Gen. Flynn lied concerning his pre-innauguration communications with Russia.

[Bill the Cat]

Is it that a 13yo can consent, or is it that a 13yo cannot consent and the other 13yo cannot seek consent?

It's that the 13 year old can consent. For instance, in Florida, their "Romeo and Juliette" laws decriminalize consensual sexual contact between children and teenagers close in age if the victim is under 13 and the offender is no more than 2 years older than the victim or three years older than a victim at least 13 but under 15 years of age for fourth-degree sexual assault.

[Mountain Man]

If underage persons are at risk of "possible exploitation" then they warrant protection, right?


"Informed consent of their families" is NOT informed consent from the girl in question. You understand that, right?


Surely ALL child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is unacceptable, right?


No, it still reads that in our society informed consent is a moral requirement at all times because our society demands it.

You're all over the place on this, kiddo. You argue that it's based on societal norms, but then you denounce that reasoning when it's pointed out that not all societies agree with your particular hangups on this matter. Then you turn around and expect us to simply agree with you that it's inherently immoral despite your world view having no justification for this assertion. Then when you get stumped on that, you come full circle and again say that it's based on societal norms. Of course, all this moral outrage goes out the window when the conversation turns to the topic of unborn children, because you don't give a crap about them.

Why don't you spend some time reasoning this out and get back to us when you have a coherent position.

[The Thinker]

... despite your world view having no justification for this assertion.

On theism the you will necessarily run into a trilemma when trying to justify any ethical stance:

1. Morality is arbitrarily decided by god.
2. Morality is independent of god.
3. Make a circular argument.

Of course, all this moral outrage goes out the window when the conversation turns to the topic of unborn children, because you don't give a crap about them.

That's because they're not children, they are fetuses. And 90% of abortions happen in the first 3 months when the fetus is not fully developed and feels no pain. Plus fetuses are not independent people.

And once the fetus is born many of you so called pro-lifers don't give a crap about them. They're pro-birth, not pro-life.

[The Thinker]

Additionally, several Middle Eastern and African countries have no legal age of consent, but ban all sexual relations outside of marriage. This has raised concerns by many international organizations, especially in some countries where girls are married at as young as 9 or 10 years old. Countries with marriage-based ages of consent include Afghanistan, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the UAE.[/cite]

Isn't that basically what the Bible says?

[Tassman]

No. I'm saying a 13 year old CAN consent, as seen by Romeo and Juliette laws. Abortion laws also allow consent by minors where Parental Consent laws are not in place. So, there has to be another reason pedophilia is not allowed because "inability to consent" doesn't hold water.

The purpose of Romeo and Juliet provisions is to prevent a sexual act that occurred between under-aged individuals with a few years age difference from being considered a criminal offence. In short, it makes allowances (reasonably in my view) for the commonplace sexual experimentation between under-age persons. But when one of the parties is much older then the issue of exploitation comes in and the ability to give informed consent does indeed "hold water".

[Tassman]

You're all over the place on this, kiddo. You argue that it's based on societal norms, but then you denounce that reasoning when it's pointed out that not all societies agree with your particular hangups on this matter. Then you turn around and expect us to simply agree with you that it's inherently immoral despite your world view having no justification for this assertion. Then when you get stumped on that, you come full circle and again say that it's based on societal norms. Of course, all this moral outrage goes out the window when the conversation turns to the topic of unborn children, because you don't give a crap about them.

Why don't you spend some time reasoning this out and get back to us when you have a coherent position.

[Bill the Cat]

The purpose of Romeo and Juliet provisions is to prevent a sexual act that occurred between under-aged individuals with a few years age difference from being considered a criminal offence. In short, it makes allowances (reasonably in my view) for the commonplace sexual experimentation between under-age persons. But when one of the parties is much older then the issue of exploitation comes in and the ability to give informed consent does indeed "hold water".

Romeo and Juliette laws prove that a minor CAN legally give their consent. As does abortion law. Exploitation of that consent by someone substantially older is what makes it crime, but the original claim was that a minor could not legally consent

[Sparko]

Because under-age persons are not sufficiently mature to give informed consent and are thus exposed to possible exploitation. This is contrary to the best interests of the young person concerned and to the community at large in that it's damaging to the social fabric.

You are arguing present day morality again. If morality can evolve, then there is no reason it can't evolve to think pedophilia is OK and that under-age persons can give consent, or don't have too.

[Sparko]

Morals are instinctive rather than subjective.

Then why did we as a society believe homosexuality was wrong for the last few thousand years and just now think it is just fine? You can't have it both ways.

[Sparko]

If a shop owner wants to discriminate because he dislikes someone, or if they are not wearing a shirt, or shoes, or they are a dwarf, he can in fact do so. As you said the Civil Rights act of 1964 covers discrimination on race, age, color, religion, sex. Not anything else. Not national origin as far as I know either. Not even homosexuality. So if they want to discriminate against someone who is gay, show me where that is frowned upon in the civil rights act of 1964?

[Sparko]

You do all the "absurdum" without any help Tassman. He is correct. You keep switching your argument because you have no real basis for your belief. You know deep down that morals are objective, yet you can't admit it, so you keep switching between arguing that morals are instinctive and morals evolve. On homosexuality, which used to be considered immoral by society, you argue that "we got better" that morals evolved. When arguing against that same scenario happening in the future with something as repugnant as pedophilia, you argue that morals are instinctive and seem to keep arguing a value standard that is objective and will never be breached.

You keep arguing "in our society..." -- well "our society" changes. I used to be able to say "in our society, marriage is between a man and a woman." Now I can't. Even though morally I disagree with that. In the future, who is to say that pedophiliac marriage won't be allowed in THIS society, like it is in other ones?

[Tassman]

Romeo and Juliette laws prove that a minor CAN legally give their consent. As does abortion law. Exploitation of that consent by someone substantially older is what makes it crime, but the original claim was that a minor could not legally consent

that occurred between under-aged individuals from being considered a criminal offence. In short it is to protect minors from legal action.

[Tassman]

If a shop owner wants to discriminate because he dislikes someone, or if they are not wearing a shirt, or shoes, or they are a dwarf, he can in fact do so.

Indeed, provided that the discrimination is equally applied to all, e.g. enforcing a dress-code at a posh restaurant.

As you said the Civil Rights act of 1964 covers discrimination on race, age, color, religion, sex. Not anything else. Not national origin as far as I know either. Not even homosexuality. So if they want to discriminate against someone who is gay, show me where that is frowned upon in the civil rights act of 1964?

Gay marriage is legal in the US therefore discrimination against it, e.g. by a cake-shop owner, is unlawful discrimination...as has been ruled in the courts on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-baker...st-gay-couple/

[Tassman]

You do all the "absurdum" without any help Tassman. He is correct. You keep switching your argument because you have no real basis for your belief.

You keep arguing "in our society..." -- well "our society" changes. I used to be able to say "in our society, marriage is between a man and a woman." Now I can't.

Even though morally I disagree with that. In the future, who is to say that pedophiliac marriage won't be allowed in THIS society, like it is in other ones?

[Bill the Cat]

But it's still consent, which refutes the original claim.

The purpose of Romeo and Juliet provisions is specific. It exists to prevent a sexual act that occurred between under-aged individuals from being considered a criminal offence. In short it is to protect minors from legal action.

And it establishes that a minor can consent.