RE: Pedophilia; I can't accept it.
June 7, 2013 at 4:55 pm
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2013 at 5:15 pm by Gilgamesh.)
(June 7, 2013 at 4:45 pm)max-greece Wrote: So puberty is the signpost you want to use?No, we can't say this is true in 100% of cases. However, if law is concerned, puberty is a much more reasonable signpost to use.
In that case if the 13 year old girl has not yet gone through puberty we can agree that she is not ready for sex - whatever she says?
(June 7, 2013 at 4:45 pm)max-greece Wrote: And its not my argument. As a parent I am responsible legally. Therefore, what I, as the legally responsible parent wants is not irrelevant. It only becomes irrelevant when I am no longer legally responsible. Oh - and it is worth remembering that the adult who is having a relationship with the child is breaking the law in most western countries and so the law is going to be very relevant. If this is something you wanted to pursue doing so without the law changing would be risky. I am sure you know how "kiddy-fiddlers" are treated in prison.But what I'm arguing is completely free of law. Why can't one talk about right vs wrong anymore without someone bringing law into the picture? What the shit does law have to do with right vs wrong on any given subject? It doesn't have anything to do with it.
I'm going to create a hypothetical so it's easier for you to understand. This hypothetical will be closely related to what we're currently talking about so it shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
There's exists a government and this government enforces age of consent laws. The age of consent in this government is 50. Up until the age of 50, the person's parents are legally responsible for them.
Someone notices this is absurd and speaks up: "The parents wants are not relevant in their childs lives up until the age of 50 and here is why _______. This law makes no sense."
This governments version of you: "My wants are relevant because the law says so."
Do you not see why saying that is fucking retarded?