If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   On today's Governing With Insane People: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is debating what a hate crime is, when the wheels fall off and he starts talking about bestiality, sex with corpses and of course voting for a black man. Let's watch   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 277
    More: Weird  
•       •       •

3907 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Oct 2009 at 1:17 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



277 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-10-08 01:50:17 PM
Theaetetus: Because certain groups are targeted more often. Thus, a stronger deterrent with regard to those groups is arguably justified.

I don't think they are. I don't think there are more violent crimes committed because of bigotry than money, drugs, or domestic problems.

Even if there were, why is there no need for more deterrent for crimes that aren't motivated by bigotry? Are non bigotry related crimes somehow less significant? I don't think the victims would think so.

It could just be that I feel that way because I'm not a minority or gay. I don't think my life is worth less because of it.
 
2009-10-08 01:50:23 PM
Barbigazi: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: No, that's a crime. Once again we'll go real slowly for you: Children cannot consent. Two adults can.

Children can consent. The idea that children cannot consent is a legal fiction.

And "consent" is not a part of the definition of orientation. A sexual orientation toward children exists whether or not the child consents.

I don't know what your lawyer told you, but you might want to get another one before the FBI looks on your computer.


That's REALLY low and loathesome. If you can't respond meaningful without casually insinuating your opponent is guilty of a crime you need to either go back to the kid's table or join a cult.
 
2009-10-08 01:50:46 PM
Theaetetus: Poopspasm: This is nothing new, it's just that most of the people who rail against hate crimes wish they were allowed to have regular lynchings.

Aside: the argument against jury nullification, which we on Fark all know and love, is that its primary use was all-white juries refusing to convict lynch mobs, even when the lynchers readily confessed.


That seems silly, especially when you consider that a lot of these times these people also had sympathetic prosecutors and the like. Does that mean prosecutors are a bad idea?
 
2009-10-08 01:51:07 PM
SkinnyHead: Barbigazi: Your assertion that you can legal f*ck children because they can consent is off topic, and sick and wrong.

That's not what I said. If you favor giving legal protection based on "sexual orientation," then you're the one who wants to give legal protection to those who have a sexual orientation toward children (i.e., pedophiles.)

tnpir: Children "consenting"? A "sexual orientation towards children"? Even your trolling is total bullshiat. And your comment on children consenting being a "legal fiction" is wrong on so many levels.

If it was wrong, you would be able to state your reasons why you think it is wrong, rather than just make noises.


Sex, legally defined:
The act of copulation, entered into (giggity) with full consent of every member present (which includes witnesses, cameramen, stunt dick, etc).

Consent, legally defined:
Full, active disclosure of assent to the proceedings. In order for this to be valid, the person must be of age (defined as "age of consent" by the state) and of sound mind.

Any other definition, I'd be glad to hear it. By the one above, necro, paedo, and beastiality are right out.

Can I get GED certified, too? I appear to have more of a working knowledge of law than you.
 
2009-10-08 01:52:11 PM
Cyberluddite: I like this quote from his little monologue:

"I've heard some people say that if you question our President because he happens to be black, then, gee you must be a racist."

Umm, let me see if I can explain this to you slowly, you farking retard. If you question "our President," or any other person, just "because he happens to be black," then yes, by the very definition of the term it does in fact mean you're a racist, in that you're being critical of him just because he happens to be black. If you question him because you disagree with him for any reason other than that he happens to be black--e.g., because you disagree with his views on their merits--then it does not mean that you're a racist. Got it?

I guess you've tipped your hand about one reason why you apparently disagree with him, though.


THIS, A THOUSAND TIME THIS.
 
2009-10-08 01:52:26 PM
iaazathot: Pocket Ninja: what_now: Full grown adults can consent to do things that you may not approve of, participate in, or even want to watch on youtube, but should not be illegal!!

So, by your rules, two full grown adults can CONSENT to HAVE SEX with a FOUR YEAR OLD BOY and his DOG. And it's all OK because they CONSENT! See, it's that kind of liberal LOOPHOLE that we need people like Gohmert to DEFEND us AGAINST.

