Of child molesters, the social contract, and so on
-
Prebe
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 7926
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
- Location: People's Republic of Denmark
I could say that I believe in science, but since it is not the opposite of religion, I don't think it would distance me enoughFrankELF wrote:A person should be identified by what they DO believe and profess and do, not by what they don't. And especially not by their nonbelief in nonsense.
Btw. My comliment was directed at your last post on the previous page (11), and not your first one on this page (12). Just so you know I was not being sarcastic.
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
-Hashi Lebwohl
-
drew
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 7877
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:20 pm
- Location: Canada
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Speaking of molesters and kidnappers...
Who has heard of the Eighteen years old Austial girl who finally escaped after EIGHT YEars being imprisoned as a slave.
She was kept in a cell, had to call her abductor 'Master'.
Lately (apparantly) he has been letting her out, and while washing his car, his cell phone rang, he went away to get a better reception, and she bolted.
It is now presumed that she if suffering from Stokholm Syndrome--where the victem begins to identify with their kidnapper.
For more on the story, click here
Who has heard of the Eighteen years old Austial girl who finally escaped after EIGHT YEars being imprisoned as a slave.
She was kept in a cell, had to call her abductor 'Master'.
Lately (apparantly) he has been letting her out, and while washing his car, his cell phone rang, he went away to get a better reception, and she bolted.
It is now presumed that she if suffering from Stokholm Syndrome--where the victem begins to identify with their kidnapper.
For more on the story, click here
I thought you were a ripe grape
a cabernet sauvignon
a bottle in the cellar
the kind you keep for a really long time
a cabernet sauvignon
a bottle in the cellar
the kind you keep for a really long time
Prebe wrote:Btw. My comliment was directed at your last post on the previous page (11), and not your first one on this page (12). Just so you know I was not being sarcastic.
I knew that, Prebe, but thank you for being sensitive enough to be sure I hadn't misunderstood. 
That's a picture of Lenin, right?
BTW
I'm an arrogant rational individualist, laissez-faire capitalist. And I do mean that seriously, not sarcastically. But this is not meant to be an attack on you, by the way, just a statement of fact . . . It is so easy to misunderstand each other in mere unadorned, clipped print!
Kokopelli would be a cool avatar for me.
Trees, by Joyce Kilmer
- I think that I shall never see,
- A poem as lovely as a tree. (STOP READING poem FOREVER, here! Go look OUTDOORS.)
Trees, by Joyce Kilmer
- I think that I shall never see,
- A poem as lovely as a tree. (STOP READING poem FOREVER, here! Go look OUTDOORS.)
Quote 2drew wrote:Speaking of molesters and kidnappers...
Who has heard of the Eighteen years old Austial girl who finally escaped after EIGHT YEars being imprisoned as a slave.
She was kept in a cell, had to call her abductor 'Master'.
Lately (apparantly) he has been letting her out, and while washing his car, his cell phone rang, he went away to get a better reception, and she bolted.
It is now presumed that she if suffering from Stokholm Syndrome--where the victem begins to identify with their kidnapper.
What!CBC, August 25, 2006 wrote:Wolfgang Priklopil, a 44-year-old communications technician . . . killed himself by throwing himself in front of a train in Vienna on Wednesday. . . .
An article in the Krone Zeitung, Austria's largest newspaper, said Natascha told police she had to call Priklopil "master" for the first year. She also told police that "Wolfgang was always kind to me," according to the paper.
. . . the girl escaped when the door to her room was left open. She ran to a garden nearby and identified herself to an elderly woman.
Stockholm syndrome for sure! He was always kind to me, she said.
Keeping someone a prisoner for eight years is not kind. And there must have been a lot more to it than that, horrible enough as it is. These sickos have there sick reasons for holding a prisoner.
Last edited by frankELF on Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kokopelli would be a cool avatar for me.
Trees, by Joyce Kilmer
- I think that I shall never see,
- A poem as lovely as a tree. (STOP READING poem FOREVER, here! Go look OUTDOORS.)
Trees, by Joyce Kilmer
- I think that I shall never see,
- A poem as lovely as a tree. (STOP READING poem FOREVER, here! Go look OUTDOORS.)
-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
-
A Gunslinger
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 8890
- Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 6:48 pm
- Location: Southern WI (Madison area)
It is something out of a sick movie, I am sure. I have soen a lot of reading about the criminal mind and such. John Douglas, the cat who pioneered criminal profiling, has written some great books on the the topic "Mindhunter" & "The Anatomy of Motive" among them. He talks alot about captive psychologym and it is not suprising to observe a juxtposition between a long term captives words and deeds.
"I use my gun whenever kindness fails"
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61746
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Because they actually know that things are not right. But conditioning as much as anything else must play a part in inhibiting the expression of that knowledge.
They've had to pretend that it was alright for so long, that they can't express it any other way.
At least she did bolt when the opportunity presented itself.
--A
They've had to pretend that it was alright for so long, that they can't express it any other way.
At least she did bolt when the opportunity presented itself.
