Originally posted by BackFireSomehow I doubt that. But if so, then yes, all those acts were awesome, not just the underage sex, thank you for reminding us, Rob.
I think the point that Robtard made is fine. He wasn't saying that all those things are factually, objectively wrong. He was simply reiterating the fact that more happened in this case than simply underage sex, since the sex was all that was being discussed.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just because the law and you somehow decided that 16 year olds can't do that, doesn't really make it wrong if they want to, now does it?
They cant exactly declare 'given consent' in a court, being that a 15 year old was involved as well. You cant just excuse the law in favor of 'personal freedoms'.
Originally posted by OutboundOh I can. I never claimed it wasn't illegal what was going on. Just no one got harmed that didn't want it. The law is without a doubt doing more harm to the people involved than their actions did.
They cant exactly declare 'given consent' in a court, being that a 15 year old was involved as well. You cant just excuse the law in favor of 'personal freedoms'.
Originally posted by Bardock42So what's your cut off age? 8? 5?
Oh I can. I never claimed it wasn't illegal what was going on. Just no one got harmed that didn't want it. The law is without a doubt doing more harm to the people involved than their actions did.
If a kid wants something you should just give it to them right? Regardless of age?
What's the cut off age for you? if an infant makes grabbing motions toward a bottle of alcohol, give it to them, right?
And why would you chose the age you do as the cut off point? Why not a year ealier? Why not a year later?
Originally posted by Creshosk
So what's your cut off age? 8? 5?If a kid wants something you should just give it to them right? Regardless of age?
What's the cut off age for you? if an infant makes grabbing motions toward a bottle of alcohol, give it to them, right?
And why would you chose the age you do as the cut off point? Why not a year ealier? Why not a year later?
I'd prefer an individual basis. Or none at all.
But yeah, 15 year olds should be responsible for their own shit, really.
Originally posted by Bardock42Good man.
I'd prefer an individual basis. Or none at all.
Originally posted by Bardock42Is there an age where you feel that the majority of people in that age aren't capable of making these sort of decisions?
But yeah, 15 year olds should be responsible for their own shit, really.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Good man.Is there an age where you feel that the majority of people in that age aren't capable of making these sort of decisions?
Yeah. Most under 60 probably. But I don't really like making intrusive laws just cause the majority of people are idiots.
Though, to be more friendly and answer the aim of your questions, I assume most under 12 have not enough understanding or interest to want that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
A-and?Just because the law and you somehow decided that 16 year olds can't do that, doesn't really make it wrong if they want to, now does it? So, yeah, I would say you are quite biased towards the close minded conventional moral understanding.
Silly German.
Originally posted by Robtard
Nothing in of itself.When you're supplying it to someone else's underage kids though, that's a problem.
Originally posted by RobtardWell, I disagree on that. I think if a 15 year old wants to watch porn and smoke marijuana they should very well go ahead.
Easier, yes/possibly.Right of him to do it, especially with him being in a position of power with the student-teacher dynamic (and without the parents consent), no.