Teacher arrested for statutory rape and sexual misconduct.

[The Heretic]

Don't let the door hit you on your way out

your chosen dictionary definitions of "child" are not highlighted against the adult, so, no dice. The adult is someone else's child, so using your very limited definition, there are two children in the statutory rape case. Obviously you did not think this through.

So, using your logic, perhaps you should move to a country where YOUR definition of child is prevalent, such as Mexico or Peru, or perhaps you can find one of your 14 year old cousins in Italy who will consent to have sex with you, since I doubt you have opinions prohibiting incestual relations either.

Why have you self destructed with this needless personal attack? I have not given a definition of a child myself, nor did I state these were the correct definitions. There's no room for this kind of ad hominems, except to declare a hasty exit from discussion, and coming from an adult I had expected much better restraint. You have failed to address my rebuttals, and instead of continuing the discussion like a rational person, you indulge yourself with irrelevant advice that has no bearing on the issue.

Given that neither you nor Reba know how to debate without resorting to condescension, insults and irrelevant asides, I am sorry to have wasted both our time.

C'est la vie

 

[Toonces]

-_-;;

Why would you want to know if it's okay for an adult to have sex with a teenager, even if it is consensual between them? The answer is so obvious, I'm surprised you don't see it dangling right in front of your nose. : p

 

[Reba]

Given that neither you nor Reba know how to debate without resorting to condescension, insults and irrelevant asides, I am sorry to have wasted both our time.

I would not call it condescension. I would call it repulsion or disgust. No moral person would even attempt to justify the sexual abuse of a minor by an adult.

As for "condescension, insults and irrelevant asides" you do your fair share. You refer to posters as "the puritans on this thread" and use obscene icons to illustrate your point (how mature). I don't mind if you think I am judgmental but it is obvious that you are looking down on me from the back of your high horse when you call me "miss judgmental."

Let's clear this up. What exactly is your motive for defending the sexual exploitation of minors by adults?

 

[Cheri]

There are laws to protect our children, Doesn't matter if that person is 13 yrs old, He is still a child. It is very common for teens at jr. high or high school having a crush on teachers, But Teachers should know the statutory rape laws. Whether a child consents is not the issue. The adult needs to make responsible decisions. Teachers are role models, If teachers have sex with a minor, I wouldn't want that type of teacher teaching my children. I don't think that 13 yrs old know what love means, He is just a child, and doesn't have enough life experience yet.

 

[AL-KHAWARIZMI]

I would not call it condescension. I would call it repulsion or disgust. No moral person would even attempt to justify the sexual abuse of a minor by an adult.

Pardon me, what exactly do you define as a "moral" person? I noticed that Codger and Reba refuse to address any of the valid questions that the Heretic brought up.

1. What defines a 18 years old as mentally prepared for sexual consent that is lacking, say in someone who is 17 years, 11 months, and 28 days old? I noticed that the Heretic was pointing out that the "age" as a defining factor isn't uniform all over the world.

That brings up a subset question from yours truly.

1a. Do you truly believe that the rest of the world, such as Codger pointed out, being Peru and Mexico, are morally inferior to the United States? I must be fair and point out that in the United States, states such as Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina have a consenting age of 14 years old There's countless of 'em with consenting age of 16, but that's getting off the point.

Second question.
What morality barometer do you determine to decide your "disgust" with a certain act? Is there a magical figure that you plucked out of the air? Is there an actual reason behind it? Just because an "institution" said it is so, it must be so? Please clarify that point for me.

As for "condescension, insults and irrelevant asides" you do your fair share. You refer to posters as "the puritans on this thread" and use obscene icons to illustrate your point (how mature).

Esse est percipi, I suppose. From my stance, it wasn't exactly an insult to be called a puritan. They're a tribe that came from England as "English Protestants" that advocated pleasure as a sinful concept. You advocated that the pleasure of two individuals should be denied and "shameful" on moral grounds. That is a basic tenet of a puritan.

If Codger and Reba really wanted to argue with the Heretic. They should've have punched holes in the age difference as the deciding factor, and why a certain age has a certain mental maturity that is lacking in those younger.

Do you realize that young women are physically ready to have baby by the time they are 9-15 years old?

