Originally posted by Bardock42
You could have them pay for the judging. There also wouldn't actually be that many cases of children who want to **** an adult. I don't see how it is unreasonable. Afterall you are taking away some pretty fundamental freedom. You should take the time to actually judge if it is reasonable.
Have them pay? Should we also have them pay for judging when they break laws? That's the point, if you do away with the laws, there will be many cases where a 6 year old suddenly wanted to **** an adult, because children are easily swayed by adults.
Nothing is being taken away, there's just an age limit, like smoking, drinking, driving and voting.
Edit: Where is this child going to get the money to pay for this judging?
Originally posted by RobtardWe have them pay to obtain a driver's license, don't we?
Have them pay? Should we also have them pay for judging when they break laws? That's the point, if you do away with the laws, there will be many cases where a 6 year old suddenly wanted to **** an adult, because children are easily swayed by adults.Nothing is being taken away, there's just an age limit, like smoking, drinking, driving and voting.
And yes, that is taking away. That's just a fact. If you do not allow someone to smoke until they are 16 you do take away their freedom to smoke before that. Please, lets not argue about that, it's just true.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You could have them pay for the judging. There also wouldn't actually be that many cases of children who want to **** an adult. I don't see how it is unreasonable. Afterall you are taking away some pretty fundamental freedom. You should take the time to actually judge if it is reasonable.
Has you seen the episode of 'Different Strokes' where the bike store manager lures the two boys in the back to molest them? He offers them bikes, gives them cookies, puts girlie magazines up front, gives them alcohol and makes them take pictures before trying to touch them.
What do you do in that case?
I guess what I mean is that there is normally a set up. It's not just, "hey kid! would you like to ****?"
I lost my virginity at 13 to a experinced 16 year old girl. I could say she lured me in so I understand the blurred line but are you saying there is not a guideline to follow at all?
Originally posted by Bardock42
We have them pay to obtain a driver's license, don't we?And yes, that is taking away. That's just a fact. If you do not allow someone to smoke until they are 16 you do take away their freedom to smoke before that. Please, lets not argue about that, it's just true.
In most cases the parents pay, but to the point, you can't obtain a licence to drive until you're 16 and not 3, 7 or 12.
Because society realizes that with age comes awareness and with awareness comes responsibility. IF we allowed children to do whatever they wanted, you know, because of "freedom", we'd be extinct or still living in caves.
So, where is this 3, 7 or 11 year old going to get the money to pay for a judge to delcare him/her responsible enough to **** a 19 year old? Because if they do't have the money, while others do, that would be elitest and denying freedom, no?
Originally posted by chithappens
Has you seen the episode of 'Different Strokes' where the bike store manager lures the two boys in the back to molest them? He offers them bikes, gives them cookies, puts girlie magazines up front, gives them alcohol and makes them take pictures before trying to touch them.
I remenber that episode. Quite good. Too bad Family Guy kill it.
I also get your point. Pretty disturbing indeed.
Originally posted by chithappens
Has you seen the episode of 'Different Strokes' where the bike store manager lures the two boys in the back to molest them? He offers them bikes, gives them cookies, puts girlie magazines up front, gives them alcohol and makes them take pictures before trying to touch them.What do you do in that case?
Would probably be rape.
Originally posted by chithappens
I lost my virginity at 13 to a experinced 16 year old girl. I could say she lured me in so I understand the blurred line but are you saying there is not a guideline to follow at all?
Not a blind guideline. Yes.
I'd be quite alright with a line...13 or 14 for example. But the possibility for anyone below to obtain a free pass. Similar to a drivers licence for example. At private expense.
i feel statuatory rape laws need to be reformed. however age of consent is a necessary element if we are to place minors in the care of their adult gaurdians for however many years. if they can't provide for themselves, give me one good reason they should be given the authority to make their own decisions.
can't have freedom without responsibility.
that said, a 19 year old shouldn't get in trouble for ****ing a 17 year old. some things should be changed.
however the fact that prepubescent child porn is illegal is not one of those things. and don't kid yourselves that's the biggest market right there, not 13, not 14, not 15... don't believe me check out 4chan sometime. in fact i'm pretty sure sex with a young teen doesnt even count as pedophilia.. though it is still a crime.
but fine, if we're gonna throw morality to the wind and say to hell with it let the little kids get ****ed, then i say the rest of us should be given the right to murder pedos. give me one good reason why not.
