Question on freedom to voice support for criminal actions?

[jonb]

This has become for me an interesting conversation that has set me thinking. There are cultural differences depicted, and also those of age. But also an aspect is touched upon indirectly through this that I have not yet heard in context of relationships, but that I think when exposed might highlight the difference between thinking of the old order of the faith community, and the new thinking of more liberated times.
.
Setting aside issues of child abuse and thinking of teenagers; What interests me is that I instinctively reject the idea of an older person with a young one, true this is partly to do with my age because of the culture I grew up with, but also I find it hard to think of a forty year old having any sort of equitable relationship with a teenager even if that teenager is over the age of consent.
For me an inequitable relationship where one party holds all the power is not a partnership. Theists have no qualms whatsoever about marriages where one party has all the power, in fact it is encouraged to be that way.
I have been incensed for a long time by theists saying this or that is not a proper marriage, because they are gay or some other thing, but I now realise that I don't think what theists think are marriages are what I would define as a marriage the meeting of equals, all a theist marriage is, is no more than a legal document entitling a male to have sexual, and often financial dominance over a female.
Maybe I should run with idea, once we have gay marriage fully in place we people with equitable relationships should start lobbying to exclude old theistic marriages based on inequality as they sully what the meaning of marriage has for us.

[Gilgamesh]

Yep. Flaming. You know you are not advocating quite what he is protesting, yet you are using language that does not concisely display your viewpoint because you enjoy getting a rise out of him. It's not that hard to see. Yes, clearly instances that are not rape at all are too poorly defined, but anyone can see that is not what most people are protesting. Would you say a ten-year-old can ever be mature enough to have consensual sex with a 40 year old man given the parameters of human development as they are now? Probably not. I'm pretty sure it is that sort of sick shit that Germans is protesting, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Nope. Answering only what has been asked - and not bringing in the fallacies and assumptions. Basically, precision; staying strictly on point. I don't care what he - or anyone - is protesting here. All I did is answer questions precisely and honestly.

When I'm looking for a rise is when I acknowledge a bunch of irrelevant 'pleasantries' and respond with "umad?"

[Something completely different]

I think johnb pointed it out perfectly.


You just annoy people and should finaly consider getting a life which consists of more than that.

[Shell B]

Oh, please. You've made those kind of responses throughout. Being concise or even expanding your argument so that it is more clear (remember, introducing more to your argument sometimes helps it) is not introducing fallacies. Introducing fallacies is introducing fallacies. Besides, you have been guilty of the fallacy of vagueness a number of times in this thread. Unless you define an age at which you do find it inappropriate, one must assume that there is no age where it is inappropriate in your mind. Yes, I know, you're arguing about maturity, which is different for every person. However, sexual maturity is defined by biology, and you could certainly set parameters in that direction. Instead, you continue to be vague. Either you know you are being vague and enjoy making Germans incensed or you are using the word fallacy without even knowing you have committed one repeatedly. It hardly matters to me either way. It amuses me when people get pissed at me too. I just think three pages could have been avoided if you said what you thought was disgusting and what wasn't with some level of clarity. Of course, Germans went off his shit about it without realizing you were fucking with him or not caring because of the topic matter.

And this is why we can't have mature discussions.

[Something completely different]

define an age at which it is inapropriate? I already did. I would consider it to be a crime if a for example 40 year old man would have sex with a 14 year old girl.
I would also consider it a crime when a person between the age of 18-20 would have sex with someone below 15, of which I know that it is abuse because I encountered such cases.
Maturety might be different from person to person, a 34 year old may have the humar of a 12 year old. But legaly speaking, there is no difference, a person is mature once that person reaches the age of 18, at that age and if not prohibited by mental illness that person is bound to take responsibility for his or her actions in a court of law.
And the law clearly says, it is illegal to abuse a minor. I cannot believe I am required to give a precise age in this.
It is wrong! It feels wrong, everything about it is wrong, it`s almoust a instinct. I am almoust 22 and the last thing I think of when seeing a 14 year old is having sex with her.
Hell I wouldnt even touch a 17 year old. Why am I required to explain this?! Isnt there someking of basic acceptance that the sexual abuse of a person who is not mature is illegal?
And yes a person under 18 IS NOT MATURE!

mature discusion!? you arent any better than gilgamesh in your way of simply going out to annoy people.

[Gilgamesh]

Ladies, ladies, please. There's enough Gilgamesh to go around.

[Something completely different]

Shell might be annoying, you are just revolting.

[Gilgamesh]

Being concise or even expanding your argument so that it is more clear (remember, introducing more to your argument sometimes helps it) is not introducing fallacies.

This is true.

Besides, you have been guilty of the fallacy of vagueness a number of times in this thread.

The fallacy of Vagueness occurs only when the appearance of soundness in an argument depends upon vagueness in its terms. I've already said that there is no 'magic age.' I deem it appropriate when the individual deems it appropriate for themselves (they want to have sex.)

Shell might be annoying, you are just revolting.

i luv u 5ever! <3

You just annoy people and should finaly consider getting a life which consists of more than that.

You see that guy in my signature? That is god. I'm working my ass off to become a god, myself. I like to annoy heathens along the way.

[Shell B]

Germans, you can be an utter dolt sometimes. I was responding to Gilgamesh, not you. You got all butt hurt and went to personal attacks when I was defending your fucking position. Dumbass.

[Gilgamesh]

Germans, you can be an utter dolt sometimes. I was responding to Gilgamesh, not you. You got all butt hurt and went to personal attacks when I was defending your fucking position. Dumbass.

Don't fucking talk about my Germy-poo that way, you bitch!