--A
You wrote - Da!, so Lenin was your father! right?Prebe wrote:Da!FrankELF wrote:That's a picture of Lenin, right?
Then was Mrs. Mao your Ma?
One of my most endearing qualities is making bad jokes.
Kokopelli would be a cool avatar for me.
Trees, by Joyce Kilmer
- I think that I shall never see,
- A poem as lovely as a tree. (STOP READING poem FOREVER, here! Go look OUTDOORS.)
Trees, by Joyce Kilmer
- I think that I shall never see,
- A poem as lovely as a tree. (STOP READING poem FOREVER, here! Go look OUTDOORS.)
-
sgt.null
- Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
- Posts: 47250
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
- Location: Brazoria, Texas
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 6 times
Convicted Molester Tells Jurors His Past Is Irrelevant
Aug. 28 - A prosecutor told jurors Monday about a mountain of evidence against child molester Dean Schwartzmiller, including testimony from at least eight alleged victims, a 456-page manuscript about sex with boys and five decades of abuse. But Schwartzmiller, who's defending himself in Santa Clara County Superior Court, said his past is irrelevant, the memoir is fiction and his most recent accusers were coerced.
Schwartzmiller, 65, has pleaded not guilty to a dozen counts of molestation and child pornography in connection with two young boys he befriended in 2002. If convicted, he faces life in prison. Prosecutor Steve Fein showed jurors a map covering the "places and decades where the defendant has molested young boys." It included an estimated 100 alleged victims dating back to 1969 in eight U.S. states, Mexico and Brazil. Fein also noted the narrative-style memoir, 10 binders full of child pornography and 1,500 notebook pages with headings including "no, but yes boys," "best of the best, 13 and under" and "single-parent boys."
Schwartzmiller, who seemed almost grandfatherly dressed in khaki pants, shirt and tie and wearing wire-rimmed reading glasses, spoke plainly, yet eloquently.
"To listen to the district attorney speak you'd think that I haven't done anything else in my entire life except go around and molest children," he said in his 45-minute opening statement. "How can I molest someone when I'm 15. That doesn't make any sense." He said the alleged victims had to be threatened and coerced to say anything against him. He suggested they made the whole story up to receive legal residency in the U.S. because their family is from Mexico. Schwartzmiller said testifying against him is a "small price to pay for such a huge gain," legal status to the boys and their extended family of about 20. As for the narrative, written before his arrest, Schwartzmiller said he mentioned both at the beginning and at the end of the book that it was a work of fantasy and he couldn't be charged with a crime for anything in it. He quoted from page 456: "It is fiction that these boys would come to me for sex; it is fiction that they would come back for more sex." Schwartzmiller said investigators found no DNA or fingerprint evidence to connect him to the alleged crimes. He blamed his roommate, also a convicted child molester, of abusing the 12-year-old cousins. Fred Everts was convicted in February of 18 counts of child molestation. He faces life in prison at his sentencing Sept. 8.
it ain't no joke
no poem be lovely as an oak.
Aug. 28 - A prosecutor told jurors Monday about a mountain of evidence against child molester Dean Schwartzmiller, including testimony from at least eight alleged victims, a 456-page manuscript about sex with boys and five decades of abuse. But Schwartzmiller, who's defending himself in Santa Clara County Superior Court, said his past is irrelevant, the memoir is fiction and his most recent accusers were coerced.
Schwartzmiller, 65, has pleaded not guilty to a dozen counts of molestation and child pornography in connection with two young boys he befriended in 2002. If convicted, he faces life in prison. Prosecutor Steve Fein showed jurors a map covering the "places and decades where the defendant has molested young boys." It included an estimated 100 alleged victims dating back to 1969 in eight U.S. states, Mexico and Brazil. Fein also noted the narrative-style memoir, 10 binders full of child pornography and 1,500 notebook pages with headings including "no, but yes boys," "best of the best, 13 and under" and "single-parent boys."
Schwartzmiller, who seemed almost grandfatherly dressed in khaki pants, shirt and tie and wearing wire-rimmed reading glasses, spoke plainly, yet eloquently.
"To listen to the district attorney speak you'd think that I haven't done anything else in my entire life except go around and molest children," he said in his 45-minute opening statement. "How can I molest someone when I'm 15. That doesn't make any sense." He said the alleged victims had to be threatened and coerced to say anything against him. He suggested they made the whole story up to receive legal residency in the U.S. because their family is from Mexico. Schwartzmiller said testifying against him is a "small price to pay for such a huge gain," legal status to the boys and their extended family of about 20. As for the narrative, written before his arrest, Schwartzmiller said he mentioned both at the beginning and at the end of the book that it was a work of fantasy and he couldn't be charged with a crime for anything in it. He quoted from page 456: "It is fiction that these boys would come to me for sex; it is fiction that they would come back for more sex." Schwartzmiller said investigators found no DNA or fingerprint evidence to connect him to the alleged crimes. He blamed his roommate, also a convicted child molester, of abusing the 12-year-old cousins. Fred Everts was convicted in February of 18 counts of child molestation. He faces life in prison at his sentencing Sept. 8.
it ain't no joke
no poem be lovely as an oak.