Originally posted by Robtard
In most cases the parents pay, but to the point, you can't obtain a licence to drive until you're 16 and not 3, 7 or 12.
True. I don't agree with that either.
Originally posted by Robtard
Because society realizes that with age comes awareness and with awareness comes responsibility. IF we allowed children to do whatever they wanted, you know, because of "freedom", we'd be extinct or still living in caves.
It just doesn't come at the same time for everyone. Some are aware with 12 some with 16...some maybe never. And my argument was never to allow children to do whatever they want.
I get really annoyed that whenever I try to debate this topic the arguments against it are just a huge amount of Straw Men.
Originally posted by Robtard
So, where is this 3, 7 or 11 year old going to get the money to pay for a judge to delcare him/her responsible enough to **** a 19 year old? Because he they do't have the money, while others do, that would be elitest and denying freedom, no?
Sucks for them then. I assume the person they intent to **** or their parents would either give that money..or tough luck.
And yes, it will be denying freedom on the grounds of money, BUT, less freedom than the system before. Therefore being better.
Originally posted by Bardock42Sucks for them then. I assume the person they intent to **** or their parents would either give that money..or tough luck.
And yes, it will be denying freedom on the grounds of money, BUT, less freedom than the system before. Therefore being better.
Ironically, it's not much different than today's system 🤣
Originally posted by Bardock42
True. I don't agree with that either.It just doesn't come at the same time for everyone. Some are aware with 12 some with 16...some maybe never. And my argument was never to allow children to do whatever they want.
I get really annoyed that whenever I try to debate this topic the arguments against it are just a huge amount of Straw Men.
Sucks for them then. I assume the person they intent to **** or their parents would either give that money..or tough luck.
And yes, it will be denying freedom on the grounds of money, BUT, less freedom than the system before. Therefore being better.
Of course you don't.
Well yes, some mature earlier correct, but there isn't a reasonble scenario where every single person could be judged on a single case by case basis. So you know, we have laws.
Why not then, let children do whatever they want? Why stop the "freedom" train at sex?
So we'd have pederast paying for the right to **** little kids.
That's rather elitest, considering it's a freedom they'd have when a bit older.
Originally posted by Robtard
Of course you don't.
Originally posted by Robtard
Well yes, some mature earlier correct, but there isn't a reasonble scenario where every single person could be judged on a single case by case basis. So you know, we have laws.
Originally posted by Robtard
Why not then, let children do whatever they want? Why stop the "freedom" train at sex?
Originally posted by Robtard
So we'd have pederast paying for the right to **** little kids.
Originally posted by Robtard
That's rather elitest, considering it's a freedom they'd have when a bit older.
I am just saying that's one possible way. I actually think the public should pay for it if they already feel the need to take away freedom of people.
Originally posted by chithappens
Has you seen the episode of 'Different Strokes' where the bike store manager lures the two boys in the back to molest them? He offers them bikes, gives them cookies, puts girlie magazines up front, gives them alcohol and makes them take pictures before trying to touch them.What do you do in that case?
I feel like I should expand what I mean here.
Bardock is stating that some young children understand what sex is, it's pleasures, etc. Now, what about how they came about the information? Learning about it at school or learning about it from an uncle who wants your body seem synonymous as presented so far.
So let's say a young girl finds out about sex from her predatory uncle but has consensual sex with some other adult man. How is that understood?
Also, on a very general level, I don't know many people who don't have some sort of emotion after they have sex. The first person you have sex with is a person you tend to remember and it might have adverse affects on how you handle situations later. Now others see sex as just something to do and don't think much of it, but it is rare one is numb to sex as they first experience sex. If anything, you become drawn to the act of sex, the person or sometimes both.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah.You wouldn't have to judge every single one. Probably just very few actually.
Because it doesn't even include sex. That's your interpretation of my opinion. Not in any way related to what I actually said.
Not exactly.
I am just saying that's one possible way. I actually think the public should pay for it if they already feel the need to take away freedom of people.
How do you know how many? Considering if pedophilia where to be made legal on a case-to-case basis, you'd probably have a lot more. See NAMBLA as an example.
