Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Families shouldn't meddle but they do, they always have and they always will...opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.
Families, society... everyone seems to be so obsessed with preventing young people from having sex.
What was your point in saying "Juliet was 14 while Romeo was considered much older.", are you saying you have an opinion about that?
I already said it. The society meddling into their relationship is what caused the bad outcome of a relationship. Thats the whole point. If their society didnt meddle, the relationship would have a much better outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
not a lot of families then or now would approve of a couple of teenagers getting married after less than 24 hours.
The biggest issue was that families didnt get along, so they didnt want to ever approve of such relationship. I dont really hold a view that family should meddle in who marries who. Otherwise, might as well go back to arranged marriages. Besides, at the time the work was written, 14 was considered adult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
So we shouldn't have equal rights?
No one has equal rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
16 isn't much older than 14.
The actual age of Romeo is never mentioned in the work. The age of Juliet is described as "she just turned 14".
But judging by Romeo's actions, I realized he is probably much older than 14.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Clearly not, since people voted to make age of consent laws specifically for girls.
Well, girls are different.
Courts ruled it had to go both ways.
Yes. They believe that girls and boys are same.
Created:
Posted in:
Most people have heard of William Shakespeare's work "Romeo and Juliet".
However, most people dont know that Juliet was 14 while Romeo was considered much older.
They end up killing themselves because their families dont approve of their love.
Created:
Posted in:
I wonder if it was a 30 year old man with 12 year old girl, would people still defend it like this?
I guess boys and girls are just different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
It is to who, the 12 year old?
No, the 12 year old loved it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thats a more complete version. However, I only learned the beginning of one other version which is played by only one hand at the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So they were interested in porn and the hot teachers and not in each other. Might explain why you turned trans.
Well, the boys were definitely obsessed with sex. Not sure about girls tho, as I didnt talk to girls as much. I did hear few dirty comments from girls about grown men, but I think girls are a bit different than boys in this sense. Maybe not as obsessed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I was just curious about how does he explain the change in teachings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
technicality of age
In many developed countries, age of consent is 13 to 14.
Italy, France, Germany, even Japan at some point...
Some countries who have lower age of consent have specific laws in place to prevent abuse. Like, adult can have consensual sex with 14 year old, but he isnt allowed to abuse the relationship or exploit some weakness to get consent. They make difference between sex and abuse, a much better system than simply labeling all sex as abuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Like I said I knew 12 year olds that were into their teachers but the law is the law due to age which is the technicality I'm talking about which makes it criminal
When I was 12, all the guys in class were very much watching porn and talking about sex. They did make comments on teachers, but only on the hot ones tho.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If you can get an erection you are ready for sex.
Person at any age can have an erection lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
At a certain point, Chesterton's fence applies. The law indicates that significant problems arose, at least for a large amount of people, to impose age restrictions.
That is circular reasoning. You are saying the law is right merely because it was imposed.
I would weigh even a small risk of psychological trauma as more pressing than sexual pleasure.
The weigh isnt between pleasure and trauma, but between harms of ban and benefits of ban. To make it simple, alcohol is harmful but banning alcohol is harmful as well.
Society worked for thousands of years with age of consent at 12 or lower. Even today, some countries have age of consent at age 12 or lower. Phillipines had age of consent at around 12, yet much lower suicide rates than in USA.
Also, if you care about harm, you also have to care about harm which happens to pedophiles due to ban, which then makes your argument self defeating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
It's nowhere near as strictly enforced on minors.
There were even shows in USA shaming children as young as 12 for having sex or getting pregnant. I already told you that 30% of sex offenders on the registry are children, so law very much punishes children for having sex. But not just law, but people around them also punish them if they catch them have sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
There's degrees of power imbalance
Society and child contain greater power imbalance than a single individual and child, thus anything society does is wrong by your logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
No, but it's a significant factor.
Thats just an assumption.
Teachers especially have explicit and implicit authority over students.
Which doesnt make the authority unhealthy or sex non-consensual.
And even if the odds of abuse are low, the risk is big enough that it's dangerous.
How big is the risk that you are ruining 3 lives here with your ban?
The law does not require anyone to shame statutory rape victims.
I never said that law requires it. However, society does it anyway.
But an adult can easily shame them into having sex due to the power imbalance.
If an action becomes wrong due to power imbalance, then all actions are wrong as there is always power imbalance. Thus, moral action doesnt exist. You talk of power imbalance, yet you dont see power imbalance of society which convinces children that what happened to them was horrible even if they wanted it, which makes children feel bad because they wanted it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Adults (by majority) decided to make age of consent higher than 12.