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
-
PannionDude
- Servant of the Land
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:00 pm
I have issue with three notions I see running through this discussion, I hope I'll be forgiven for stating them myself and then disputing myself. I see this as more polite than directly contradicting those I disagree with. In my experience people tend to view that as an attack on them, rather than on their beliefs.
1. Those who commit crime X should be punished more than the law required at the time they committed their crime.
I disagree with this because it is against the concept of the contract, upon which our society rests. We are each permitted to enter into any arrangements we wish. Committing a crime is entering into an arrangement with the law. When I speed I agree that if caught and found guilty I shall be forced to pay a certain amount of money. I would be outraged if I were called one day, and informed that the new penalty to ever having sped is to be beheaded.
2. Crimes shall be punished differently depending on a quality specific to the victim. Our society has a strong notion of equality. I get as many votes as you do. If I punch you I go to jail. If you punch me you go to jail. The notion that some should be treated distinctly by the law is to my mind an absurd one.
2A: In order to avoid hypocrisy I must here note that I support the right of society to create roles, where those filling these roles receive different treatement by the law. The reason that I find child abuse laws objectionable as compared to laws regarding how you treat police officers is twofold. One, no one is made a police officer against their will, whereas Child Abuse laws force humans into the "child" category without their consent. Two. Police officers/Judges/Boxers/other members of roles treated differently by law are only members of those roles at certain times and places, and this is made obvious to all. A member of the "underaged" role has no obligation to display their underaged nature, and can enter clubs and other areas and deceive other citizens about the nature of the penalties that shall be assessed against them. I would have no problems with laws creating stiffer penalties for crimes against children if those children carried some flavor of identifier, and could opt out of that category if they preferred to.
3. It is impossible to justify child abuse.
What does justify mean in this sentence? Make it legal? Congress could do so with one law. Make you forgive its practicioners? That's pretty much up to you, but according to that definition it is equally impossible to justify robbery, smoking, hopping, chewing gum, playing loud music, or anything else. Make it compatible with a universalizable set of ethics? Its precisely as possible to do that as it is to do killing. Killing is justified in the case of a policeman who finds himself defending a nursery full of innocent lives. Child abuse is justified in the case of a scientist curing a deadly disease who finds that he can only make breakthroughs after he has his way with his underaged lab assistant.
Summary (I'm long winded so I like to put a summary at the end of things).
I'm ok with punishing those who rape/defraud/assault/kill children to the same degree as I'm ok with punishing those who rape/defraud/assault/kill adults.
[I have a side question to this debate, for those opposed to any manner of leniency towards child abusers.
Are you pro-life or pro-choice?]
1. Those who commit crime X should be punished more than the law required at the time they committed their crime.
I disagree with this because it is against the concept of the contract, upon which our society rests. We are each permitted to enter into any arrangements we wish. Committing a crime is entering into an arrangement with the law. When I speed I agree that if caught and found guilty I shall be forced to pay a certain amount of money. I would be outraged if I were called one day, and informed that the new penalty to ever having sped is to be beheaded.
2. Crimes shall be punished differently depending on a quality specific to the victim. Our society has a strong notion of equality. I get as many votes as you do. If I punch you I go to jail. If you punch me you go to jail. The notion that some should be treated distinctly by the law is to my mind an absurd one.
2A: In order to avoid hypocrisy I must here note that I support the right of society to create roles, where those filling these roles receive different treatement by the law. The reason that I find child abuse laws objectionable as compared to laws regarding how you treat police officers is twofold. One, no one is made a police officer against their will, whereas Child Abuse laws force humans into the "child" category without their consent. Two. Police officers/Judges/Boxers/other members of roles treated differently by law are only members of those roles at certain times and places, and this is made obvious to all. A member of the "underaged" role has no obligation to display their underaged nature, and can enter clubs and other areas and deceive other citizens about the nature of the penalties that shall be assessed against them. I would have no problems with laws creating stiffer penalties for crimes against children if those children carried some flavor of identifier, and could opt out of that category if they preferred to.
3. It is impossible to justify child abuse.
What does justify mean in this sentence? Make it legal? Congress could do so with one law. Make you forgive its practicioners? That's pretty much up to you, but according to that definition it is equally impossible to justify robbery, smoking, hopping, chewing gum, playing loud music, or anything else. Make it compatible with a universalizable set of ethics? Its precisely as possible to do that as it is to do killing. Killing is justified in the case of a policeman who finds himself defending a nursery full of innocent lives. Child abuse is justified in the case of a scientist curing a deadly disease who finds that he can only make breakthroughs after he has his way with his underaged lab assistant.
Summary (I'm long winded so I like to put a summary at the end of things).
I'm ok with punishing those who rape/defraud/assault/kill children to the same degree as I'm ok with punishing those who rape/defraud/assault/kill adults.
[I have a side question to this debate, for those opposed to any manner of leniency towards child abusers.
