should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?

[Timo]

timo, he's said that consistently through the thread

I guess I just took what he said differently.

On the age of consent question, I completely agree with him that it's absurd that the state will consider a child an adult in one circumstance (like a murder trial and especially if said child is male and a person of color) and a child in another (when sex is involved).

And on the question of cultural norms, it's just a fact that our conception of how long childhood lasts is not one that has been shared by most societies throughout our history.

I think that you can accept these things and still believe, as I do, that it's just not okay for a grown man or woman to be messing around with 11 and 12 year-olds.

[pianodwarf]

What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.

But let's not forget that in the last 150 years we have lengthened life-expectancy and also lengthened childhood (and invented teenagers in the process). So the age of maturity has slowly edged upwards.

Right -- and those are largely, though admittedly not entirely, the results of changes in society.

[Timo]

Do you think that the newness of our views on childhood make our age of consent laws unjust or at least less just?  And if so, what do you think the age of consent should be?

[Traveler]

...What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.

Yes and no. In a patriarchal society such as existed "back then," women were considered little more than property. Most of them had little to no say in what they did, or who they were given to. How many of them were happy with the choices that were made for them? I still contend, based largely on the fact that brain development simply isn't yet even nearly complete, that those girls were not prepared for the life they had to live. Many, many women even in my lifetime, did not even know what an orgasm was. Sex was for reproduction and the satisfaction of the male. Very sad, and I wouldn't make ANY assumptions about what was healthy for the girls based on the fact of early marriage in those times.

[pianodwarf]

Do you think that the newness of our views on childhood make our age of consent laws unjust or at least less just?

As far as whether it's just or not, I'm really not sure.  I do think it's pretty strange that it was quite routine, until only within the last century or perhaps two, for a thirteen-year-old girl to be considered not just a sexual being but one whose time had come to marry, whereas today, we tend to think of thirteen-year-old girls as being little more than eight-year-old girls in larger bodies.

[Gracie]

Hell, as recently as the early Twentieth Century, the age of consent throughout the United States was ten.

What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.

Do you find that to be a reasonable argument?   

Females had no rights at that time and weren't even able to vote until 1920.  They were basically left out of the workplace and were expected to stay home, have children, and be submissive to men.  Even if the age of consent WAS ten in the early 20th Century, does it make it acceptable?

[Gnu Ordure]

Joe, I notice that you skipped over my last post to you  (#242). I'd like a reply.

I didn't reply because you focused on the production and distribution, and didn't answer my question about the possession. I asked whether or not you thought those found possessing the materials should be punished equally as those who produced and distributed it.

I ignored that because i don't see why it's important. For the record, I think that production of child pornography is a greater crime. But so what? 

hidden-camera and ex-girlfriend sex tapes

A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when having sex in their homes. Covertly recording private sexual activity and publishing it would be wrong.

Fair enough, but that's production and distribution. No mention of possession, so I didn't respond to it.

You're being obtuse; possession of it should also be wrong, that was implied.

people photographed in public places?.

It would depend on what they were doing. If you saw an attractive young girl on the beach with her parents, would you approach her and start taking photos of her from 10 feet away? Wouldn't that be somewhat impolite, to say the least? And don't you think her father would have cause to be irate?

Ditto.

You didn't answer my question.

And by the way, as a photographer myself, if you ask permission, I've never known anyone to not allow you to photograph their kids.

That's completely different, because you have obtained consent. We are discussing non-consensual situations.

But, none of these situations are comparable with child pornography. Those children have already been abused once; allowing possession by others of the evidence of their abuse can only hurt them further.

But how does it hurt them?

The same way invasion of privacy hurts anyone.

As Traveler said, showing the empathy of which you appear incapable:

And saying something is anonymous in this day and age? Please. Be serious. Nothing is beyond reach. A child in a porno image can be identified now, tomorrow, or next year or decades later. It will always hang over them as a possibility. I would feel humiliated if I knew there were such out there of me.

How can they be identified? Why does it matter even if they are?

Hopefully they can be identified by the police so that their abusers can be brought to justice.

When you sit at home masturbating to Paris Hilton's leaked sex tape, you know who she is, but she doesn't know who you are, that you're watching the tape, or even that you exist.

Don't judge everyone by your own dismal standards; I have never watched Hilton's sex tape because I have no desire to invade her privacy.

