Political Crossfire Forums

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:

The age of consent should be 15 in general and 18 for activity that involves money or other activities such as prostitution and pornography.

However, I am not going to protest if others wanted the age of consent to be 16, 17, or 18.

Is that a good answer in your view?

That is a sufficient answer. Easy, wasn't it? Now, part 2.

Again ignoring all other implications, do you contend that any person or group who advocates lowering that general age of 15 is attempting to normalize child exploitation?

I will have to hear their reasons first for taking such positions, though in many cases it is an attempt to normalize child exploitaiton.

[Drake]

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIs Coming wrote:


Again ignoring all other implications, do you contend that any person or group who advocates lowering that general age of 15 is attempting to normalize child exploitation?

I will have to hear their reasons first for taking such positions, though in many cases it is an attempt to normalize child exploitaiton.

Fair enough. Can you think of any reason (beyond normalizing child exploitation) why somone would advocate allowing a 14 year old to consent to a sexual relationship with a 40 year old?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: Drake wrote: ToonArmyIs Coming wrote:


Again ignoring all other implications, do you contend that any person or group who advocates lowering that general age of 15 is attempting to normalize child exploitation?

I will have to hear their reasons first for taking such positions, though in many cases it is an attempt to normalize child exploitaiton.

Fair enough. Can you think of any reason (beyond normalizing child exploitation) why somone would advocate allowing a 14 year old to consent to a sexual relationship with a 40 year old?

To be honest, I have no idea as the age difference is just too great. :-|

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: Drake wrote: ToonArmyIs Coming wrote:


Again ignoring all other implications, do you contend that any person or group who advocates lowering that general age of 15 is attempting to normalize child exploitation?

I will have to hear their reasons first for taking such positions, though in many cases it is an attempt to normalize child exploitaiton.

Fair enough. Can you think of any reason (beyond normalizing child exploitation) why somone would advocate allowing a 14 year old to consent to a sexual relationship with a 40 year old? Because the 14 year old should have bodily autonomy and determine what actions to take with their own body, as long as it is not harming another? And sex, regardless of age, has no direct harms on anyone other than those involved.

[Drake]

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:

Fair enough. Can you think of any reason (beyond normalizing child exploitation) why somone would advocate allowing a 14 year old to consent to a sexual relationship with a 40 year old?
Because the 14 year old should have bodily autonomy and determine what actions to take with their own body, as long as it is not harming another? And sex, regardless of age, has no direct harms on anyone other than those involved.

"Regardless of age"? So would you make the same argument in the case of a 10 year old? A 6 year old?

[Demonic Spoon]

a 14 year old is pretty well developed sexually. A 10 year old isn't.

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:

Fair enough. Can you think of any reason (beyond normalizing child exploitation) why somone would advocate allowing a 14 year old to consent to a sexual relationship with a 40 year old?
Because the 14 year old should have bodily autonomy and determine what actions to take with their own body, as long as it is not harming another? And sex, regardless of age, has no direct harms on anyone other than those involved.

"Regardless of age"? So would you make the same argument in the case of a 10 year old? A 6 year old? While it wouldn't harm any other than those involved, even if 6 or 10, I can not see any reason why one could argue lowering the age of consent to that age.

[Drake]

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
"Regardless of age"? So would you make the same argument in the case of a 10 year old? A 6 year old? While it wouldn't harm any other than those involved, even if 6 or 10, I can not see any reason why one could argue lowering the age of consent to that age.

Age of consent laws are designed to protect at least one of "those involved".

You said "regardless of age". Can't your argument be used to justify lowering the age of consent to any age?

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
"Regardless of age"? So would you make the same argument in the case of a 10 year old? A 6 year old? While it wouldn't harm any other than those involved, even if 6 or 10, I can not see any reason why one could argue lowering the age of consent to that age.

Age of consent laws are designed to protect at least one of "those involved".

You said "regardless of age". Can't your argument be used to justify lowering the age of consent to any age? You are misapplying the statement I made and using it out of context.

I said that, regardless of age, sex does not directly harm any one outside of those involved.

I did not say that, regardless of age, every one should be able to consent to sex. A six year-old does not have the cognitive reasoning skills to determine whether or not they wish to be involved in sexual activity. Generally speaking, they do not understand the situation and consequences.

[Drake]

UrielsFyre wrote:

I did not say that, regardless of age, every one should be able to consent to sex. A six year-old does not have the cognitive reasoning skills to determine whether or not they wish to be involved in sexual activity. Generally speaking, they do not understand the situation and consequences.