What would be even cooler is if you could get all the capitalized words to say something else. That would take you to the next level, I think.


I always try to do that as a reflex. I also always read the first letters of proper noun constructions to see if they make a good acronym. They rarely do.
 
2009-10-08 01:53:06 PM
Captain Darling: I'm not a fan of nullification for the most part but this is a weak argument against it.

Felgraf: That seems silly, especially when you consider that a lot of these times these people also had sympathetic prosecutors and the like. Does that mean prosecutors are a bad idea?

I bring it up merely to point out that jury nullification isn't just an obvious win, but that there actually are rational arguments on both sides.

/threadjack over
 
2009-10-08 01:54:28 PM
sweetmelissa31: His penis is out and hiding under that sign. I just have a feeling about this.

FTFA: "There are all kinds of perversions, what most of us would call perversions, some would say it sounds like fun..."

Anyone promoting indecency with a child is perverted ...

Hot looking,Intelligent, Hot looking, articulate, (did I mention Hot looking?) Jewish/Atheist PHD candidates who post in Fark about her "feeling" a penis.... sounds like fun.
 
2009-10-08 01:54:39 PM
paygun: Even if there were, why is there no need for more deterrent for crimes that aren't motivated by bigotry? Are non bigotry related crimes somehow less significant? I don't think the victims would think so.

It could just be that I feel that way because I'm not a minority or gay. I don't think my life is worth less because of it.


Higher punishment doesn't mean your life is worth less. Consider, we put murderers away for longer than manslaughter-ers, even though the same person is dead. The rationale relates not to the victim, but to the offender and their motives.
 
2009-10-08 01:55:17 PM
Theaetetus: paygun: Why not just make it 60 years for all murders?
Because certain groups are targeted more often. Thus, a stronger deterrent with regard to those groups is arguably justified.


The problem is that the groups that are targeted most often aren't the ones protected by these laws. Liquor store clerks, for example. I haven't seen any studies, but I'm guessing that, statistically, liquor store clerks as a group have a much higher chance of being shot to death than gay people as a group do.
 
2009-10-08 01:56:16 PM
I think anyone who watched the Corrine Brown "Gators" speech (youtube it for hilarity), had any illusions of Congressional competence quickly dispelled.

If they're from a gerrymandered district (i.e. no competition), whether it was done to favor R's, D's, or minorites, chances are the Representative's a complete idiot.
 
2009-10-08 01:56:52 PM
OK - for all the "anti hate crime" people out there...

Would it be OK if we simply charged for the crime IN ADDITION TO "incitement to terrorize" as an additional crime?

Get convicted of the former, get a sentence. Get convicted of the latter, get an additional (non-concurrent) sentence.
 
2009-10-08 01:57:43 PM
SkinnyHead: Theaetetus: And heeeere's SkinnyHead, defending NAMBLA.

You're the one defending NAMBLA. You want to extend legal protection to those who have a sexual orientation toward children.


Dude, seriously stop it.

Child molestation is one of those things that is not meant to be poked fun at, not because it is sacred but because of the sheer magnitude of the harm it causes the victims. Your little trolling schpeel is insulting to people who have suffered through that trauma. You want to troll in Palin, birther, deather, O'reilly, Olberman, or other threads like those... go nuts; but keep in mind the fact that what you are doing is parody, and the degree you are taking it to right now is beyond that... its rude and denigrating. You are not proving a point, you are just being a sick fark.

I am not going to make any pronunciations or judgments against you, but I am going to invite you to imagine how you would feel if it was you, your wife, or your child who was the past victim of one of these crimes. Just drop your routine and pretend with me... now imagine someone hops into a thread, and for no reason other than their own cheap laughs, mocks that.