Joe, I stand by what I said back in post 174:

A five-year-old child cannot consent to photos of its abuse being published. So publication [edit: and possession, to be clear] of such photos should be prohibited, on grounds of invasion of privacy, at the very least.

And as I said, it is highly unlikely that an adult survivor of sexual abuse would consent to such photos being released into the public domain.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all publications of images of child sexual abuse are non-consensual, and therefore they should be confiscated and removed from the public domain.

Your comparisons with paparazzi photos and so on simply aren't relevant.

[pianodwarf]

Hell, as recently as the early Twentieth Century, the age of consent throughout the United States was ten.

What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.

Do you find that to be a reasonable argument?

It's not any kind of an argument at all.  It's a statement of fact.

Females had no rights at that time and weren't even able to vote until 1920.  They were basically left out of the workplace and were expected to stay home, have children, and be submissive to men.  Even if the age of consent WAS ten in the early 20th Century, does it make it acceptable?

And if you were to bring someone from that age into ours, they would think that we were crazy for allowing women to vote, to work, to lead their own lives, and so forth.  Why?  Because they were products of their society, just as much as we are.

I've often wondered in the past what kind of things there are present in our society today that we take so much for granted that we don't even think about them at all, but which will be regarded with abject horror by our descendants in one or two hundred years.

[Zankuu]

Not sure how normal it is. It occurs, yes. Any zoologists in the house?

If I take the time to find reliable scholarly sources and the findings of which confirm what you would deem normal, what would this mean to you? This is a genuine question.

I disagree, obviously. I believe humans are uniquely different spiritually to animals, regardless of what physicall characteristivs we share.

What is it you exactly disagree with? That we are apes? Does the taxonomy itself bother you?

Genetically our chromosomes are nearly identical with the other great apes; all apes found in the Hominidae family have 24 chromosomes, except humans. We have 23. We have evidence that there was a chromosomal fusion between two chromosomes to create our chromosome #2, hence the seemingly absent ancestral ape chromosome. This is my layman understanding. I'm sure we have a few members here that are neck deep in genetic knowledge and could explain it in greater detail.

And our similarities aren't just genetic, our intertwined history can be seen behaviorally as well. Everything from facial expressions to lying and feelings of guilt and sorrow. We could get so deep with behavioral similarities that it would deserve its own thread.

Here is the argument I’m presenting you. It contains four true premises from the Bible and one premise verified via natural observation (P1-5), to which there is only one logical conclusion (C):

P1 Human beings have souls.
P2 Animals do not have souls.
P3 A soul is corrupt by sin.
P4 Homosexuality is a sin.
P5 Both human beings and animals engage in homosexuality.
_________________________________________________
C Therefore, either homosexuality isn’t a sin, or animals have corrupt souls and are sinning in the same way human beings are.

If you happen to disagree with one of these premises or the conclusion, please explain why.

I agree with the 5 statements, but don't see how you reach that conclusion. [...] The fact that animals engage in certain behaviours which are prohibitted by God for humans does not logically dis-prove the fact that homosexuality is wrong for humans or that animals don't have souls.

You would agree that animals don't sin because animals were not affected by the Fall of Man in Genesis and did not inherit a sinful nature. So they are completely incapable of sinning; there is no desire to sin so every action they take part in can only be considered good, natural and normal. Therefore, homosexuality, something they regularly engage in, is not sinful in and of itself. So with all that in mind, what makes homosexuality sinful for humans? By agreeing to those five premises, you and I have essentially devalued sin to nothing more than God's arbitrary decision to label it as wrong.

We now need to tread lightly here, because we're taking the concept of  corrupt/evil sin from the Fall of Man (via the snake) and labeling sin as nothing more than actions which God arbitrarily doesn't want humans to do; “sin” is no longer an evil thing, it's just a thing God doesn't want one species to partake in. Take some time to really consider it all because this conclusion has serious implications.

Without objective wrong, appeal to emotion is all atheists are doing with their plethora of OT verses detailing moral outrages.

You're partly correct here and it's true, I do want you to feel disgusted when you read about Yahweh ripping open wombs and dashing apart infants. But I'm also asking you to rationally evaluate those verses and ask yourself if a logical and reasonable deity would do such things, or if it's more likely ancient men created a savage war god that supported their behavior. If the latter is the case, then you need to reconsider a lot of things.

[Samothec]

magicmiles,

I understand that I am strange and make people uncomfortable which is why most people here ignore my posts but I wrote to you directly in post #273 of this thread and you could at least aknowledge that and say you don't know what to say in reply.