Appeal to popularity. If you think majority is always right, that is contradicting too, because majority happens to change its opinion too. Who is to say that in 100 years they wont come to an entirely different conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
As soon as the term "rape" was brought up, we were discussing legal terms.
So you concede to circular reasoning.
If rape is defined as having sex before 18, then saying that having sex before 18 is bad because its rape is circular reasoning.
This topic is about discussing morality. If your position is that law determines morality, then sure, go with that. But then you concede that your morality is determined by government and that your morality is self contradicting.
The law changed around the time we banned child labor and got stricter on child abuse. If we made a law to prevent exploitation, you should at least suspect there was a reason to go to that trouble
So you concede that law was wrong before and had to be changed, but you assume that it cannot be wrong now. However, different countries have different laws, so it is again contradicting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
You don't know what the psychological effects would have been though.
I know what the effects would be. I would be happy that I got laid.
If something is beneficial or not is determined by wishes alone. Thus, if I want something, it is beneficial by tautology. However, your argument was that adults know better so they get to decide, and now you say that even adults dont know and dont get to decide. So, who then, knows? Divine spirits?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Yeah, that's why the law exists. Because kids are very impressionable.
Even now, as an adult, I wish I had sex at an early age. Thus, if your assumption is that adults know better so adults should decide, it disproves your argument as person as adult agrees with his own decision as a child. So if person should decide when adult, then if person as adult decides that childhood experience was good, then by your own logic it was a good decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
It's statutory rape.
This is an appeal to law fallacy. If you think law determines what is true and what is right, then that same law 300 years ago said that 12 year olds can consent. So did 12 year olds become dumber in the past 300 years, or is law self contradicting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Not sex with their teacher.
This sounds like an assumption that your health from sex depends purely on the age of the person you are having sex with. But this is not true. The society which puts pressure on children and indoctrinates them into feeling shame and which tries to convince them that their experience was horrible and that everyone is upset about it is the one which causes harm.
They can sleep with someone their own age.
Law bans that too. 30% of sex offenders on the sex offender's list came on the list as children, some as young as 8.
Besides, "they can sleep with someone their own age" does not explain what should happen when they sleep with someone who is not their own age, thus irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I tried to say that he was very excited when he told me that story. Who wouldn't?
When I was a kid, I wanted sex. I started masturbaring around age 7. If some woman let me fuck her back then, sure I would unless if she was ugly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I'm a guy, I get angrier at men than I do at women for such crimes.
Woah, there is no need to concede to double standards like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Plenty of places are banning it for minors.
Making it easily available to minors defeats the point of a ban. Its like saying you want to ban kids from drinking alcohol while leaving alcohol all around so they can drink whenever they want.
Also sex is a bigger deal than porn. If we're banning pot for minors, banning sex with their teacher seems reasonable.
Sex is much healthier than pot, thus the comparison is invalid. 50% of kids watch porn before age 13, due to being easily available. 30% of kids have sex before age 15. It doesnt cause any great harm as long as they want it and do it in a safe way. However, the actual main problem in your argument is that it defeats its own purpose, apparently that of "benefiting people". The sex which happened clearly produced life, thus it has benefited life. And as for consent, it is you who is not respecting boy's wishes. You didnt ask the boy if he wants for woman to go to prison or not. You didnt ask him now and you wont ask him in 6 years. You didnt ask him if he wants for this story to go public so everyone talks about him and makes a big deal out of his private life. To put it simply, if your argument is that wishes(consent) are supposed to be respected, then you are not really respecting them. If your argument is that person cant consent, then whatever you do to the person violates their consent, whether its school or vaccination. If you claim you are punishing the woman to benefit the boy, then I dont see how is a boy going to benefit from something he never wanted and will never want. For something to be beneficial, it must be wanted at some point. Most young people who have sex with adults dont want and never want for their partners to go to prison, let alone for society to involve so much in their most private life. Putting woman in prison wont benefit the child who is born, wont benefit the woman, and wont benefit the boy. It benefits no one. The very idea that children cant consent is based on flawed premise that lack of some knowledge negates consent. However, no person knows everything. So even adults cant consent. The very idea is absurd. I dont need to know all about smartphone and all its parts in order to want a smartphone. Pedophiles have very high suicide rates because society abuses them. Imagine being 18 and realizing you are attracted to children. You likely wouldnt tell anyone because you would be afraid people will attack you. Thus, you would have to deal with such issue alone without anyone's help or advice. The problem with society is that it doesnt consider pedophiles as humans, which is why society justifies and celebrates all the abuse of them. They celebrate when some pedophile kills himself. They celebrate when pedophiles are raped in prison. They celebrate other person's pain. In hunt for monsters, you should be careful not to become a monster yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Plenty of them want cocaine, alcohol, and hookers. If you support freedom, better let them have all of it.