Yeah, I know this is if Fark, and I know I am whining, but damn it man, you are acting in such a manner that is simply unacceptable to most folks; myself included. While you might be thinking yourself making a point in your desire to be obtuse and prove how small minded certain perspectives are, but in doing so, and doing so obviously, you make "the other side" that you seem to secretly be supporting look terrible by using these tactics. Maybe you just do not care, and love to kick up shiat, and at if that is the case, have the damned decency to do it in a topic that isn't filled with real suffering or pain for a lot of people. Mock the speaker, not the crime; mock the comment and not the victims.

Yes, by even joking around that the kid can consent, you mock them. Why? The biggest thing for most victims of molestation is the confusion of consent; they end up feeling like they deserved it, and invited it. Study up on things like "Stockholm Syndrome" if you do not think I speak the truth. Of course I cannot stop you from doing what you will do, but I can ask you to have the basic human dignity to respect certain boundaries in your desire to play this role.

Would Sasha Baron Cohen or Andy Kaufman actively mock such people? This seems to be the sort of performance art you are desiring to use, so follow in the footsteps and guidelines of your predecessors, instead of coming off like Fred Phelps. That is whom you most remind me of, and perhaps that is your aim. If it is, you have succeed masterfully, I bow to your trolling skills. You have finished, you have completed your magnum opus, and it is time to move on to another character. Please do have the common sense to realize this.

Whatever your motivation, just stop. Please. I am asking you one human being to another; knock it off in certain topics.
 
2009-10-08 01:58:32 PM
Theaetetus: paygun: Even if there were, why is there no need for more deterrent for crimes that aren't motivated by bigotry? Are non bigotry related crimes somehow less significant? I don't think the victims would think so.

It could just be that I feel that way because I'm not a minority or gay. I don't think my life is worth less because of it.

Higher punishment doesn't mean your life is worth less. Consider, we put murderers away for longer than manslaughter-ers, even though the same person is dead. The rationale relates not to the victim, but to the offender and their motives.


Exactly. The life of someone who was killed in a premeditated fashion clearly isn't 'worth more' than someone who died due to, say, gross negligence on someone's part, but that doesn't mean that the legal processes designed to deal with them should be identical.
 
2009-10-08 01:58:35 PM
Cyberluddite: How about you start with the farking dictionary, troll-boy, rather than moving the goalposts and pulling a new definition of the term out of your ass and asking others to say why it's wrong?

Put down your Websters, go to Google books or Google scholar, and Google "sexual orientation toward children" and you'll find out that professionals use the term "sexual orientation" to describe a fixated sex offender with a primary sexual orientation toward children.
 
2009-10-08 01:58:50 PM
gshepnyc: That's REALLY low and loathesome. If you can't respond meaningful without casually insinuating your opponent is guilty of a crime you need to either go back to the kid's table or join a cult.

No, it was completely appropriate under the circumstances. The proper way to deal with a human gruntstain like SkinnyHead is not to respond meaningfully, but to savage him with every hyperbolic rhetorical weapon in your arsenal. No insult is too low, because he's already lower than you could possibly aim.

Or, perhaps, you could simply pretend he doesn't exist. Whichever you prefer.
 
2009-10-08 01:59:17 PM
Theaetetus: Higher punishment doesn't mean your life is worth less. Consider, we put murderers away for longer than manslaughter-ers, even though the same person is dead. The rationale relates not to the victim, but to the offender and their motives.

I see what you mean, but I'm not talking about the difference between manslaughter and murder. I'm talking about the difference between hate crime murder and murder.

Anyway, I think we'll end up at the same place no matter what. Eventually all violent crimes will be hate crimes so what does it matter.
 
2009-10-08 01:59:46 PM
gshepnyc: Barbigazi: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: No, that's a crime. Once again we'll go real slowly for you: Children cannot consent. Two adults can.

Children can consent. The idea that children cannot consent is a legal fiction.

And "consent" is not a part of the definition of orientation. A sexual orientation toward children exists whether or not the child consents.

I don't know what your lawyer told you, but you might want to get another one before the FBI looks on your computer.