Are you pro-life or pro-choice?]
Agreed on (1), think you're dead wrong on (2) and (3).
3-There is no justification or rationalization for an adult having sex with a 12-year old. I find your rationalization of the scientist to be both disgusting and false.
2-Children are not equal. They are unable to care for themselves (by and large) and unable to reason and process input in the same way adults (should) do.
Pro life, what of it?
3-There is no justification or rationalization for an adult having sex with a 12-year old. I find your rationalization of the scientist to be both disgusting and false.
2-Children are not equal. They are unable to care for themselves (by and large) and unable to reason and process input in the same way adults (should) do.
Pro life, what of it?
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
sgt.null
- Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
- Posts: 47250
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
- Location: Brazoria, Texas
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 6 times
prolife. what does that have to do with anything.
Pannion: i see that you fall into the "i was helpless, she lied." school of justification. when/if you became/become an adult you are empowered in many ways. in return there is an implied contract with society. one of those tenants is that you do not have sex with those not giving consent. as children can not give consent, you can not have sex with them. society did not create these roles. society just pointed out that they existed. if you are an adult it is up to to determine that who you are trying to have sex with is an adult. keep your baser instincts in check and wait it out. you are not powerless before your lust. this is not some sort of bodice ripper we live. as to your lab assistant question. that is a pathetic reach. at least give a reasonable case. not some fantasy you cook up to justify yourself. and if i read correctly, and i do. you should find a more appropriate forum for your message. children opting out of their assigned role? with your helping hand? if you are serious, drop the pretense and announce to the world your intent. if this is some sort of joke, check your humor at the door. i deal with many who think as you allude. and they are locked up as they should be. and it is my regret that we do not enact elfgirl's suggestions of rusty razor wire and forced consent on the part of the pedophile.
Pannion: i see that you fall into the "i was helpless, she lied." school of justification. when/if you became/become an adult you are empowered in many ways. in return there is an implied contract with society. one of those tenants is that you do not have sex with those not giving consent. as children can not give consent, you can not have sex with them. society did not create these roles. society just pointed out that they existed. if you are an adult it is up to to determine that who you are trying to have sex with is an adult. keep your baser instincts in check and wait it out. you are not powerless before your lust. this is not some sort of bodice ripper we live. as to your lab assistant question. that is a pathetic reach. at least give a reasonable case. not some fantasy you cook up to justify yourself. and if i read correctly, and i do. you should find a more appropriate forum for your message. children opting out of their assigned role? with your helping hand? if you are serious, drop the pretense and announce to the world your intent. if this is some sort of joke, check your humor at the door. i deal with many who think as you allude. and they are locked up as they should be. and it is my regret that we do not enact elfgirl's suggestions of rusty razor wire and forced consent on the part of the pedophile.
Last edited by sgt.null on Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61746
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Well well, into the deep end of the 'Tank with a splash! I like it. Nice to see you back PannionDude. 
Hmmm.
Like Cail, point 1 I agree with.
Point 2... I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree either. I think the "quality" of the victim does have a bearing, because shouldn't crime be punished proportionately?
Is stealing 100 bucks from a millionaire exactly the same crime as stealing 100 bucks from somebody who lives from hand to mouth?
Is punching a man in the face the same crime as punching a child in the face?
No, I think I must agree with Cail again and say that the qualities of both the victim and, (although he will probably disagree with me on this one ) the criminal must be taken into account.
2a. Now this is an interesting one.
Yes, I suppose that society does have the right to create those roles, and that those roles by nature of their function are treated differently.
But now, when you speak of child abuse laws here, I get the feeling that you're talking about things like our discussion of the 17-yr old having consensual sex, and not about men molesting 12-yr olds.
In that sense, I agree with you that the boundary between "legal" and not is a blurry one, with exactly the danger that you mention of members of the role intentionally (or unintentionally) not being clearly defined as such, and easily open to mistake or deliberate deceit.
In light of this, I'd support the idea of easily identifiable roles...like an semi-permanent tattoo across the forehead or something. Removed at majority.
And I certainly agree that children should be able to remove themselves from that role. But I don't think it should be easy.
Would you set criteria for it? And what would they be?
Anyway, it is possible in theory, isn't it? Children can be declared "emancipated" or something can't they? (What a terrible implication. )
As for your third example, once again I'm pretty sure that you're talking about the scientists 17-yr old lab assistant, not his 12-yr old one.
So Cail, I don't think that he's saying that it's justifiable to have sex with a 12-yr old.
Except, he is in a way. But not the way that you think.
It's the old moral dilemma, isn't it? The question is, (unrealistic and hypothetical as it is) effectively the same as asking, would you kill one innocent man to secure the safety of 100 innocent people?
Say, terorrists had captured a whole bunch of people, and said, "Kill X and we'll let them all go." would you do it Cail?
What about if it was your wife and child whose release they wanted you to secure?
What Cail means of course is that there is no way that having sex with a 12-yr old is right. Not justifiable.
