 |
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
Yes, as I said, I was showing that the others claim that "a higher age of consent leads to lower teenage pregnancy rates" has no evidence for it, and since I have shown an example that works in the opposite way, looks very tenuous. In other words, that fact, that somewhere with a much lower age of consent has a much lower teenage pregnancy rate, "dismisses much of the idea that a higher age of consent leads to lower teenage pregnancy rates". I was claiming that the others claim was false, not claiming any form of causation at all. I don't know if there is causation, but I do know there isn't evidence to support causation the other way, and that I have an example that contradicts causation the other way. I never claimed more than a correlation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
This stops you from logging into your account. |
Well, he has his computer cookied for everything, so he's rather I didn't mess them up.
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
quote:
But hey, carry on with the ad hominems, if it makes you happy. |
I'm just trying to see why your trying to justify moving in on young kids. Especially with you being 19 with a girlfriend. |
I'm justifying people aged 14-17 being able to decide for themselves. I don't like the idea of a 30 year old man with a 15 year old girl, but I don't see it much different from a 30 year old man with an 18 year old girl. 15 year olds now are far mroe self aware than my year was at that age, because people grow up faster now. Many people complain children grow up so fast they hardly have a childhood. They do mature earlier than they used to. I think a 15 year old can decide whether or not they want to go out with someone, or sleep with them. I think the age of the other person doesn't affect their ability to decide. If someone is taking advantage of someone, then as in all occasions, that's bad, but blanket rulings that no-one under 18 can have sex is a bit far IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Moving on to a related subject, I saw a patient today who reminded me of a similar problem we have in our society. She was sitting on a table, and as I entered the room she chanted: " Doc.....shot.......Mommy......home". She talks like a 2 year-old, but she's 28, and she saw me today for guess what?
Oh come on, guess.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Birth control. It seems that even though she has the mental development of a toddler and is a ward of the state she has the right to make decisions about her own sexuality. Her caretakers are expressly fobidden to interfere in such activities. Presumably this not only includes interactions with her mentally retarded peers, but could also allows her to be seduced by a non-retarded person.
What do you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
I disagree, but I'm a libertarian not a moral-absolutist. The law is a simple system of saying what is acceptable in societies eyes, not a system of what is right in the individual's eyes.
|
And generally, what is acceptable in the individual case, will also be so with society. There can be notable exceptions, which is what I am looking for here. It seems to me, that in the vast majority of cases, it is only beneficial to have a policy restricting sexual contact between minors and adults in order to protect the minors.
Even if there are a few girls who do quite well in the situation, this does not justify the vast majority of the cases where things do not work out.
Now, this is not even from a moral absolutist, but rather from Mill. The privilege of one cannot be used to justify the punishment of many.
quote:
No, but ideally that should form part of the individuals decision in this regard, not their allowance to make such a decision. I don't think the reasons as to why "one" shouldn't are sufficient in the context of a libertarian looking for a consistent legal position to say "all" mustn't.
|
Again, what is the primary goal of consent limitations? To protect the vunerable or provide freedom? I would argue the former and not the latter.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-06-2004 19:20
Considering I'm 19 and have a steady girlfriend, somehow I don't see this as about my libedo. More that I can't stand the state imposing something that only affects those two people, and which both consent to. I believe a 14 year old can decide for themselves whether or not they are ready, better than blanket legislature can. I remember being 14, and I remember being able to make my own decisions, as most of the people I knew seemed to be able to. Legislature was not needed.
|