That's REALLY low and loathesome. If you can't respond meaningful without casually insinuating your opponent is guilty of a crime you need to either go back to the kid's table or join a cult.


He says its legal to sex children and you take issue with my response? Way to go buddy, way to go.
 
2009-10-08 02:00:00 PM
I think "hate crime" laws come from the same instinct as mandatory minimum and three strikes laws - we don't trust judges to impose just sentences.
 
2009-10-08 02:00:51 PM
Cyberluddite: The problem is that the groups that are targeted most often aren't the ones protected by these laws. Liquor store clerks, for example. I haven't seen any studies, but I'm guessing that, statistically, liquor store clerks as a group have a much higher chance of being shot to death than gay people as a group do.

Yeah that's a much better example. The difference is, pandering to liquor store clerks isn't going to amount to anything come election time.
 
2009-10-08 02:02:46 PM
ursomniac: OK - for all the "anti hate crime" people out there...

Would it be OK if we simply charged for the crime IN ADDITION TO "incitement to terrorize" as an additional crime?

Get convicted of the former, get a sentence. Get convicted of the latter, get an additional (non-concurrent) sentence.


This actually raises an interesting question, which (though I don't agree) may actually reflect the anti-hate crime law people's point:
What is the required mens rea for the "incitement to terrorize"?

For example, say you're charging someone with murder + terrorizing the gays when they Shepardize someone... for murder, you have to prove that they intended to kill him. For the incitement to terrorize, do you have to prove that they:
(a) intended to commit a crime against the victim, and that crime terrorized a group that the victim belong to (strict liability)
(b) intended to commit a crime against the victim, and they knew or should have known that the crime would terrorize the group (knowingly or recklessly)
(c) intended to terrorize the group (purposefully)

I believe the anti-hate crime law people are concerned about (a). You kill a guy, he happens to be gay, and you terrorize the gay population, but you just killed him because you're an asshole. Should you get a higher sentence due to the strict liability?
On the other hand, b or c should certainly alleviate this fear of theirs.
Discuss.
 
2009-10-08 02:03:32 PM
SkinnyHead: tnpir: Children "consenting"? A "sexual orientation towards children"? Even your trolling is total bullshiat. And your comment on children consenting being a "legal fiction" is wrong on so many levels.

If it was wrong, you would be able to state your reasons why you think it is wrong, rather than just make noises.


You're the one with the GED in Law. Educate us.
 
2009-10-08 02:05:07 PM
Oh noes, it might be extra illegal to beat up homo's!!! Jesus isn't gonna like this!!! He was all about thowin' a savage beat-down a sinnin' motherfarker.
 
2009-10-08 02:05:47 PM
I_Love_Verdi: Every republican speech ends with some version of "we should be scared if we don't do what I'm saying!"

You say that like it isn't the mantra of the left. Lemme see...

"Human" rights.
Global Warming.
The economy.
Health care.

etc.

Pot meet kettle much?
 
2009-10-08 02:06:10 PM
BMulligan: gshepnyc: That's REALLY low and loathesome. If you can't respond meaningful without casually insinuating your opponent is guilty of a crime you need to either go back to the kid's table or join a cult.

What is the harm in "casually insinuating your opponent is guilty of a crime" when the opponent is merely a character? SkinnyHead is a known alt-troll, and is thus not an actual person. Rather, he is a character being portrayed on Fark.
 
2009-10-08 02:06:33 PM
UnspokenVoice: I_Love_Verdi: Every republican speech ends with some version of "we should be scared if we don't do what I'm saying!"

You say that like it isn't the mantra of the left. Lemme see...

"Human" rights.
Global Warming.
The economy.
Health care.

etc.

Pot meet kettle much?


why did you put human in quotes? Do you believe there are martians among us?
 
2009-10-08 02:07:11 PM
SkinnyHead: Children can consent. The idea that children cannot consent is a legal fiction.

i611.photobucket.com
 
2009-10-08 02:08:46 PM
Barbigazi: why did you put human in quotes? Do you believe there are martians among us?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2009-10-08 02:09:54 PM
Barbigazi: why did you put human in quotes?