Now me, I don't think that the scientist needs justification to sleep with his lab assistant if she is 17, and wants to sleep with him.
If she didn't want to sleep with him, I would say that even if doing so would find him the cure for cancer, he still wouldn't be justified. Not because of her age, but because of her lack of consent.
Of course, we get back to the criteria. What criteria are there for making it an issue of consent?
In other words, I do believe that a 12-yr old shouldn't be able to consent to sex. But I believe a 16/17-yr old should be able to. Or at least should be able to decide if they're able to.
So we must still have some sort of line. The line as it exists is arbitrary, but would any line be less so? Probably not.
Anyway, I don't see you proposing leniency for child abusers. I see you as seeking a more effective definition of what exactly is child abuse.
In effect, questioning like I do whether or not consensual sex with a 17-yr old actually constitues child abuse, when non-consensual sex constitutes rape anyway.
(Pro-Choice...what of it? (And I'll give you even money that ElfGirl, who is stongly opposed to even any perceived leniency, is also pro-choice. Elfy?) )
--A
Nice to see you back PannionDude. Hmmm.
Like Cail, point 1 I agree with.
Point 2... I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree either. I think the "quality" of the victim does have a bearing, because shouldn't crime be punished proportionately?
Is stealing 100 bucks from a millionaire exactly the same crime as stealing 100 bucks from somebody who lives from hand to mouth?
Is punching a man in the face the same crime as punching a child in the face?
No, I think I must agree with Cail again and say that the qualities of both the victim and, (although he will probably disagree with me on this one
) the criminal must be taken into account.2a. Now this is an interesting one.
Yes, I suppose that society does have the right to create those roles, and that those roles by nature of their function are treated differently.
But now, when you speak of child abuse laws here, I get the feeling that you're talking about things like our discussion of the 17-yr old having consensual sex, and not about men molesting 12-yr olds.
In that sense, I agree with you that the boundary between "legal" and not is a blurry one, with exactly the danger that you mention of members of the role intentionally (or unintentionally) not being clearly defined as such, and easily open to mistake or deliberate deceit.
In light of this, I'd support the idea of easily identifiable roles...like an semi-permanent tattoo across the forehead or something. Removed at majority.
And I certainly agree that children should be able to remove themselves from that role. But I don't think it should be easy.
Would you set criteria for it? And what would they be?
Anyway, it is possible in theory, isn't it? Children can be declared "emancipated" or something can't they? (What a terrible implication.
)As for your third example, once again I'm pretty sure that you're talking about the scientists 17-yr old lab assistant, not his 12-yr old one.
So Cail, I don't think that he's saying that it's justifiable to have sex with a 12-yr old.
Except, he is in a way. But not the way that you think.
It's the old moral dilemma, isn't it? The question is, (unrealistic and hypothetical as it is) effectively the same as asking, would you kill one innocent man to secure the safety of 100 innocent people?
Say, terorrists had captured a whole bunch of people, and said, "Kill X and we'll let them all go." would you do it Cail?
What about if it was your wife and child whose release they wanted you to secure?
What Cail means of course is that there is no way that having sex with a 12-yr old is right. Not justifiable.
Now me, I don't think that the scientist needs justification to sleep with his lab assistant if she is 17, and wants to sleep with him.
If she didn't want to sleep with him, I would say that even if doing so would find him the cure for cancer, he still wouldn't be justified. Not because of her age, but because of her lack of consent.
Of course, we get back to the criteria. What criteria are there for making it an issue of consent?
In other words, I do believe that a 12-yr old shouldn't be able to consent to sex. But I believe a 16/17-yr old should be able to. Or at least should be able to decide if they're able to.
So we must still have some sort of line. The line as it exists is arbitrary, but would any line be less so? Probably not.
Anyway, I don't see you proposing leniency for child abusers. I see you as seeking a more effective definition of what exactly is child abuse.
In effect, questioning like I do whether or not consensual sex with a 17-yr old actually constitues child abuse, when non-consensual sex constitutes rape anyway.
(Pro-Choice...what of it?
(And I'll give you even money that ElfGirl, who is stongly opposed to even any perceived leniency, is also pro-choice. Elfy?) )--A
-
Holsety
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 3435
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
- Location: Principality of Sealand
- Been thanked: 1 time
Sorry for long post, but I took the liberty of actually reading the entire post (and also the liberty of removing a few of my responses, since the issues were addressed). It's also my first in the infamous tank, so if it's poor, all I can say is forgive me as best you can. I guess that means beat me with your words instead of with your fists.
