Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
U.S. Supreme Court to inform it's own decisions with those of the "World" community. :dry:
There are many here who disagree, but I think the tendency is intellectual laziness disguised as utter stupidity.
I assume you don't mean "inform its decisions", but rather something like "align its decisions" otherwise what you've written is just plain daft...
No, I mean inform it's decisions, Ian, and to say that what I wrote was "plain daft" is just, well...daft.
Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky
I kinda of agree with there being no specific age of consent.
I was 14 the first time I had sex and after 9 years I don't feel that was the wrong thing to do, I was ready for it at the time.
Others might not be until a later age and then there's people who are mature a lot earlier.
I also think that it would just naturally fluctuate throughout the different generations. Who's the law to decide whether or not you're ready to make that commitment?
After all, despite us giving sex a lot of emotional value, it is mainly a biological act we've been acting out ever since man existed...
Whilst I am willing to accept that there may be a small number of 12 year olds who are physiologically and psychologically able to cope with a sexual relationship I would venture that they are very much in the minority.
The law is there to prevent sexual predators preying on children. These are not people who actively seek sexual relations and happen to fall for 12 year olds. They are people who actively seek twelve year olds to have sexual relations with. They do not want mature relationships, they want to have sex with minors.
Indeed this is probably why they chose 12, because they can use the specious argument that they are biologically adult and ready for sexual relations, therefore it's OK. Bollocks, it's not about their physical body it's about their emotional maturity. Not only sexually but in other ways. A 12 year old will do things for attention, or to please an adult. Who then has sex with them, but it's OK because the 12 year old consented. That's where these people want to go.
Here's what else we need to do for our twelve year olds if we have decided that they are adults. Surely that's what we are saying if we say they are ready to have sexual relations with adults.
Vote
Leave Home
Leave School
Get Employment
Join the Army
In fact do anything any other adult is allowed to. Or are they just adults where sex is concerned and children for everything else.
Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
how can a more informed decision be a bad thing? I'm not saying that it will always result in the best outcome, but preferring an uninformed decision over an informed one :wacko:
Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Cutting people's hands off for stealing is legal in some countries, so it must be OK. Female castration, that's common in some countries, let's adopt that as well.
Here's the new plan, if it's OK somewhere in the World, then it's OK.
Hmmm.
Brings to mind the nascent but burgeoning (and annoying) compulsion of our U.S. Supreme Court to inform it's own decisions with those of the "World" community. :dry:
:rolleyes:
Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky
I kinda of agree with there being no specific age of consent.
I was 14 the first time I had sex and after 9 years I don't feel that was the wrong thing to do, I was ready for it at the time.
Others might not be until a later age and then there's people who are mature a lot earlier.
I also think that it would just naturally fluctuate throughout the different generations. Who's the law to decide whether or not you're ready to make that commitment?
After all, despite us giving sex a lot of emotional value, it is mainly a biological act we've been acting out ever since man existed...
Whilst I am willing to accept that there may be a small number of 12 year olds who are physiologically and psychologically able to cope with a sexual relationship I would venture that they are very much in the minority.
The law is there to prevent sexual predators preying on children. These are not people who actively seek sexual relations and happen to fall for 12 year olds. They are people who actively seek twelve year olds to have sexual relations with. They do not want mature relationships, they want to have sex with minors.
Indeed this is probably why they chose 12, because they can use the specious argument that they are biologically adult and ready for sexual relations, therefore it's OK. Bollocks, it's not about their physical body it's about their emotional maturity. Not only sexually but in other ways. A 12 year old will do things for attention, or to please an adult. Who then has sex with them, but it's OK because the 12 year old consented. That's where these people want to go.
Here's what else we need to do for our twelve year olds if we have decided that they are adults. Surely that's what we are saying if we say they are ready to have sexual relations with adults.
Vote
Leave Home
Leave School
Get Employment
Join the Army
In fact do anything any other adult is allowed to. Or are they just adults where sex is concerned and children for everything else.
Well and concisely put, sir.
I salute you. :)
Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Well and concisely put, sir.
I salute you. :)
I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.
21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult
Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.
Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.
Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Well and concisely put, sir.
I salute you. :)
I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.
21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult
Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.
Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.
The point is that no one age for any of these activities "fits all", which point was, indeed, "well and concisely put".
Fact.
Quit looking for sharks to jump; let things permeate before you respond.
Or you could go match notes with my good friend ilw (Ian), who suffers similarly and latently. ;)
Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Well and concisely put, sir.
I salute you. :)
I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.
21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult
Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.
Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.
There's no minimum age to smoke, you just have to be atleast 18 to buy cigarettes.
Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.
21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult
Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.
Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.
There's no minimum age to smoke, you just have to be atleast 18 to smoke cigarettes.
Oh well in that case there's no minimum age to drink, you just have to be 21 to drink alcohol.:stars:
Re: Dutch court rejects ban of paedophile party
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I liked your post regarding the Supreme Court. However, there are different ages for everything, even here.
21 for drinking and smoking
15 for driving (differs in each state)
can work at different ages (mostly 16 and 18)
yet 18 is considered an adult
Just because one age is appropriate for a certain activity means shit for another.
Well and concisely put? Not by a longshot.
The point is that no one age for
any of these activities "fits all", which point was, indeed,
"well and concisely put".
Fact.
Quit looking for sharks to jump; let things permeate before you respond.
Or you could go match notes with my good friend ilw (Ian), who suffers similarly and latently. ;)
No sharks to jump. The point of no one age fits all is no shit but then backtracks to say that because one activity does fit that certain other ones should too.:blink:
Age of consent differs in many countries from 12-20 already, btw.
