existentialist
Tired and unemotional
That's quite a selective reading of the overall posts, and conflates at least 2 discussions in a somewhat loaded way.
Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls
- Thread starter LiamO
- Start date
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
1. Dont think anyone has said that.
2. I dont think anyone said that either.
3. Possibly, I dont think I said that either.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Quite, and the irony his suggestion that the Saville comparison is a straw man when his entire post consists of a dictionary definition straw man argument.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
No.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Though it's always nice to be accurate with facts.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
What do you think of Thora's question?
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what you do not understand so I will spell it out again
1) Adults should not have sex with under aged children
2) There is no justification for adults having sex with under aged children (I do not give a shit how old the adult claims they thought the under aged child looked)
3) People who defend adults or seek to excuse adults who have sex with under aged children disturb me
I have not compared Bowie to anyone including Saville. .. so your question is stupid...
I also said in my first post that I knew nothing about Bowie...I have only expressed my views in general terms and have not accused him of being or doing anything.
Adults who have sex with under aged children are disgusting ... under aged children are not the problem...no matter how old they may look to an adult, no matter how they dress, no matter if they throw themselves at an adult...the adult has no right to have sex with them.
Age of consents in other countries are irrelevant. .. and I find your arguments disingenuous...this issue is not complicated in the slightest.
Adults should never want or have sex with under aged children
If I can get to 49 years old and not have had sex with an under aged child then so can and should EVERYONE.
Hopefully that is clear for you
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
No because the agent of consent in California is 18. So while the relationship Felixthecat had would be perfectly legal here, it would be illegal in the US.
So long as these basic facts seem to keep eluding you there's little point in engaging with you.
So long as these basic facts seem to keep eluding you there's little point in engaging with you.
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
Thank fuck for that
Cid
Proper break this time
No. It did raise a thought in the back of my head (probably because I like Bowie and am looking for excuses); 30 year old me was certainly quite different from 25 year old me, but nothing on the 20-25 gulf. But no, I think you're certainly fully culpable at 25.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
What's your answer to it?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I don't actually think anyone is justifying adults having sex with underage children.
What they are doing is acknowledging that it has happened, but failing to get into a tiz over it, instead preferring to have a reasonably sensible discussion about all the issues that arise about consent, using one's judgement, and the way in which attitudes have changed (somewhat) in 40 years.
I fully appreciate that some people are simply going to be so outraged by the whole thing that the limit of their thought on the matter will be "Bad. Shouldn't happen". That's fine. But for those who might want to explore the subject in a slightly more considered way, it's getting a bit tedious to keep batting the absolutists out of the way, or fend off constant accusations that even having a discussion about it is somehow justifying or excusing the initial behaviours.
We hear you. Your bullet point opinions (not just yours, comrade spurski) are there for all to see. Just because they haven't brought the discussion to a screeching halt following by universal agreement of what you're saying doesn't mean you have to repeat them.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
What about 16 and 112? All legal and above board.
Thora
Differently Ethical
It was a lot of coke.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I think that there is a difference between 13 and 30, and 14 and 25.
Legally, of course, there is no difference: both of the younger ages are above 12, eliminating the question of whether they would be competent to give consent, but below 16 which indicates that sexual activity with either would be illegal (in the UK). Of the higher ages, neither is so close to either of the lower ages to make it likely that a "Romeo & Juliet" defence could be made, and not so far apart from each other to make much in the way of a material difference to how the matter might be seen legally.
But, given that we are (presumably) talking about specifics, rather than hypotheticals, it seems to me to make quite a lot of sense to at least know we're working with the right ages, regardless of what difference (or none) it makes legally.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Quite, if this forum was just "I think X, what you do think" And everyone simply agreed with the premise, it would be a very dull. Infinitely more pleasant mind you, but very very dull.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I don't think you can say there is no moral difference without considering the specific individuals involved, the nature of the relationship, and the effects of it on both parties.
Even if the question of its legality is beyond doubt.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Actually diminished responsibility due to inebriation is a legally recognised concept, and forms the part of many pleas.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
This is total fucking bollocks.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
You're saying you don't believe that diminished responsibility due to intoxication exists legally or are you saying that you think that using it as a mitigating factor as part of a legal defence is bollocks?
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Who are you making excuses for here?You're saying you don't believe that diminished responsibility due to intoxication exists legally or are you saying that you think that using it as a mitigating factor as part of a legal defence is bollocks?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
I'm not. You said that being intoxicated is not an excuse "morally or legally" I merely pointed out that the legal system disagrees with you and that intoxication defence is a recognised legal concept. I'm not "excusing" anyone, I'm saying that you're wrong on this particular point.
This thread is disturbing. It seems that you can excuse someone almost anything if you revere them for something else.
Similar threads