Yes, the genetic gender versus pysiological gender question contains a hidden trap since Biblegod took Adam's rib to make Eve meaning she is Adam's clone (using the modern term). Thus Eve is genetically male while having a female form.

Reasoning behind that: Since Biblegod could (and did) make at least one person from scratch, Adam (and Lilith if you accept her as the real first woman), he could have made Eve from scratch if he wanted to make her genetically different. Since he didn't that logically means she is an XY clone with female form. Genetically they are Adam and Steve.

Is form all that matters? If so, does that void a marriage if the wife gets a mastecomy or hysterectomy or a husband gets castrated?

Also bring my post back to the topic, any speculation as to why Biblegod didn't say anything about pedophilia, child molestation, and so on? Or did I miss those passages?

[Traveler]

magicmiles,...Also bring my post back to the topic, any speculation as to why Biblegod didn't say anything about pedophilia, child molestation, and so on? Or did I miss those passages?

Doesn't the bible recommend marrying young girls?

[Samothec]

Doesn't the bible recommend marrying young girls?

After I posted I did recall that when instructed as to who to kill during instances of local genocide, it was all men, boys and women but the girls up to 8-years-old or so IIRC were to be saved for eventual breeding. I could be wrong. So biblegod might be pro-(heterosexual)-pedophilia.

[magicmiles]

magicmiles,

I understand that I am strange and make people uncomfortable which is why most people here ignore my posts but I wrote to you directly in post #273 of this thread and you could at least aknowledge that and say you don't know what to say in reply.

Sorry, totally missed it. I can't spend respond in depth now, but will do so in a day or so. Maybe late tonight (Australian time)

Zannuku, will respond further to you also.

[joebbowers]

Waaaaaaait a minute.  So in a perfect world, you think that it should be legal for you, as a grown ass man, to have sex with an 11 year old?

Hmm, I'm wondering if fanciful visions of "a perfect world" have any place in a discussion of maturity. That irony aside, I think that in a perfect world everyone would be granted wisdom and maturity at puberty, and nobody would be sexually attracted to anyone who hadn't reached puberty. There would be no need for age of consent laws.

Edit: By the way, you define me as a "grown ass man", defining me by my physical maturity and not my age. But the girl in the photo you define by her age despite her appearing to be a (nearly) fully grown woman. I just find that interesting.

[joebbowers]

But let's not forget that in the last 150 years we have lengthened life-expectancy and also lengthened childhood (and invented teenagers in the process). So the age of maturity has slowly edged upwards.

This is absolutely true, and isn't really a good thing in my opinion. Too many 20 and even 30-somethings living in their parents' basements playing Dungeons & Dragons with their friends while working part time at McDonalds. I read a study about it, saying that a lot of people simply aren't growing up any more, or at least they never reach the kind of maturity that previous generations did. I read that a few years ago, if I find it I'll link it.

[joebbowers]

Do you think that the newness of our views on childhood make our age of consent laws unjust or at least less just?

This makes me wonder if part of the reason people are maturing later is that we are defining them as children longer. If people knew that at, say, 13 years old they would have to move out, get a job, get married and have kids, perhaps they would mature faster.

On the other hand if you tell them that they can be children, free of financial responsibility, immune to the law[1], safe from military service, with room and board provided until at least their 18th birthday, are we not directly contributing to their delayed maturity?

1.	In perception, but not in reality.

[joebbowers]

Hell, as recently as the early Twentieth Century, the age of consent throughout the United States was ten.

What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.

Do you find that to be a reasonable argument?

It's not any kind of an argument at all.  It's a statement of fact.

Facts are the best kind of argument.

I've often wondered in the past what kind of things there are present in our society today that we take so much for granted that we don't even think about them at all, but which will be regarded with abject horror by our descendants in one or two hundred years.

The internal-combustion engine.
Edit: The cast of Jersey Shore.

[Timo]

Hmm, I'm wondering if fanciful visions of "a perfect world" have any place in a discussion of maturity. That irony aside, I think that in a perfect world everyone would be granted wisdom and maturity at puberty, and nobody would be sexually attracted to anyone who hadn't reached puberty. There would be no need for age of consent laws.

Edit: By the way, you define me as a "grown ass man", defining me by my physical maturity and not my age. But the girl in the photo you define by her age despite her appearing to be a (nearly) fully grown woman. I just find that interesting.

