U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-27-2013, 03:59 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,637,116 times
Reputation: 1438

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie3 View Post
I feel as though I must point out that pedophiles are not interested in 14 years olds. A pedophile by definition is sexually interested in pre-pubescent children. And *children* cannot consent to sex (legally and mentally), do not understand the ramifications of sex, and their bodies are physically unprepared for sex.
The weak part of your argument is the weird design we have to develop at different rates. Can't a pedophile be attracted to a 15 year old that isn't pubescent? And what makes the kids attractive to begin with? The face? Height? Size? A boy's unchanged voice or lack of beard (said the Greeks). Does a molester not pick their prey based upon external hints just like us normal people? My point is, unless you are talking younger kids those on the borderline development wise are not advertising their pubertal state in advance. Well, not most of them. Keep your kid of cam sites to be sure.

I will accept psychological boundaries such as 16, 18 or 21 as not being arbitrary, but for the tween set it's hard to use puberty as an absolute marker.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2013, 04:18 PM
 
6,319 posts, read 5,681,675 times
Reputation: 11932
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
Jeepers. Pedophilia is not illegal. At least not in the U.S. that doesn't have total thought control. Is this too nuanced for the conversation?.
You call it "too nuanced", I call it "splitting hairs" and playing the word games all pedophiles play. Thought isn't illegal but actions derived from those thoughts are...or is that too "nuanced" for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post

Are you calling for people to be stomped out based upon their thoughts or feelings or are you going to wait for them to break an actual law regardless of how many times you said thoughts are illegal?.
If you are calling for the death based on prediction of thought do you extend it to other thoughts?.
I said pedophilia needs to be stomped out, not pedophiles. If you are going to quote me, at least get it right.

More word games, more irrelevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post

I am calling for pedophilia to be stomped out, along with 100% of non-pedophiles across the world. I said zero about the DP or eliminating people.

And your stomach does not literally turn based upon any thought. Please stop abusing the word. "Literal" means "literal" and not "emphasize seriousness of some pretend thing"..
The belly of a pregnant 10 year old indeed turns the stomach. It is unnatural and abhorrent to witness, especially as you realise a physically much larger man actually raped this child. He laid her down, took her clothes off, and inserted his large body into her tiny one, forcibly.

I am not sure how one can describe the rape of a child as "emphasising (the) seriousness of some pretend thing".

LE and other agencies who have to deal with these victims do indeed find their stomachs churning. Pedophiles probably find it quite exciting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post

And I am not equipped to argue when children become sexually aware but I wonder how far you are from that stage in life or how you define "child". Surely a child is sexual by nature because that is how nature made all of us (whether nature is God etc). Surely a child in puberty is sexual by nature and you do not mean that we are not sexual until age 12..
More word games. It is illegal and immoral for anyone to have sexual contact with a person under the age of 16, regardless of whether or not you think they will "enjoy" it, or whether or not YOU judge them to be "sexual by nature".

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post

To be sure I am not defending any illegal or harmful actions by adults against children. I am perplexed as to why puberty comes so early compared to the maturity to handle it but by all means adults should have no sexual contact with anyone probably 16 or younger (looking at an international norm).

But I think killing people for how they think or even express themselves (as long as they don't touch a kid) is horrendous.
Again, your words.

You know what "literal" means don't you? If I don't use the word "killing" or "death penalty", then don't emphasise the seriousness of some pretend thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 04:42 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,637,116 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
You call it "too nuanced", I call it "splitting hairs" and playing the word games all pedophiles play. Thought isn't illegal but actions derived from those thoughts are...or is that too "nuanced" for you?



I said pedophilia needs to be stomped out, not pedophiles. If you are going to quote me, at least get it right.

More word games, more irrelevance.



The belly of a pregnant 10 year old indeed turns the stomach. It is unnatural and abhorrent to witness, especially as you realise a physically much larger man actually raped this child. He laid her down, took her clothes off, and inserted his large body into her tiny one, forcibly.