We're talking about sex here, as per the topic. So, what did you actually say then, if I'm misinterpreting you?
No, it would be conceivable in your "pay for the rights" scenario.
No thanks, I'd rather not have that extra tax.
Originally posted by chithappens
Bardock is stating that some young children understand what sex is, it's pleasures, etc. Now, what about how they came about the information? Learning about it at school or learning about it from an uncle who wants your body seem synonymous as presented so far.
Yes, sex is pleasurable, as is taking some drugs. Do you think a little kid is mature enough to understand the ramifications of those actions though?
Edit: Aware of diseases, possible pregancies etc.?
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, sex is pleasurable, as is taking some drugs. Do you think a little kid is mature enough to understand the ramifications of those actions though?Edit: Aware of diseases, possible pregancies etc.?
Obviously some are, but I'm not going to make the exception to the rule the basis for my moral ground
Originally posted by red g jacks
i feel statuatory rape laws need to be reformed. however age of consent is a necessary element if we are to place minors in the care of their adult gaurdians for however many years. if they can't provide for themselves, give me one good reason they should be given the authority to make their own decisions.can't have freedom without responsibility.
that said, a 19 year old shouldn't get in trouble for ****ing a 17 year old. some things should be changed.
however the fact that prepubescent child porn is illegal is not one of those things. and don't kid yourselves that's the biggest market right there, not 13, not 14, not 15... don't believe me check out 4chan sometime. in fact i'm pretty sure sex with a young teen doesnt even count as pedophilia.. though it is still a crime.
Agree with this, I thought KMC was weird until I went to 4chan one day...
Oh and there was a 17 year old boy who went to jail for getting head from a 15 year old girl
Originally posted by Robtard
How do you know how many? Considering if pedophilia where to be made legal on a case-to-case basis, you'd probably have a lot more. See NAMBLA as an example.
I don't know how many. And it shouldn't matter. The fact is if it is many then the law gets more unjust. If it is few than my solution is feasable. Either way, my side wins.
Originally posted by Robtard
We're talking about sex here, as per the topic. So, what did you actually say then, if I'm misinterpreting you?
I said that a child that understands the consequences and is able to make an informed decision should have the chance to do so. Same for really everything. Now, I am not saying that there are actually any 6 year olds that could. I actually quite doubt that, I am just speaking that hypothetically there could be even young children that are able to give informed consent and as a second point I am saying that 16 is ****ing idiotic as line.
Originally posted by Robtard
No, it would be conceivable in your "pay for the rights" scenario.
Actually no. Since I never said whoever pays enough can be declared eligible. I said that there should be a process that can decide whether someone is ready and that might or might not be privately financed. So, very different from "pedo buys himself a boy, dur, dur".
Originally posted by Robtard
No thanks, I'd rather not have that extra tax.
Me neither. But I also don't want my government to oppress other people for me. I sure we could cut some taxes if we let negros work on our fields again. Just...don't want that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know how many. And it shouldn't matter. The fact is if it is many then the law gets more unjust. If it is few than my solution is feasible. Either way, my side wins.I said that a child that understands the consequences and is able to make an informed decision should have the chance to do so. Same for really everything. Now, I am not saying that there are actually any 6 year olds that could. I actually quite doubt that, I am just speaking that hypothetically there could be even young children that are able to give informed consent and as a second point I am saying that 16 is ****ing idiotic as line.
Actually no. Since I never said whoever pays enough can be declared eligible. I said that there should be a process that can decide whether someone is ready and that might or might not be privately financed. So, very different from "pedo buys himself a boy, dur, dur".
Me neither. But I also don't want my government to oppress other people for me. I sure we could cut some taxes if we let negros work on our fields again. Just...don't want that.
Arbitrarily call a win, I like that.
Then it has to be on a case to case basis for everyone, which isn't a feasible task. 16 is a decent line, as the average person at 16 has had the life experiences to judge things by themselves. Then again, why just stop at sex?
And I'm telling you, a pederast could get (convince) a child to love them and want to **** them. All they'd need is to have the child tested (or whatever you're thinking) and then they'd have themselves a 11 (or younger/older) year old partner, legally. Why is that a stretch?
If people had the freedom to do whatever they wanted, which it seems is what you're all about, we'd be extinct.