I honestly almost gave my very first smite for this one.  I mean are you always this hyper-literal or is this just how you respond only when you don't want to directly answer a question?

And the thing about "grown ass man."  It's an expression.  Not unlike "In a perfect world."  And if you want to get down to how the expression is typically used, no one would refer to even a fully developed 17 year old as a "grown ass man" even if they're technically done growing.  That's not how the expression works and this should surprise no one.  We use words to convey ideas that go beyond their literal meaning.  But just to be extra clear, let me rephrase my question:

Do you think that it should be legal for you to have sex with an 11 year old?

This makes me wonder if part of the reason people are maturing later is that we are defining them as children longer. If people knew that at, say, 13 years old they would have to move out, get a job, get married and have kids, perhaps they would mature faster.

On the other hand if you tell them that they can be children, free of financial responsibility, immune to the law[1], safe from military service, with room and board provided until at least their 18th birthday, are we not directly contributing to their delayed maturity?

1.	In perception, but not in reality.

I don't think so.  I'm not up on the biology of it, but I was under the impression that females don't finish physically maturing until they're around 18 and males don't finish until they're about 20 or so.  Though that's probably changing if puberty is happening earlier.

But I agree that kids would grow up faster if society had different expectations of them.  But we're moving in the opposite direction there.  Today if a young person comes from a family that puts a premium on education, they'll be expected to go to school and they will most likely remain financially dependent on their parents until they're at least 22.

[joebbowers]

I didn't reply because you focused on the production and distribution, and didn't answer my question about the possession. I asked whether or not you thought those found possessing the materials should be punished equally as those who produced and distributed it.

I ignored that because i don't see why it's important. For the record, I think that production of child pornography is a greater crime. But so what? 

Well if you can ignore my questions I can ignore yours. My argument has been about possession from the beginning. I'm not interested in discussing production.

hidden-camera and ex-girlfriend sex tapes

A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when having sex in their homes. Covertly recording private sexual activity and publishing it would be wrong.

Fair enough, but that's production and distribution. No mention of possession, so I didn't respond to it.

You're being obtuse; possession of it should also be wrong, that was implied.

You may have implied it, but I did not infer it. Perhaps be more clear. And can you define wrong? Should it be illegal to possess such videos?

people photographed in public places?.

It would depend on what they were doing. If you saw an attractive young girl on the beach with her parents, would you approach her and start taking photos of her from 10 feet away? Wouldn't that be somewhat impolite, to say the least? And don't you think her father would have cause to be irate?

Yep the dad might get mad. So what? If he's afraid of the magic machine stealing his daughter's soul perhaps he should keep her locked up at home for her own protection, or dress her from head to toe in black cloth that only reveals her eyes.

Impolite or not, angry dad or not. Should it be illegal to photograph people in a public place without their permission? Should it be illegal to possess photos taken in such a manner? Would you be comfortable throwing people in jail for downloading unflattering paparazzi photos of celebrities' tubby tummies at the beach, taken without their permission?

The same way invasion of privacy hurts anyone.

Can you be more specific? That's a pretty vague answer. I don't understand how my behavior can affect someone who doesn't know I exist, has no idea that I'm doing it, and would never find out. Please explain it to me.

When you sit at home masturbating to Paris Hilton's leaked sex tape, you know who she is, but she doesn't know who you are, that you're watching the tape, or even that you exist.

Don't judge everyone by your own dismal standards; I have never watched Hilton's sex tape because I have no desire to invade her privacy.

It was an example and you didn't explain how that would harm her.

Joe, I stand by what I said back in post 174:

It is reasonable to assume that all publications of images of child sexual abuse are non-consensual, and therefore they should be confiscated and removed from the public domain.

Your comparisons with paparazzi photos and so on simply aren't relevant.

I'm just curious why you think one kind of non-consensual image should be banned, but other kinds are ok. I was wondering where you think the line should be.

And yet again, I'm not sure you've addressed my main point. What if it's proven that legalizing possession would lead to fewer cases of real world abuse? Would you still be against it?

[joebbowers]

Do you think that it should be legal for you to have sex with an 11 year old?

You'll forgive me for not giving you a simple yes or no, as that's a difficult question. I don't think all 11 year olds are created equally. I certainly don't think most of them are anything like her.

If you really want to force an answer out of me, I would say that if and only if, you could determine with 100% certainty that it was completely consensual, and that she understood what she was doing and both the short and long term ramifications of her actions, I think it should be legal. If there is no coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, malice, or abuse, how can it be called rape?