You dont need to give people all freedom. Its not "all freedom" or "no freedom". In fact, taking away all freedom from children would significantly harm children. One can just be realistic about it. Most 12 year olds watch porn and masturbate. Yet you are not banning porn. You even make it easily available to them. I just dont see whats the point of chasing people who have sex. Like, if it wasnt forced and unwanted, why make such a big deal out of it? Its not like boy's life will become better if you sentence woman to life in prison, and woman's life is obviously going to get much worse in prison. I simply fail to believe that the woman did that much harm that she deserves prison. Again, I dont know what happened in this case, but people dont seem to even care if it was forced or wanted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
If she forced him, I guess its bad. However, I doubt that he was forced. Most 12 year olds are horny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
If it was not true , trans people wouldn't exist.
Thats false. Brain determines what gender a person is. If person had no brain, there would be no person, thus no gender.
You need the mind and the body
That is false. Brain can decide that it wants to change the body. You have it backwards. Its not the body which commands the brain, but brain which commands the body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
A brain is not the sum of what makes a sex
If that was true, trans people wouldnt exist.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How did they get 2 Koreas from one Korea?
Its proof that math is false. Great infinite leader was right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You still have the same brain and tiny dick.
My dick is what made me smart. If I had a big dick, then I would have girlfriend, friends, life, job and self-confidence. Thats clearly not better than being smart and having dick which can only be used for peeing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
There is no gender specific brain.
Sure there is, otherwise trans people wouldnt exist.
Created:
-->
@ranacat
What is some of your advice on how to increase communication with God? I would find it useful if I had more dreams which reveal knowledge to me. Otherwise, I dont learn anything when sleeping, which reduces my progress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Evidence is not what somebody has said or written. It is what is demonstrated, what you can see for yourself
Ah, okay. However, in order to demonstrate a claim, one must define it first. You seem to be defining body parts as "male" and "female", but the most important part - the brain - you failed to define as male or female. Thus, if brain thinks it is female, it is female, as brain is the only thing which represents what person is.
Created:
-->
@ranacat
science and religion are not separate coins, and not even two sides of one coin, but, in my opinion, share the same side of one coin
Yes. They are both used to reach truth. I wished to learn how to play a piano, and God sent knowledge to me in my dream. I have no logical explanation for the dream I had because it wasnt from memory, as the knowledge given to me in a dream was something I didnt know before.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The real hero is Kim Jung Un.
Kim Jong Un, the infinite leader who disproved math.
"1 plus 1 isnt 2. One thing added to other does not result in two things, but one. One drop of water added to other drop of water results in one drop of water. When we add South Korea to North Korea, there will no longer be two Koreas, but one Korea."
Created:
-->
@Shila
He was inspired by your earlier example.
That just proves how leading by example works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I hold the papacy to be a divinely appointed institution by Jesus Christ
To be clear, this is only limited to teaching about faith and morals?
But how does it explain the change in those teachings over time. I mean, the papacy teaches different morals and faith today than it did 1000 years ago. So does the divine authority change over time? I understand that God in the Bible did update his message(hence the New Testament). So does God keep "updating" his message further through papacy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Even the trans person admits he is not a complete natural female
Which doesnt mean she is male.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
You call something proof because you hear somebody say it.
Well, if you dont want me to trust anything you say, I dont see how can you possibly convince me then.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nice profile photo.
I am glad you decided to embrace the true guidance from the great leader.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I am glad you find me fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Are you gay being a cis male engaging in a sexual relationship with a trans female?
Not really. In your debate, you have seen a video which explains that science proves that trans females have female brain. Plus, if they dont have a dick, then it is probably not as weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I watched video about transgenderism. I agree that if people make changes to their body, it means they needed to make those changes to like their body more.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
This is contradictory to the function of a debate.
No. The function of a debate doesnt require for me to prove my position true.
It would be valid for you to argue that the claim "unicorns are real isn't true" is true or that "unicorns aren't real" is true or something of the like
I am not arguing that, so not sure why you mention it.
your claim is that "nothing is true," even truth itself (whatever that means).I've explained how your claim is nonsensical
Thats your mistake. If I say that my position isnt true, then you saying that it isnt true just means you are agreeing with me.
Your claim is contradictory to the function of a debate
This is not true. The debate doesnt require me to prove my position. Thus, no contradiction happens. However, if you say that my claim cannot be debated against, then that is not my loss, but yours.
, and to an extent, language itself.
Only if you assume the laws of language to be true, which my claim disproves. Thus language and debate are irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Did you check out the video of the discussion I had with the two atheists?
I will check it out in few hours.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Hypothetical that isn't reality
"If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky
Created: