rape
you idiot. Child Rape is when you FORCE a child to have sex, and there is no consent given.If there is Consent, then it is NOT RAPE...get that through your thick ass head.
The risk for pain exists for EVERYONE not just 14 year olds. 😉 [/B]
Taking advantage of a childs desires for sex is CHILD RAPE if you're an adult. You assume that children are mature enough to have sex but you admit that children are not old enough to vote, own a gun, drive, smoke and drink. Why?
You're trying to justify 'maturity levels' to make child/adult sex seem alright because you happened to have it. Who's bias now?
Called me an idiot? Ouch... When facts go against you it always easiest to resort to an attack.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) So there is no difference between a 9 year old and a 16 year old ? Their level of consent is equivalent ?
No. 16 is the legal age of consent.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) There are different definitions of "child". According to Law, child simply means offspring dependent.
No, according to law, anyone under the age of 18 isn't considered an adult.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I am not using that defintion. I am using the definition of a child as a "young kid". A pre teen is child. a Teenager is not.
So? We're discussing trial and conviction, in which case law applies, and you're a child by law until you are 18.
-AC
Originally posted by Robtard
Taking advantage of a childs desires for sex is CHILD RAPE if you're an adult. You assume that children are mature enough to have sex but you admit that children are not old enough to vote, own a gun, drive, smoke and drink. Why?
It's called Statuatory rape by law, but it is not the same as actual Rape. Actual Rape lacks consent, while statuatory rape is a violation of the age limit, the law calls it such because it wants to IGNORE existance of Consent the way you do.
I never said children are mature enough to have sex. I said some teenagers are.
Sex is not a bad thing, so get over it. Owning a gun is deadly, driving is dangerous, smoking and drinking are unhealthy.
Sex is not wrong, nor is it comparable to those other things you keep trying to bring up.
Originally posted by Robtard
You're trying to justify 'maturity levels' to make child/adult sex seem alright because you happened to have it. Who's bias now?
I am not justifying shit. I am telling you that CONSENT EXISTS between a teenager and adult, and i am vouching for it based on my ability to give consent when I was 15 to a 24 year old.
You're decision to ignore that shows how pathetic and narrow minded your stance is.
Originally posted by Robtard
Called me an idiot? Ouch... When facts go against you it always easiest to resort to an attack.
Yes, you're an idiot, because you're NOT presenting facts...you just keep saying "Oh, i dont thnk consent exists, because i think it's disgusting and immoral...yada yada yada."