First off, a number of people have said things like "Kill child abusers" "they don't stop" etc. My mom, through her work (legal/judicial system) met a guy who had abused his daughter decades ago, and spent the rest of his life trying to repent (the actual issue was whether he could stay in the country since he wasn't a citizen...immigration is a catch-all, I'm tellin' you now). She had a kid and actually offered to try to mend relations, give the kid a grandfather, etc, and he refused. I don't know if he had a mental need to abuse children that he was constantly fighting or what, but he sure wasn't indulging in it. I'm not sure if he had any happiness in his life, but he was living it, and I'd say he deserved to keep it as well. People can always change, and while there are times when you can't give them a chance to, that doesn't mean you should deny every person an ability to change. It's true, sadly, that it's impossible to be accurate on stuff if you go on a case-by-case basis, and the easier thing for people who don't want to change things is to just punish everyone with maximum harshness and get revenge. The whole revenge thing is pointless - punishment should be doled out because it does something constructive. I don't think there's such a thing as atonement. Your crime is with you until you're no longer the person who'd commit it again, and then you're absolved. But if someone's at a point where it is extremely reasonable to say they will not commit a crime again, it is useless to kill them for it.
EDIT-To steal an example, I'd be all for locking covenant up and whatever if I was a stonedownor, but I wouldn't support punishing him for it after tPtP. Not because he made up for his faults, but because he changed. Wasn't the same person as the rapist. Why the fuck punish him?
Well, I guess that if someone was like "I'LL KILL BOTH OF YOU UNLESS YOU HAVE SEX WITH HER NOW" I'd forgive the rapist, but I really don't think such a thing will ever occur.
I think PannionDude is obviously wrong in some categories, for instance that kids should be able to "opt out" of being kids. That being said, I think the USA's definition of a 16 year old as a minor is shitting on their right to sexual freedoms. I think that, extreme circumstances (serious mental disorders and such) aside, every 16 year old is capable of giving consent when concious if they choose to. AFAIK the justification for making arbitrary age rules is that us adolescents don't understand the "full gravity" of a sexual relationship or some bullshit like that, as though all adults do. I won't go into details, but I am sure I am more responsible than a relative of mine, who's hasn't had any success to speak of in her 30something year lifetime. Yet she's allowed to go and have sex with whoeverwhichperson she pleases; IMO I deserve more rights than she does. As for 12 or 13 year olds, I think there are some that are able, but some that truly aren't mature enough to even understand what a sex is, and truly can't give consent, and that an ultimate consent law is justified to protect those that can't.
First off, a number of people have said things like "Kill child abusers" "they don't stop" etc. My mom, through her work (legal/judicial system) met a guy who had abused his daughter decades ago, and spent the rest of his life trying to repent (the actual issue was whether he could stay in the country since he wasn't a citizen...immigration is a catch-all, I'm tellin' you now). She had a kid and actually offered to try to mend relations, give the kid a grandfather, etc, and he refused. I don't know if he had a mental need to abuse children that he was constantly fighting or what, but he sure wasn't indulging in it. I'm not sure if he had any happiness in his life, but he was living it, and I'd say he deserved to keep it as well. People can always change, and while there are times when you can't give them a chance to, that doesn't mean you should deny every person an ability to change. It's true, sadly, that it's impossible to be accurate on stuff if you go on a case-by-case basis, and the easier thing for people who don't want to change things is to just punish everyone with maximum harshness and get revenge. The whole revenge thing is pointless - punishment should be doled out because it does something constructive. I don't think there's such a thing as atonement. Your crime is with you until you're no longer the person who'd commit it again, and then you're absolved. But if someone's at a point where it is extremely reasonable to say they will not commit a crime again, it is useless to kill them for it.
EDIT-To steal an example, I'd be all for locking covenant up and whatever if I was a stonedownor, but I wouldn't support punishing him for it after tPtP. Not because he made up for his faults, but because he changed. Wasn't the same person as the rapist. Why the fuck punish him?
I must admit, that although I'm not too gung ho about life sentences and such for all, that's complete bullshit. I would be perfectly fine with execution there.i am for locking up all rapists for life. we just had one walk off from parole on his fifth conviction! most any other crime three time gets you a hibitual offender tag.
Are you claiming Han china was government good for the people? *dies laughing* There's never been a true confucian government, though, just confucian-legalism. I agree confucianism itself is alright, but if you're interested in discussing the virtue of confucian governments (only thing I can think of is Han china) I'll be happy to discuss with you somewhere else.Why do you say that? I've read his sayings, and if there were a government based on his philosophy, it would indeed be the finest the world has ever seen. There's a reason that the Confucian governments were so successful, you know, and there's a reason Confucianism has been so influential.
Like I said, I can personally say it's not 100%. If the people who research this are thinking it's kinda near 100 and they're not sure, maybe they're credible, but if they're actually saying it's certain I'd have to think it's bias, and if they're creating a biased study I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot stick. Not like there haven't been such things before.Then you know nothing. I'm all for rehabilitation in cases where it's possible. There is substantial evidence to support the fact that there is a 100% recidivism rate when it comes to child molesters, not to mention that there's no "justifyable kiddie buggering".