As the Heretic pointed out the age of consent ranges from 14 to 18 years old throughout the world, and in certain Middle East countries, its actually down to single digits.

I'm not trying to point out where Reba and Codger were incorrect, but only to point out that the age factor itself is really a byproduct of the "times", not necessarily "moral value" established from day one.

In fact, the mid 19th century, roughly a century ago, ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable, then by the end of the 20th century, it rose to 15 to 18.


Finally, to point out a little absurdiness in this whole argument.

Warning: Off TOPIC

War:
Age allowed to join the military and die for our country: 18 years
Age allowed to vote: 21

So, by definition, people aren't mentally ready to make decisions about their own country, however they can die for it?

The odd thing is, people have the mental capacity of choosing who to have intercourse with by the time they are 18, yet they cannot be allowed to vote for their own representative, nor smoke.

Back on TOPIC

the Age is simply what it is, a byproduct of its own time, fueled by political reasons instead of morality.

Please recognize it for what it really is.

 

[Codger]

Ummmm... for a person who likes to point at facts... well, 18 year olds got the right to vote in 1971. If I am wrong, we need to nullify all the elections for the past 34 years. And the definition of child was from a law dictionary, not someone's opinion. This is not, by the way, the debate forum. Feel free to post a thread there extoling the virtues of adult/child sex if you wish. Or maybe the moderators will create a pedophelia forum for you. I did not start this thread to debate with any of you. Go back and read the first post.

 

[The Heretic]

I would not call it condescension. I would call it repulsion or disgust. No moral person would even attempt to justify the sexual abuse of a minor by an adult.

No, that would be begging the question. A moral person is not necessarily someone who agrees with your idea of morality. Morality is not a universal concept. It is not uniform across all cultures and all time. Therefore, you have your own particular idea of morality, complete with pre-packed judgments.

As for "condescension, insults and irrelevant asides" you do your fair share. You refer to posters as "the puritans on this thread" and use obscene icons to illustrate your point (how mature).

Ah, that was an accurate description. If the shoe fits... by george, wear it!

If you're referring to this emoticon :sure: that was to signify an expression. If i say "oh my god" that doesn't mean i believe in God. Nor does the "wanker" emoticon necessarily mean "whacking off," literally. It could be metaphorical - like "gimme a break" or "get a load of this." But since you cannot see past your judgments, that emoticon is 'obscene.' OTOH, if it was the buttsex emoticon, then i have nothing further, your honor.

I don't mind if you think I am judgmental but it is obvious that you are looking down on me from the back of your high horse when you call me "miss judgmental." Let's clear this up. What exactly is your motive for defending the sexual exploitation of minors by adults?

For the sake of intellectual gymnastics, coupled with personal experience. I don't believe in the mythical age of consent. I certainly didn't practice it!

Why didn't you bother at refuting my valid and rather salient points?

 

[Reba]

Pardon me, what exactly do you define as a "moral" person? I noticed that Codger and Reba refuse to address any of the valid questions that the Heretic brought up.

A moral person knows the difference between right and wrong behavior, and chooses to do the right behavior, especially as it relates to the well-being of another person.

If Heretic brought up sincere valid questions I might consider answering them. If he just wants to "debate" for the sake of argument, then I am not interested. Sexual abuse is not a game of philosophical debate. If Heretic is only trying to justify the perversions of people who should know better, then I choose to stear clear of that nasty pit.

1a. Do you truly believe that the rest of the world, such as Codger pointed out, being Peru and Mexico, are morally inferior to the United States?

I can't speak for Codger, and I don't know about "the rest of the world". I do know that in some third-world countries it is common practice to sell children for sexual exploitation by men.

I must be fair and point out that in the United States, states such as Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina have a consenting age of 14 years old

That statement is not only not "fair" it is also not true. I live in South Carolina. The age of consent is not 14 years old.

SECTION 16-3-655. Criminal sexual conduct with minors. [SC ST SEC 16-3-655]

(3) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree if the actor engages in sexual battery with a victim who is at least fourteen years of age but who is less than sixteen years of age and the actor is in a position of familial, custodial, or official authority to coerce the victim to submit or is older than the victim.

also:

SECTION 16-3-810. Engaging child for sexual performance; penalty. [SC ST SEC 16-3-810]

(a) It is unlawful for any person to employ, authorize, or induce a child younger than eighteen years of age to engage in a sexual performance. It is unlawful for a parent or legal guardian or custodian of a child younger than eighteen years of age to consent to the participation by the child in a sexual performance.