I am not sure how one can describe the rape of a child as "emphasising (the) seriousness of some pretend thing".

LE and other agencies who have to deal with these victims do indeed find their stomachs churning. Pedophiles probably find it quite exciting.



More word games. It is illegal and immoral for anyone to have sexual contact with a person under the age of 16, regardless of whether or not you think they will "enjoy" it, or whether or not YOU judge them to be "sexual by nature".



Again, your words.

You know what "literal" means don't you? If I don't use the word "killing" or "death penalty", then don't emphasise the seriousness of some pretend thing.
It's not a game to use words properly or truthfully. You allege you can stomp out thought without stomping out people. I disagree. And you are painfully unaware not only of biology but the law. It amazes me how many people can post an argument here without appearing to have looked up what they are talking about.

"16" fails both ways. It is perfectly legal in some states in the U.S. for an adult to have consensual sex with a 15 year old including the state that I am in. It is also illegal in my state for some adults to have sex with a 19 year old unless they are married to them. But a few miles from my house it's 18 with a few exceptions but crossing state lines makes it federal anyway.

It's not atypical of Americans to not be aware of States Rights.

As far as your personal definitions of "literal", "stomach" and "turn" I can't determine that but it's a peeve of mine and I will point it out based on logic and common definitions of those words. If you can show how a stomach turns then I'd like to know but probably needs a new thread or DM.

Since though you said you are serious, how do you propose to stamp out patterns of thought without terminating life? Your statement did not seem to be one of fantasy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 06:57 PM
 
7,965 posts, read 18,036,441 times
Reputation: 2588
Not having read all of the responses, I apologize if I repeat any points.

I feel that religious or spiritual beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to honoring the age of consent. It's one thing if, say, a 19YO and a 16YO decide to get together. It's another if the former is in their 20s, 30s or beyond. Teens may be making not-so-fully informed decisions when choosing to be intimate with each other but a grown adult should not take advantage of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Western Oregon
472 posts, read 479,181 times
Reputation: 374
This is a really weird discussion based on false premises and things a few people said, who are now supposedly representing atheists as a whole.

Why frame a discussion like that? Why didn't you just ask atheists here what they think of this? It doesn't look like a discussion--it puts me on the defensive from the start. A waste of time.

Next ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 73,996,875 times
Reputation: 36073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tone509 View Post
Not having read all of the responses, I apologize if I repeat any points.

I feel that religious or spiritual beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to honoring the age of consent. It's one thing if, say, a 19YO and a 16YO decide to get together. It's another if the former is in their 20s, 30s or beyond. Teens may be making not-so-fully informed decisions when choosing to be intimate with each other but a grown adult should not take advantage of that..
Among modern humans who participate in electoral governments, the "age of consent" ranges from 12 or 14 up to the statutory age in some American states, which is an outlier pegged at the highest in the world. What age of consent to you honor? The moral one (however you determine that), or the one that happens to be favored by the empowered legislators in the state you live in?

Do you believe that it is "moral" to assume that every child on the planet magically becomes "responsible" 18 solar revolutions after the moment of birth, and everyone is to be "morally" punished for being in a relationship with someone who has not waited for that magic moment of majority? Otherwise, how does one judge where an "age of consent" has been attained and must be "honored"?

And then,k equally problematic, is at what age does a person become "an adult" who should not be "taking advantage" of a person deemed to be "not so fully informed"?

And, it's fine to argue that "It's one thing" if so-and-so, and another thing if not, but how do you deal with that huge gray area? With moral judgments? And if so, how are they arrived at?