What?! Ok, first off, it's not about consent or not, Covenant straight out raped her, and her age shouldn't even come into things. Do sexual predators get killed right away or not? That's the decision to make. That being said, if they had had some hunky-dory romanced-up love scene, and Lena's 17, I fail to see why covanant should die if the "consent age" arbitrarily determined is 18 and live if it's 17. What the hell kinda justification is that? This is one of the problems with age of consent for me, as a teen. I hate to take things personally, but I'd be really pissed off at you if you tried to kill a 21 year old woman for having sex with me. Or if me and my girlfriend, who's little more than a year older, met 2 years earlier, when I was practically the same as I am now but under the age of consent (16 and relationships are legal with people near age, 18 and you're in the clear fully - I'm 17 now). Case by case damnit, I'm not so much of a kid that I need to be shielded from "mature shtuff". Personally I find the rape of a 20 year old worse than a 15 and 18 year old having sex, but by some rules stated in the form the 18 year old would be dead now. Unjustified murder in my mind folks.In a word, yes. If she was below the Stonedown's age of consent, there's no question about it.
I think it's because of one thing. You can almost always claim that murder was a "rush of rage" or "accident, I just wanted to STOP him" or something like that. But rape isn't something someone does by mistake, like "OH WHOOPSIE LOOK I TORE YOUR PANTS OFF!" Maybe it's 'in the heat of a moment' but even then it's not something which can be provoked, or forced. Therefore it's never excuseable in and of itself when someone rapes someone else.EDIT: Bringing it back home, I do wonder if this disparity is as pronounced when it comes to child-molestation cases. Our visceral reaction to such crimes is so strong that even a Middle-Class Guy isn't likely to fare much better at trial than anybody else.
Well, I guess that if someone was like "I'LL KILL BOTH OF YOU UNLESS YOU HAVE SEX WITH HER NOW" I'd forgive the rapist, but I really don't think such a thing will ever occur.
I have a champion of my rights as a 17 year old. I give you thanks.Incidentally, I think 18 is high for an age of consent. I'm not bothered about older teenagers having consensual sex as long as they are sensible about it and use protection.
So then, because there's a chance of further crime that's actually a BAD THING being legalized (say, making the age of consent 12), we should obviously punish "crime" that isn't actually a bad thing to keep the boundaries from blurring. Very fair. As a society we have a responsibility to make the line fit where it needs to and not have some "safety boundary". Unless you can explain why 17 or 16 year olds are psychologically unable to give consent, I'm confused as to how you can justify making those ages under the age of consent, morally.i am stunned Av. if 17 was the age of consent then people would be pushing for the age of 16. where would it end?
If we took the organs of every child molestor who we executed, I'd be in favor of the DP for them in most cases.Strikes me it has a far more negative impact on the person being tortured to death! But have to agree with Cail on this one..........bullet to the head sounds fine, harvest the organs.
I think PannionDude is obviously wrong in some categories, for instance that kids should be able to "opt out" of being kids. That being said, I think the USA's definition of a 16 year old as a minor is shitting on their right to sexual freedoms. I think that, extreme circumstances (serious mental disorders and such) aside, every 16 year old is capable of giving consent when concious if they choose to. AFAIK the justification for making arbitrary age rules is that us adolescents don't understand the "full gravity" of a sexual relationship or some bullshit like that, as though all adults do. I won't go into details, but I am sure I am more responsible than a relative of mine, who's hasn't had any success to speak of in her 30something year lifetime. Yet she's allowed to go and have sex with whoeverwhichperson she pleases; IMO I deserve more rights than she does. As for 12 or 13 year olds, I think there are some that are able, but some that truly aren't mature enough to even understand what a sex is, and truly can't give consent, and that an ultimate consent law is justified to protect those that can't.
Last edited by Holsety on Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
PannionDude
- Servant of the Land
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:00 pm
Cail:
1. Yay!
2. I'm left-handed (not really, but that is a good example of a trait I'm powerless to change). I'd be incensed if the law treated me differently because of this. I'd refer to it as discriminatory. On the other hand I'm a voter, this is something I can control. I would be alright with the law treating me differently because that is the case. The number of days I've been alive falls into the first category. Thus, to my way of thinking I shouldn't be discriminated against because of my age. My driver's license should be removed when I demonstrate (and I wouldn't be averse to undergoing annual tests) my inability to drive, not when my age passes a static #.
3. Please don't misunderstand me on the scientist case, it is precisely as disgusting as the one before it (police officer killing to protect innocent life). Either you believe that the ends justify evil means, or you do not. Killing, raping, stealing, defrauding are evil means. A hypothetical can be found that leading them can bring a bout a good end. Whether you would take an evil means to bring about a good end is an important point, but not one specific to the discussion. The third statement that I object to is that a rapist is somehow morally better than a child rapist. A rapist isn't morally better than anyone. He is as bad as a murderer, of children or of adults.
Sgtnull:
I'm sorry that I wrote in such a manner as to offend you. I'm poor at communication. If I understand you correctly, on my three points your stances are as follows. On 1 you have not expressed an opinion, but as it is a generally held belief you probably agree. On 2 you strongly disagree, feeling that society is justified in treating some involuntary roles differently, provided that that distinction is amenable to you. On 3 you believed my hypothetical to be a poor one (admittedly I wanted to avoid the old faithful "terrorists will destroy the world if X is not done" example), and in the general case you afford to child abuse a special standing that makes it more unjustifiable than ordinary abuse.