I understood what you said and I was giving you the chance to clarify. But you seem to believe that a 14 year old should be able to consent strictly because it wouldn't hurt anyone but "those involved". You're missing the fact that the law is designed to protect her, not anyone else. This same argument you offer could be used to justify lowering the age of consent to any age. That is, allowing a 6 year old to consent would not hurt anyone other than those involved.
Understand?

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:

I did not say that, regardless of age, every one should be able to consent to sex. A six year-old does not have the cognitive reasoning skills to determine whether or not they wish to be involved in sexual activity. Generally speaking, they do not understand the situation and consequences.

I understood what you said and I was giving you the chance to clarify. But you seem to believe that a 14 year old should be able to consent strictly because it wouldn't hurt anyone but "those involved". You're missing the fact that the law is designed to protect her, not anyone else. This same argument you offer could be used to justify lowering the age of consent to any age. That is, allowing a 6 year old to consent would not hurt anyone other than those involved.
Understand? Once again, you are misconstruing my statement. I said that a possible argument for lowering the age of consent to 14 would be that the individual would be able to decide what actions to take with their body, since it would not harm another.

Six year olds don't have the mental capabilities to understand the decision to have sex, nor the consequences behind it, while 14 year olds are more likely to.

I am not advocating lower the age of consent to 14, just offering arguments that could be made to counter your claim that such arguments would only be on the basis of child exploitation.

[red dragon]

UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: Drake wrote: ToonArmyIs Coming wrote:


Again ignoring all other implications, do you contend that any person or group who advocates lowering that general age of 15 is attempting to normalize child exploitation?

I will have to hear their reasons first for taking such positions, though in many cases it is an attempt to normalize child exploitaiton.

Fair enough. Can you think of any reason (beyond normalizing child exploitation) why somone would advocate allowing a 14 year old to consent to a sexual relationship with a 40 year old? Because the 14 year old should have bodily autonomy and determine what actions to take with their own body, as long as it is not harming another? And sex, regardless of age, has no direct harms on anyone other than those involved.

They may have the anatomical maturity, but they don't have the physical or mental maturity to deal with any such thing. Kids at that age have hormones which are going crazy through their bodies as they mature, a mistake can be made, where they may think that they are gay. They may then sleep with an older man and be psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives when they discover it may have just been a phase. This group NAMBLA sound horrific and are peadophiles trying to act respectful. Personally they sound a dangerous bunch.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote: They may have the anatomical maturity, but they don't have the physical or mental maturity to deal with any such thing. Kids at that age have hormones which are going crazy through their bodies as they mature, a mistake can be made, where they may think that they are gay. They may then sleep with an older man and be psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives when they discover it may have just been a phase. This group NAMBLA sound horrific and are peadophiles trying to act respectful. Personally they sound a dangerous bunch.



Even if they thought they were gay, then they are dumbasses for sleeping with a 40 year old guy.

[Drake]

UrielsFyre wrote:
Once again, you are misconstruing my statement. I said that a possible argument for lowering the age of consent to 14 would be that the individual would be able to decide what actions to take with their body, since it would not harm another.

Once again (last time, please), I'm not misconstruing, I understood what you said. Now try understanding me. The possible argument you offer is weak and/or incomplete. It is weak because it could be used to justify lowering the age of consent to any age.

In other words, this is your argument:
Because the 14 year old should have bodily autonomy and determine what actions to take with their own body, as long as it is not harming another. And sex, regardless of age, has no direct harms on anyone other than those involved.

This is your possible argument in total. You have not provided any reason that this would only apply to someone 14 years or older. I could plug any age into your argument and it would have the same strength. It does not mention mental capacity or emotional maturity. Therefore, your argument is based solely on the fact that an individual should have bodily autonomy and isn't harming another.

Now do you understand?

UrielsFyre wrote:
I am not advocating lower the age of consent to 14, just offering arguments that could be made to counter your claim that such arguments would only be on the basis of child exploitation.

Let's be clear. I have not made this claim. I've only asked the question.

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
Once again, you are misconstruing my statement. I said that a possible argument for lowering the age of consent to 14 would be that the individual would be able to decide what actions to take with their body, since it would not harm another.

Once again (last time, please), I'm not misconstruing, I understood what you said. Now try understanding me. The possible argument you offer is weak and/or incomplete. It is weak because it could be used to justify lowering the age of consent to any age.