Clearly in this case she is physically ready, the problem is determining her mental fitness. Is an 11 year old capable of that kind of understanding? Perhaps some are, but certainly most aren't. How could you determine which ones are? I don't know. Some specially designed psychological tests, I would imagine. Of course, that's awkward foreplay and it's not reasonable to set age of consent laws on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not up on the biology of it, but I was under the impression that females don't finish physically maturing until they're around 18 and males don't finish until they're about 20 or so.  Though that's probably changing if puberty is happening earlier.

How do you define mature? How do you know when the process is complete? Our bodies continue to change through adulthood and old age. A lot of women like a man with 'salt-and-pepper' hair, which they describe as 'mature'. Does that mean we should not consider a boy a man until his mid-40s?

Physical maturity and mental maturity are seperate subjects. Send boys to war and they come home men whether or not their balls have dropped.

[Timo]

Peace joe

I appreciate your response.  That cleared things up for me.  With respect to the question of when someone is "mature," my answer here is going to be lacking because honestly I don't know much about biology.  I was but a liberal arts major in school.  I guess I could say that grey hair, like wrinkles and whatever else comes with aging is something that reflects a deterioration of the body rather than maturation or something like that.  In other words, it's not as if we're arbitrarily setting some line and saying that when you reach this point, you are mature.  Rather there is a point at which you stop developing and it's just downhill from there.  A point that you and me, being on the older side of the demographic of "young men" have already crossed.  Sadly.

[joebbowers]

Aah but the great thing about being a man is that women don't judge you on your receding hairline or your protruding belly, but by your bulging wallet.

[Timo]

Indeed.  Peace to male privilege.

[Gnu Ordure]

Well if you can ignore my questions I can ignore yours. My argument has been about possession from the beginning. I'm not interested in discussing production.

I'm discussing possession too. You're being obtuse and evasive.

In fact Joe, what you're doing in this thread is what paedophiles typically do - you're rationalizing child sexual abuse.

Paedophiles try to justify their behaviour by claiming that:

1. the sexual activity had educational value for the child.
2. the child derived 'sexual pleasure' from the activity.
3. the child was abnormally mature and therefore capable of consent.
4. the child initiated the activity.
5. the activity caused no harm.
6. their paedophile feelings are normal - other adults are simply being dishonest.

And you've been arguing most of those points, haven't you?

What else? You yourself have come to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security for posession of dubious material. One of your best friends is a paedophile. You admit that the only thing that has stopped you from acting on your desires is the Law, which you would like to be changed. And you defend the possession of child pornography.

You're a dangerous man, Joe.

I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with you for a minute.

[Traveler]

...Physical maturity and mental maturity are seperate subjects. Send boys to war and they come home men whether or not their balls have dropped.

Send boys to war and they come back traumatized men. Have "sex" with an eleven year old and she comes back a traumatized woman. Your definitions are wearing thin.

[Traveler]

Let me spell this out further. An 11 year old girl is in FIFTH grade. Guess what, Joe? Many fifth graders are still playing with Barbie dolls. Their biggest concerns are homework and what movie to see on the weekend. Anyone ... ANYONE, who would take that time away from them and force them into premature adulthood is a selfish, conceited person, only concerned with their own gratificaction.

[Timo]

In fairness, joe wrote:

Is an 11 year old capable of that kind of understanding? Perhaps some are, but certainly most aren't.

In other words, he's not trying to pick up on the type of girl you're describing.  Where I would disagree, and I'd reckon that you would disagree is that I doubt that any 11 year olds would have that kind of capacity.

[Mr. Blackwell]

In other words, he's not trying to pick up on the type of girl you're describing.  Where I would disagree, and I'd reckon that you would disagree is that I doubt that any 11 year olds would have that kind of capacity.

An 11 year old wouldn't be able to demonstrate that sort of capacity unless that 11 year old has already been introduced to sexual activity from either a relative or close friend of the family.

Edit to add:

If they are old enough to bleed they are old enough to breed eh joe?

[Timo]

Nah, not really.  There are 11 year olds that have experimented sexually with other kids.  There are even those that have had sex by that age.  I went to school with a girl that got pregnant in the 5th grade.  The father wasn't a relative or a family member.  It was another kid from down the way...who was in the 7th or 8th grade as I recall.  It happens.