Are child molesters just super AFC's?

[Da Realist]

First, you can separate a piece of gold into smaller or bigger chunks: it's still gold. So when i say wrong is wrong, that's the way i see it. You may get a good result, but it's still morally or ethically wrong.

Second, the example you give is indecent exposure. I know it's not sexual because there is no apparent sexuality in it. The guy didn't rub his ass on the girls. It's the same difference as nude and naked.

As far as the limit, quote what I actually said. Don't start throwing a bunch of things together just to make just to make your argument to look good. Each one of those were a response to a clear argument you made, so lumping all together just to count against statutory rape doesn't work. I said outside of a 3-4 year age difference, a person should be charge statutory rape and I made that clear.

Now as far as the laws that were put in place, people knew most of them weren't mistakes worthy of civil punishment, but they justified them using logic. I mean, no where does it say drinking is wrong, but people banned. Premarital sex was mostly punishable by having to marry the person you deflowered, but that locking a person up doesn't accomplish much. A law against interracial marriage was to preserve a system of thought that as logically as it can be argued, wasn't right to begin with.

With statutory rape laws, it doesn't fit into those categories. A lot of studies have been done that show pretty much so kids don't have good enough judgment to enter adult society for a while. Just throwing an older person with a child in what is supposed to be a mature relationship doesn't work very well. There is no evidence that not having sex with kids will benefit only a certain segment of society. So truthfully, I can't see where it's a bad law except for the guys who aren't careful about what they do.

 

[bigjohnson]

I'm ignoring the stuff that seems metaphysical or nonsensical. Feel free to reiterate if you think I missed something that was useful.

.... the example you give is indecent exposure. I know it's not sexual ....

Well as long as YOU know it wasn't sexual, I guess the fact that this poor b*stard has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life doesn't matter? The fact that he was CONVICTED proves the current law is too ambiguous, unless we believe he was RIGHTLY convicted.

As far as the limit, quote what I actually said. .... I said outside of a 3-4 year age difference, a person should be charge statutory rape and I made that clear.

So an 84 year old woman who sexes up a 70 year old man is a statutory rapist? Interesting theory, please subscribe me to your newsletter.

Now as far as the laws that were put in place, people knew most of them weren't mistakes worthy of civil punishment ....

Please cite a source for this.

.... A lot of studies have been done that show pretty much so kids don't have good enough judgment to enter adult society for a while.

Again, I'll have to see the study that shows a statistical difference in say, 16 vs 18 year olds, or 15 vs 16 year olds.

There is no evidence that not having sex with kids will benefit only a certain segment of society. So truthfully, I can't see where it's a bad law except for the guys who aren't careful about what they do.

There is no evidence that allowing citizens to purchase cars that are capable of driving over 85 mph "benefit only a certain segment of society. So truthfully, I can't see where it's a bad law" to proscribe their sale.




There is a strong history in American law that says it's better for 1000 guilty men to go free than a single innocent man be punished. I believe this is a gold standard worth living up to. I'd like to see the idea of "child molester" restricted to people who are clearly children, and if we decide to legislate for older minors, we should differentiate the two, and if we want to punish things like indecent exposure, that should be clearly under a different umbrella as well.

 

[PappyS]

I'm not a police officer. But if I put on a police uniform and leaned up against a police car then people would probably assume I was a cop.

Similarly if a girl is well developed and in adult settings them men will assume she's adult and f-ck her. People can get mad about it all they want, but biology is biology no matter what laws they make. Instead of getting mad about "pedophiles" maybe all these clown parents should try taking care of their children. If the girl has fat titties and a full-grown body shape at 15 then keep her home with the babysitter or playing with barbie dolls instead of letting her hangout in wh-retown at 2 am. Or, if you allow that, then recognize that she will get f-cked by Tom, D!ck and Hank. Horny men aren't going to do 6-month background checks on chicks they want to f-ck in order to confirm the h-'s exact age. They're just going to f-ck the p-ssy if the p-ssy is available. If she looks like she's about the right age range (post-pubescent) then lots of men will f-ck her. If one man or two men pass it up there are always 15 others who would be happy to hit it.

So, in summary, parents need to take responsibility for their own children. If a parent lets their 2-year old play on the train-tracks they might get hit by a train. And if a parent lets their physically grown but legally underage daughter "play" in adult zones then she might get hit by a... well you get the picture.

 

[Da Realist]

I'm ignoring the stuff that seems metaphysical or nonsensical. Feel free to reiterate if you think I missed something that was useful.




Well as long as YOU know it wasn't sexual, I guess the fact that this poor b*stard has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life doesn't matter? The fact that he was CONVICTED proves the current law is too ambiguous, unless we believe he was RIGHTLY convicted.


This doesn't prove the law is ambigous; it proves the person judging the law isn't competent. Like I said, that's indecent exposure. Also, if you know the intimate details of the case, you should show them.



So an 84 year old woman who sexes up a 70 year old man is a statutory rapist? Interesting theory, please subscribe me to your newsletter.

Don't see how seniors are the same as teenagers.



Please cite a source for this.

http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi7_1.pdf

Part that gets me is that in it there was a statement that risky behaviors go down when teens are being monitored. Now if it takes a law because some parents aren't doing their jobs, cool.


Again, I'll have to see the study that shows a statistical difference in say, 16 vs 18 year olds, or 15 vs 16 year olds.


Actually, it's answered in the first source since a normal brain matures till the early 20's. So as the a child gets older, they get a little less impulsive.


There is no evidence that allowing citizens to purchase cars that are capable of driving over 85 mph "benefit only a certain segment of society. So truthfully, I can't see where it's a bad law" to proscribe their sale.