In other words, this is your argument:
Because the 14 year old should have bodily autonomy and determine what actions to take with their own body, as long as it is not harming another. And sex, regardless of age, has no direct harms on anyone other than those involved.

This is your possible argument in total. You have not provided any reason that this would only apply to someone 14 years or older. I could plug any age into your argument and it would have the same strength. It does not mention mental capacity or emotional maturity. Therefore, your argument is based solely on the fact that an individual should have bodily autonomy and isn't harming another.

Now do you understand?

UrielsFyre wrote:
I am not advocating lower the age of consent to 14, just offering arguments that could be made to counter your claim that such arguments would only be on the basis of child exploitation.

Let's be clear. I have not made this claim. I've only asked the question. Even if you aren't misconstruing, you are selectively reading. I have stated that 6 year olds do not have the cognitive reasoning to understand sex or the consequences, 14 year olds are more likely to.

[red dragon]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote: They may have the anatomical maturity, but they don't have the physical or mental maturity to deal with any such thing. Kids at that age have hormones which are going crazy through their bodies as they mature, a mistake can be made, where they may think that they are gay. They may then sleep with an older man and be psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives when they discover it may have just been a phase. This group NAMBLA sound horrific and are peadophiles trying to act respectful. Personally they sound a dangerous bunch.



Even if they thought they were gay, then they are dumbasses for sleeping with a 40 year old guy.

Is exactly why i think this group NAMBLA pose a serious threat, there is every possibility that most of it's members have broken the law previously, why else campaign for such a depraved and unsavoury cause. I would say nearly all the gay community would be against this group.

[Drake]

UrielsFyre wrote: Even if you aren't misconstruing, you are selectively reading. I have stated that 6 year olds do not have the cognitive reasoning to understand sex or the consequences, 14 year olds are more likely to.
This is some kind of joke, right?

Can't you read? I just repeated your possible argument verbatim in my last post! This argument is what we're discussing. It mentions nothing about cognitive reasoning! That was something you mentioned later. Christ, I thought Toon was thick, but you make him look like Einstein. This is obviously too complicated for you. Let's move on.

What should be the age of consent? That is, at what age should someone be allowed to consent to have a sexual relationship with a 40 year old?

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Even if you aren't misconstruing, you are selectively reading. I have stated that 6 year olds do not have the cognitive reasoning to understand sex or the consequences, 14 year olds are more likely to.
This is some kind of joke, right?

Can't you read? I just repeated your possible argument verbatim in my last post! This argument is what we're discussing. It mentions nothing about cognitive reasoning! That was something you mentioned later. Christ, I thought Toon was thick, but you make him look like Einstein. This is obviously too complicated for you. Let's move on.

What should be the age of consent? That is, at what age should someone be allowed to consent to have a sexual relationship with a 40 year old?
The sign of defeat, "you don't get it, let's move on," combined with throwing about ad hom attacks.

If you really want to discuss the issue, then discuss all of the posts. Don't selectively respond just to the posts that help you.

[Drake]

UrielsFyre wrote:
The sign of defeat, "you don't get it, let's move on," combined with throwing about ad hom attacks.

If you really want to discuss the issue, then discuss all of the posts. Don't selectively respond just to the posts that help you.

It has nothing to do with defeat. It's frustration. The ad hominem attacks are more an attempt to get your attention. You can't seem to follow a simple point past one post. I wasn't being selective. I was illustrating for you the weakness of your possible argument as you wrote it. You just aren't able to follow.

Anyway, let's keep it simple. Do you have an answer on the age of consent?

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
The sign of defeat, "you don't get it, let's move on," combined with throwing about ad hom attacks.

If you really want to discuss the issue, then discuss all of the posts. Don't selectively respond just to the posts that help you.

It has nothing to do with defeat. It's frustration. The ad hominem attacks are more an attempt to get your attention. You can't seem to follow a simple point past one post. I wasn't being selective. I was illustrating for you the weakness of your possible argument as you wrote it. You just aren't able to follow.

Anyway, let's keep it simple. Do you have an answer on the age of consent? In my personal opinion, I would advocate 16 as an appropriate age. While 14 year-olds may have the ability to understand the effects of their decisions, I would still say that the two years between 14 and 16 offers quite a bit of maturity growth.

Also, you may wish to avoid the ad homs. They do not advance your argument, and only serve to give you a negative repuation and make your arguments less likely to be responded to by other posters.