Avatar:
I'm glad you don't think I propose leniency for child abusers. In reviewing my post I see that I could have made that more clear. Thank you for your clarification about what Cail meant, what do you think "right' means? To be clear, I agree with you that child abuse is not right, but my notion of right is derived from one source (Christian), and I am unaware of whether or not yours agrees. I'm not asking in the specific case at hand, merely what makes you decide in the general case whether or not something is "right".
On my random question: I was curious as to whether or not people's beliefs as to the need to defend the young would map 1-1 to the need to defend the unborn.
1. Yay!
2. I'm left-handed (not really, but that is a good example of a trait I'm powerless to change). I'd be incensed if the law treated me differently because of this. I'd refer to it as discriminatory. On the other hand I'm a voter, this is something I can control. I would be alright with the law treating me differently because that is the case. The number of days I've been alive falls into the first category. Thus, to my way of thinking I shouldn't be discriminated against because of my age. My driver's license should be removed when I demonstrate (and I wouldn't be averse to undergoing annual tests) my inability to drive, not when my age passes a static #.
3. Please don't misunderstand me on the scientist case, it is precisely as disgusting as the one before it (police officer killing to protect innocent life). Either you believe that the ends justify evil means, or you do not. Killing, raping, stealing, defrauding are evil means. A hypothetical can be found that leading them can bring a bout a good end. Whether you would take an evil means to bring about a good end is an important point, but not one specific to the discussion. The third statement that I object to is that a rapist is somehow morally better than a child rapist. A rapist isn't morally better than anyone. He is as bad as a murderer, of children or of adults.
Sgtnull:
I'm sorry that I wrote in such a manner as to offend you. I'm poor at communication. If I understand you correctly, on my three points your stances are as follows. On 1 you have not expressed an opinion, but as it is a generally held belief you probably agree. On 2 you strongly disagree, feeling that society is justified in treating some involuntary roles differently, provided that that distinction is amenable to you. On 3 you believed my hypothetical to be a poor one (admittedly I wanted to avoid the old faithful "terrorists will destroy the world if X is not done" example), and in the general case you afford to child abuse a special standing that makes it more unjustifiable than ordinary abuse.
Avatar:
I'm glad you don't think I propose leniency for child abusers. In reviewing my post I see that I could have made that more clear. Thank you for your clarification about what Cail meant, what do you think "right' means? To be clear, I agree with you that child abuse is not right, but my notion of right is derived from one source (Christian), and I am unaware of whether or not yours agrees. I'm not asking in the specific case at hand, merely what makes you decide in the general case whether or not something is "right".
On my random question: I was curious as to whether or not people's beliefs as to the need to defend the young would map 1-1 to the need to defend the unborn.
-
Holsety
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 3435
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
- Location: Principality of Sealand
- Been thanked: 1 time
But, the idea is that whether you have control of your age or not, there are certain things (such as puberty) that, say, 12 year olds might not've experienced (I'm using this because it's the easiest example for me, thoguh I think there are things beyond puberty needed before someone's mature enough to have sex). Until someone has gone through puberty, I personally find it hard to believe they could ever want to go and have sex with someone. Therefore you're not being discriminated against, but protected, because the assumption is that whatever YOU (I'm just using you, but I mean an underage person) think you're not actually ready for sex. That simple. And since it's just a matter of time before you're allowed, the bad things that occur (person who should have sexual freedom doesn't, TEMPORARILY) are prefferable to the worse things that would be possible without laws in place - kids who really aren't ready having sex, which is potentially extremely damaging, whether they think they wish for it, or not. Personally, I'm ok with being unable to have sex with a 20 year old legally VS no age of no consent, because although I think it's "unfair" so to speak I'm willing to be "subjected" to it so that 13 year olds are completely unprotected. It's just goddamn time anyway.PannionDude wrote:Cail:
2. I'm left-handed (not really, but that is a good example of a trait I'm powerless to change). I'd be incensed if the law treated me differently because of this. I'd refer to it as discriminatory. On the other hand I'm a voter, this is something I can control. I would be alright with the law treating me differently because that is the case. The number of days I've been alive falls into the first category. Thus, to my way of thinking I shouldn't be discriminated against because of my age. My driver's license should be removed when I demonstrate (and I wouldn't be averse to undergoing annual tests) my inability to drive, not when my age passes a static #.
......
On my random question: I was curious as to whether or not people's beliefs as to the need to defend the young would map 1-1 to the need to defend the unborn.
As for your random question...well, it's funny. From what I've been deciding while posting I feel I'm definitely conflicted somewhat on the issue of what age of consent should be, and I'm also conflicted on abortion. Though ultimately support the right to choose. Surprisingly I'm not at all religious (attitude: god may exist, but I have my own morals), I just feel like 3 month old fetuses become 9 months old and then are born most of the time, so the whole "potential for life" thing doesn't really grab me as bonafide. But at the same time I feel like there are a plethora of reasons why abortions should be allowed.