No, but there are speed limits that were put in place first because of gas of consumption, and second because of the risks of driving at a high speed. I mean, you can buy a fast car, but that doesn't mean you're a great driver. Anybody can put a pedal down to the floor, but it's another thing you hit a skid at 70 miles per hour and have to know what to do afterward. That's the way I see this law.


There is a strong history in American law that says it's better for 1000 guilty men to go free than a single innocent man be punished. I believe this is a gold standard worth living up to. I'd like to see the idea of "child molester" restricted to people who are clearly children, and if we decide to legislate for older minors, we should differentiate the two, and if we want to punish things like indecent exposure, that should be clearly under a different umbrella as well.

That goes into a metaphysical realm where things happen perfectly and ever man is just and resasonable. I have yet to see where 1000 guilty have gone free for innocent man: in fact it has been the opposite.

I'm going to level with you though: the people are the problem and not the laws. For the one case you bring up repeatedly, there are a lot of other cases where there is a proven crime that has happened. What happened is some DA was seeking re-election and brought up harsh charges just to win brownie points with the public. Instead of attacking a law that really has done more good than harm, it would better to do like the guy above said and be a parent as well as getting people out of the system that would use it to their own ends.

 

[bigjohnson]

......

You're attributing things to me that I never said. Please sort out your quotes.

 

[Da Realist]

You're attributing things to me that I never said. Please sort out your quotes.

What do you mean? I went down the line of everything you said in your last post and even have it quoted word by word. I added nothing to it, took nothing away, and argued each by it's merits.

 

[bigjohnson]

What do you mean? I went down the line of everything you said in your last post and even have it quoted word by word. I added nothing to it, took nothing away, and argued each by it's merits.

You have a bunch of stuff I never said inside a quote box attributed to me.

 

[Da Realist]

Dude, you're post #66. My responses are in bold.

 

[bigjohnson]

Sigh. the tags to use for this are quote and /quote, inside [] brackets. I'm not gonna sort your mess out.

So here's the short version. If the law was specific, it wouldn't be open to abuse via interpretation. You never gave an age, just a age gap. The cited studies say the development isn't "finished" until the early 20s - sure you wanna go down that road? Finally those who remember life prior to Jimmy Carter know that speed limits were always about safety. Consumption was an excuse to drop them to 55 during the last fuel crisis.

 

[Da Realist]

What mess is there to sort out? I quoted you and answered in writing distinguishable from your own. Plus I'm not one to argue over petty stuff. An example is the fact you have an issue over the age gap. It was understood we were talking about teenagers and it was ridiculous. If you want you want to try to defeat my argument by saying 30 year olds shouldn't sleep with 40 year olds, I'm not going to stop you because it has nothing to do with this. I will tell you though that it's like arguing over the color of the sky when we're talking about how the sun looks today.

Now, if you want to debate about ambiguous laws, I could point to the drug laws in the US. I don't agree with doing drugs, but I know the laws are messed up. Most people don't know the government allows a certain amount of that stuff in because it actually adds money to the economy. I used to be one of the people who complained about how crooked the system was till it dawned on me that people didn't have to find that out if they didn't do drugs.

What I'm getting at is that if you feel the law is screwed up don't break unless you're ready to show how it's not just. Second, since I have given evidence that at least shows teenagers aren't totally on par with adults in decision making, show me these laws and show how many cases it is misused. I know of one in Georgia I think were a 17 year old slept with a 16 year old and was convicted, but there should be a lot more. Even in most of those cases, it's not the law that was at fault, but the people themselves who tried the cases.

But I do agree the speeding laws were about safety, just like this one.

 

[bigjohnson]

What mess is there to sort out?

Go up to your post and hit "Quote" like you were gonna reply to it and see what it gives you.

An example is the fact you have an issue over the age gap. It was understood we were talking about teenagers and it was ridiculous.

I asked you where the line should be and you said you'd already drawn the line as a gap. So you're saying it's not just the gap now? How do you think it should work? Because there's no real legal consensus out in the world.

Now, if you want to debate about ambiguous laws, I could point to the drug laws in the US.

This is a logical fallacy. Let's make actual logical arguments.

..... since I have given evidence that at least shows teenagers aren't totally on par with adults in decision making

Until they are in their early 20s .... so the age of consent should be what, 25?

 

[Da Realist]

And you conveniently skipped the part of showing some type of proof. I'm sorry, but if I can show something, then I think it is fair to ask for facts instead of just your opinion. Like I said, if you feel it is ambiguous, show the law and we could judge if it's so. Even then, what is the ratio of the cases that are actually badly judged?

 

[bigjohnson]

And you conveniently skipped the part of showing some type of proof.

The fact the law varies considerably State to State. not to mention world wide, is adequate to show there is no naturally occurring bright line in the sand anywhere near 14-18 years of age.


http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

 

[Da Realist]

The fact the law varies considerably State to State. not to mention world wide, is adequate to show there is no naturally occurring bright line in the sand anywhere near 14-18 years of age.


http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

Well, kind of knew that going in and looked up the laws myself. Turns out most that aren't that ambiguous about what you can be convicted of. Also, there are Romeo and Juliet laws that protect kids around the same age while setting a clear limit. So there is actual protection within a certain a certain age group and clear limits about what a sexual offender is. If you get caught doing it, it really is your fault. And remember: ignorance of the law is not innocence.

 

[bigjohnson]

..... Turns out most that aren't that ambiguous .....

So you think that putting public urinators and men who like to b*ttf*ck 2 year old boys in the same category is not a wee bit ambiguous? Personally *I* find it ambiguous when someone is a "registered sex offender" and I can't tell if they want to get drunk and pee on my fence or crawl over the neighbors fence and violate their toddler.

Call me crazy but those seem vastly different to me.