I would suggest that it would be much better to just leave people to live their lives as best they can, and intercede only in the case of a person who genuinely needs some intervention on his or her behalf, without snooping around and getting them up in the middle of the night with guns drawn and demanding to see their birth certificates. If a person is actually endangered, deal with it, regardless of their ages.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-27-2013 at 11:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 11:17 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,637,116 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Among modern humans who participate in electoral governments, the "age of consent" ranges from 12 or 14 up to the statutory age in some American states, which is the highest in the world. What age of consent to you honor? The moral one (however you determine that), or the one that happens to be favored by the empowered legislators in the state you live in?
Lower in some. Much lower. Gotta be married though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 11:22 PM
 
2,575 posts, read 4,670,919 times
Reputation: 6373
Quote:
Originally Posted by 97701 View Post
This is a really weird discussion based on false premises and things a few people said, who are now supposedly representing atheists as a whole.

Why frame a discussion like that? Why didn't you just ask atheists here what they think of this? It doesn't look like a discussion--it puts me on the defensive from the start. A waste of time.

Next ...
I don't know where religious people get the idea that atheists have no "moral compass." It's common sense not to do bad things to other people. It's possible to have a conscience without religion.

The entire discussion of age of consent, etc., has nothing to do with morals or religion but is a legal issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2013, 11:49 PM
 
5,150 posts, read 6,637,116 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiyo-e View Post
I don't know where religious people get the idea that atheists have no "moral compass." It's common sense not to do bad things to other people. It's possible to have a conscience without religion.

The entire discussion of age of consent, etc., has nothing to do with morals or religion but is a legal issue.
Yeah but whose laws? Especially when your entire country just throws in their holy book and declares it a constitution.

That's where it gets complicated. There's argument on this thread as to what a pedophile is (under age, under teen, under puberty). Then choose your law.

Sharia? I don't even want to talk about that but if you follow it it is very young compared to U.S. But what about Spain? Canada? Which state in the U.S. ?

So it has to be a moral issue as well as a legal one. For some time in the 70s and 80s you had child liberators (who were not NAMBLA) pushing for more rights for kids to make up their own mind and you ended up with 14 as the AOC in Canada. That didn't change until 2008. Spain is 13 but not for much longer.

The thread is about moral issues (supposedly) and of course it has nothing to do with being atheist or not. humanism has been practiced for hundreds or years. Secular humanism is mostly keeping the evidential bits in and pushing the God bits out. Agree with it or not atheists have thought this through at least the smart ones.

For a general AOC question, maybe it should be how old a person has to be to consent. But that would be a different thread. It just gets complicated talking about the law when it is all over the map. Can they all be right at the same time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2013, 06:13 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
4,464 posts, read 9,964,679 times
Reputation: 2830
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
Yeah but whose laws? Especially when your entire country just throws in their holy book and declares it a constitution.

That's where it gets complicated. There's argument on this thread as to what a pedophile is (under age, under teen, under puberty). Then choose your law.

Sharia? I don't even want to talk about that but if you follow it it is very young compared to U.S. But what about Spain? Canada? Which state in the U.S. ?

So it has to be a moral issue as well as a legal one. For some time in the 70s and 80s you had child liberators (who were not NAMBLA) pushing for more rights for kids to make up their own mind and you ended up with 14 as the AOC in Canada. That didn't change until 2008. Spain is 13 but not for much longer.

The thread is about moral issues (supposedly) and of course it has nothing to do with being atheist or not. humanism has been practiced for hundreds or years. Secular humanism is mostly keeping the evidential bits in and pushing the God bits out. Agree with it or not atheists have thought this through at least the smart ones.

For a general AOC question, maybe it should be how old a person has to be to consent. But that would be a different thread. It just gets complicated talking about the law when it is all over the map. Can they all be right at the same time?
But debating where the age of consent should be means you've already acknowledged there's a moral issue there, meaning that one can have a "universal" moral compass as a non believer too, which I believe was the question posed by the OP.

To me, it seems clear that saying "sexually taking advantage of youth is wrong" is the moral aspect of it, debating whether one should put the age of consent here or there is a legislative one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:30 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top