Harsh ruling or fair?
- Thread starter SuperMan
- Start date
I don't care how condescending it is, it's irrelevant, the point is is that's it's still illegal - complain to your MP if you feel it should be changed.
It's not 'crap', what children do is the responsibilty of their parents. Who on earth do you think is supposed to be responsible?
...and now you go to compare all this to some gay thing? Surely you are doing exactly that?
Uh huh, is it really normal for six 20-something's to have sex with a total stranger they believe to be 16? That's stretching it I think.
I don't have any problem with gays despite your implication, I also don't have a problem with unusual sexual behaviour. I do have a bit of an issue with animals blatantly not giving a flying stuff about the piece of meat they are shagging, it's just sad and somewhat revolting.
Sorry, but you cannot compare a 1 year old to a 12 year old.
Well, we didn't. But even so, as far as they were concerned, they were 16. They even had it down on their facebook pages.
As far as they were concerned they were 16.OH dear.
Not attractive, and ugly aren't the same thing. Not attractive can mean indifference, some one can think you're not ugly, while also thinking you're not attractive.
am not
meh
And the penalty for getting that one wrong is being charged with rape,
if that had a braincell between them they would have made sure - fact is they didn't care
Last edited:
To repeat my previous point: The age of consent in the Philippines is 12. So it would be legal there.
Regardless of that point, should everyone be having sex under the sheets with the lights off between the hours of 10 and 11 pm? Would that make you happy?
Problem officer?
Well you don't expect to be charged with rape for consensual sex with a girl who looks and says she's 16.
yes fine, bonk away.
we have arbritary laws that we all agreed to, that say 15+9/10's is rape
Did you not read my post? I don't have a problem with unusual sexual behaviour. Fondling a corpse and gangbangs with strangers I would class as a bit out there OK? Do you want to raise a poll, because I think a lot of people would think a gangbang was a bit of a weird thing for teenagers to be doing, adults maybe but not people with fuzz on their chin.
I've made the mistake of thinking a 15 year old looked about 20, but I made the effort to find out first before doing anything stupid. Because the onus is on me to not make that mistake.
Last edited:
Legality is just that, it doesn't mean it's moral or immoral.
Yes it is crap because you're basing a person's ability to think and act for themselves on a number you've arbitrarily assigned to them. As I said to you, I was fully aware and responsible for my actions at the age of 12. If I didn't want to listen to my parents, it was down to me, and my actions were my own, not their responsibility. Just because the law chooses a number for which you are responsible, it doesn't mean it's true, as I've pointed out to you.It's not 'crap', what children do is the responsibilty of their parents. Who on earth do you think is supposed to be responsible?
If you re-read my post, you'll understand that I was talking about that type of thinking and use of "logic". People base their own preferences on normality, and when it comes to the topic of sexuality, people often irrationally attribute "deviancy" with things that aren't of their preference. This is why gay people have had such a hard time, if you knew anything about history, being gay was classed as a sexual deviancy, and "they" were judged as deviants.
This is part of my point, you're talking about "normality" when it's not that simple. It's abnormal to you, yes, to me too, yes, but I wouldn't go on about it being wrong on the basis that it's abnormal. You keep going on about the law, so surely your example is pointless because despite you saying it's abnormal, it'd be "fine" if they were actually 16 rather than just looking like they were.
You clearly do have a problem with "unusual sexual behavior" and I didn't imply you had a problem with gays, please read my posts properly, I was giving examples of what a thinking pattern can result in.
If the men are animals, so are the girls, because while you believe they couldn't give consent under law, they still gave their consent and were perfectly happy to engage in that activity, which is what a lot of people have been saying, if the men are punished, so should the girls.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,784
- Location
- Auckland
You should if she is not old enough to actually give her consent.
am not
read the frigging post FFS
jesus wept christ, frigging reading age in GD is frigging zero
/rant
And the penalty for getting that one wrong is being charged with rape,
if that had a braincell between them they would have made sure - fact is they didn't care
If you're not comparing a 1 year old to a 12 year old, why even bring a 1 year old in to it at all? You clearly were trying to make a comparison in some way. Also, stop stating things as fact that you do not know. It is not fact that they didn't care. There's enough evidence pointing at how they thought the girls were 16. It's idiotic to suggest they didn't care simply because they weren't 16. The fact is that the law says it's illegal, that's pretty much it.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,793
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
This WAS the case for many years until the Bulger killings changed the rule book.
They were only 10 years old but suddenly the rules changed and they did know what they were doing.
By that reasoning a 12 year old certainly knows what they are doing.
(and before some certain person claims I am trying to say the girls should have been raped or Bulgers killers should have got off, I am just being Devils Advocate with the law).
Once again none of us know the full story and the Judge & Jury wouldn't have made the judgement without ALL THE FACTS.
[FnG]magnolia;18720965 said:
That's where this issue lies, and it's pointing to a flawed system where it's too focused on "general". Consent was still given, regardless of if the legal system values the consent of people under a specific age.
Rather than Devil's Advocate, I'd say you're just bringing up valid points against the "one size fits all" argument so many people are using. Clearly the James Buldger killers knew exactly what they were doing, and it'd be completely farcical to even suggest it was at the fault of their parents.
Its men with an attitude like yours that really repulse me
.Its men with an attitude like yours that really repulse me
I think he might have phrased it really badly, because I do believe girls should have a duty of care to themselves, to be care how they dress in certain areas. Just the same way that you'd say it's not wise for some women to travel by themselves on foot at certain times at night.
Not to say they deserve a groping or something, but rather that they should be aware (or more aware?) of the fact that there are some disgusting people out there.
Like saying, there's some place you just shouldn't travel to at the moment on the basis of things that go on there.
I at least hope he phrased it wrongly anyway.
WHAT ROFL
So if we changed the age of consent to 12, you would instantly say "yes fine, bonk away?"
It's strange how people get their morality from the legal system...