What morality barometer do you determine to decide your "disgust" with a certain act? Is there a magical figure that you plucked out of the air? Is there an actual reason behind it? Just because an "institution" said it is so, it must be so? Please clarify that point for me.

No, it isn't because an "institution" said so, although I do believe in obeying the law of the land. Even without a law prohibiting child sex, decent people have enough conscience to be repulsed by such a thought. I want to know why you and Heretic need convincing to recognize that civilized adults use self-control over their lusts and keep their hands of the kids. I want to know why a grown up would prefer sex with someone just because that someone is smaller, weaker, less mature, naive, and more dependant, rather than someone who is an equal?

From my stance, it wasn't exactly an insult to be called a puritan. They're a tribe that came from England as "English Protestants" that advocated pleasure as a sinful concept.

No, the Puritans stayed in England and tried to "purify" the Church of England through reforms. It was the Pilgrims who left Europe in search of religious freedom. They did not advocate pleasure as a sinful concept. Pilgrims recognized that God created Man and Woman to enjoy each other, within the proper context of marriage. Same with other pleasures; enjoying good food but refraining from gluttony; enjoying accomplisment but refraining from pride. The Pilgrims of the Mayflower enjoyed life, and praised God for it, same as Christians do today.

If Codger and Reba really wanted to argue with the Heretic. They should've have punched holes in the age difference as the deciding factor, and why a certain age has a certain mental maturity that is lacking in those younger.

Speaking for myself, I don't want to "argue" with Heretic. If I thought he could truly be convinced by debate it might be worthwhile. A person who supports adults using children for sex is not a seeker of truth but rather a seeker of self-pleasure and pride.

Do you realize that young women are physically ready to have baby by the time they are 9-15 years old?

Some are physiologically capable of becoming pregnant at that age. That is not the same as being physically ready to carry a baby to term without miscarriage or complications. What does that have to do with dirty old men abusing children?

As the Heretic pointed out the age of consent ranges from 14 to 18 years old throughout the world, and in certain Middle East countries, its actually down to single digits.

So? Does that make it right? Certain Middle East countries still chop off hands for stealing, too. I don't think that is a good example for our country to follow.

In fact, the mid 19th century, roughly a century ago, ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable, then by the end of the 20th century, it rose to 15 to 18.

Typically acceptable for what? Fornication? Marriage? Not in the United States. I do a lot of genealogical and social history research. A lot of those "child bride" stories are a bunch of hooey.

Warning: Off TOPIC

War:
Age allowed to join the military and die for our country: 18 years
Age allowed to vote: 21

Where have you been? The voting age in the United States has been 18 for over 30 years now.

The odd thing is, people have the mental capacity of choosing who to have intercourse with by the time they are 18, yet they cannot be allowed to vote for their own representative, nor smoke.

Huh? In the USA, people can vote and smoke at age 18. The only odd thing is that you didn't know that.

 

[AL-KHAWARIZMI]

Heh. In one ear, out of the other.

Ummmm... for a person who likes to point at facts... well, 18 year olds got the right to vote in 1971. If I am wrong, we need to nullify all the elections for the past 34 years.

Heh. I know 26th Commandment, Section 1.

I wanted you to point that out, so you contend that it's alright to move down the age limit on voting age, whereas you contend that the age limit for consental sex should be moved up? Purely on what basis? Political? Moral? Are you diluting 'em both so they're essentially the same thing in your eyes? Why not lower it down to 13, or 16? After all, we allow them to drive a 1/2 ton machine on our local highways. They make life and death decisions everyday.

Contradicting yourself, aren't you?

It's a political shiv that signifies absolutely nothing.

Thank you for proving my point

If we were to follow your logic, in about 30 years from now, the legal consenting age would be 21 to 25 years old and the voting age will be down in around 14?

Now, don't I hear a lot of college students protesting (well at least about the sex issue?)

And the definition of child was from a law dictionary, not someone's opinion.

So you're contending that the dictionary itself was formed without anyones approval? That it was magically conjured out of the blue, without anybodys opinion?

Surely not

A legal definition of a child is boy or a girl; traditionally, one who hasn't reached the age of 14.

beyond that, there's not much else. Please clarify how a "child" in the legal sense can be granted the notion that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, to make educated choices, and/or even make everyday choices?

I wonder if that speaks volume in the failure of our school system, but of course that's getting off the topic as well.

This is not, by the way, the debate forum. Feel free to post a thread there extoling the virtues of adult/child sex if you wish. Or maybe the moderators will create a pedophelia forum for you. I did not start this thread to debate with any of you. Go back and read the first post.

*grins*

I guess the heretic was right after all.

You have absolutely no substantial argument nor defense to your statement, therefore the only way you can even muster an attack is to verbally call them names, shout invections, use whatever mud you have nearby.

I wonder, truly wonder, if the reason for your intense refusal to even look at the subject at face value is due to restraining your inner desire to molest your own children, hence anything that resembles that must be met with absolute scorn and must be made felt the way you feel on the inside?

I pity you and your children.

Peace.

 

[The Heretic]

Dissapointing.

If Heretic brought up sincere valid questions I might consider answering them.

Actually, i brought up "sincere valid" rebuttals to your assertions, which you haven't addressed. I'm not bringing up questions, because i like to think i am responsible for my own actions and my own decisions. Plus I am not here for education, but rather discussion which is investigating what makes people believe the way they do. Statutory rape is a good topic to discuss the mores of society. But for some reason you would rather plant yourself on a soapbox and preach.

If he just wants to "debate" for the sake of argument, then I am not interested.

Oddly, that's exactly what you have been doing for the past 2 pages. I think everything is up for discussion, and that all beliefs are amenable to rational discourse. If you don't, then you have no business posting on a discussion board at all.

Sexual abuse is not a game of philosophical debate. If Heretic is only trying to justify the perversions of people who should know better, then I choose to stear clear of that nasty pit.

What do you know, Miss Judgmental strikes again! Sexual abuse is a good topic for philosophical debate, because that shows us where society draws limits on acceptable behavior.

If you think it isn't then you have determined the subject to be out of bounds. I can respect that decision. But that also means you have no way of talking about it, which means appealing to reason when someone asks you why sexual abuse is bad.

My guess? This is your answer: 'cause I said so! :thumbd:

 

[Reba]

Heh. I know 26th Commandment, Section 1.

They are called "Amendments" not Commandments.

I wanted you to point that out

Ha, yeah, suuuuurre you did.

so you contend that it's alright to move down the age limit on voting age, whereas you contend that the age limit for consental sex should be moved up?

I didn't see Codger contend that, and I didn't contend that. Don't make things up.

Contradicting yourself, aren't you?

No. No one said anything about wanting to change the laws.

If we were to follow your logic, in about 30 years from now, the legal consenting age would be 21 to 25 years old and the voting age will be down in around 14?

What are you talking about? No one suggested any of that.

I wonder, truly wonder, if the reason for your intense refusal to even look at the subject at face value is due to restraining your inner desire to molest your own children, hence anything that resembles that must be met with absolute scorn and must be made felt the way you feel on the inside?

"You have absolutely no substantial argument nor defense to your statement, therefore the only way you can even muster an attack is to verbally call them names, shout invections, use whatever mud you have nearby."
Oh, I'm sorry, that was your response.

I pity you and your children.

Trolling for hot buttons are we?

 

[Reba]

I just had a thought. If free sex between teenagers is considered consensual, exactly what makes it nonconsensual when the teen is shacking with an adult?

Because the adult is an authority figure over the teen, actually or by perception of the teen. Examples: teacher to student, parent to child, boss to employee, priest to altar boy, mentor to disciple, coach to athlete, camp leader to camper, singer to groupie.

Also, the adult has more life experience, and is supposed to have more maturity and responsibility than a teen.

 

[Cheri]

Because the adult is an authority figure over the teen, actually or by perception of the teen. Examples: teacher to student, parent to child, boss to employee, priest to altar boy, mentor to disciple, coach to athlete, camp leader to camper, singer to groupie.

Also, the adult has more life experience, and is supposed to have more maturity and responsibility than a teen.

That is what I said in my post about life experiences.