In the world of the GOP some "humans" are less "human" than others and, as such, are less deserving of the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 
2009-10-08 02:11:14 PM
Hobodeluxe: what a Gomer.

Seriously who votes for these inbred knuckledraggers?


other inbred knuckledraggers, of course.
 
2009-10-08 02:11:57 PM
Biological Ali: BeesNuts: He's right actually. Pedophelia is a sexual predilection. Just like being attracted to fat people, hairy people, tall people, etc.

Actually, he's wrong. A fetish (or sexual predilection, that's what you want to call it) is something quite distinct from sexual orientation.


I'd contest that it's very much the same in the mind of the person who is so oriented. But I see your point. You made my point sound much more asinine than it is by suggesting that I think homosexuality is so simple as a fetish.

Maybe it's that I don't see sexual orientation as a black and white/gay or straight thing. I see it as more of a continuum. I know dudes who would bang anything that moved as long as it had a vagina, but would recoil in terror at a picture of a shirtless Hugh Jackman (TFettes: not an invitation to threadjack). Personally, I'm into the ladies, but I can at least recognize when a dude is attractive. I also know guys who lean progressively more heavily towards the latter side of that spectrum, all the way up to "flaming homosexual nttawwt". So it seems to me that it's subtle differences in sexual preference much as all other differences in sexual preference are.

IMO, the difference between liking members of your own gender more than members of the other and liking fat chicks over skinny chicks is largely academic. I'm honestly curious to hear what you think the distinction is.

/Seriously. Not trying to be inflammatory here.
 
2009-10-08 02:11:58 PM
paygun: Theaetetus: Higher punishment doesn't mean your life is worth less. Consider, we put murderers away for longer than manslaughter-ers, even though the same person is dead. The rationale relates not to the victim, but to the offender and their motives.

I see what you mean, but I'm not talking about the difference between manslaughter and murder. I'm talking about the difference between hate crime murder and murder.

Anyway, I think we'll end up at the same place no matter what. Eventually all violent crimes will be hate crimes so what does it matter.




The difference between "hate crime" murder and murder is the goal. If you kill me because you want me dead, then the crime is simply killing me. If you decide to teach people like me a lesson and kill one of "us" it is arguably different. You are a terrorist at that point.

You would be equally likely to kill any other person from my demographic and are more of a danger to society, particularly that group. If it is me specifically you intended to kill, as bad as that is, you can't do it again.
 
2009-10-08 02:12:16 PM
rufus-t-firefly: BMulligan: gshepnyc: That's REALLY low and loathesome. If you can't respond meaningful without casually insinuating your opponent is guilty of a crime you need to either go back to the kid's table or join a cult.

What is the harm in "casually insinuating your opponent is guilty of a crime" when the opponent is merely a character? SkinnyHead is a known alt-troll, and is thus not an actual person. Rather, he is a character being portrayed on Fark.


For the record, it was gshepnyc who came to the troll's defense. I paid the troll the unearned compliment of calling him a "human gruntstain."
 
2009-10-08 02:13:44 PM
SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: No, that's a crime. Once again we'll go real slowly for you: Children cannot consent. Two adults can.

Children can consent. The idea that children cannot consent is a legal fiction.

And "consent" is not a part of the definition of orientation. A sexual orientation toward children exists whether or not the child consents.


Instert /Joker_notsureifserious.jpg
 
2009-10-08 02:14:25 PM
Dughan: Yes, by even joking around that the kid can consent, you mock them. Why?

I'm not joking. A child can give actual consent, but if the child is under the age of consent (which varies from state to state) it is not legal consent. That's why it is called a legal fiction (something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption.)
 
2009-10-08 02:15:11 PM
SkinnyHead: Children can consent. The idea that children cannot consent is a legal fiction.

AuntofDogface: Legally speaking a child cannot give consent.

I feel very wrong for defending a kiddy diddler here, but I think what SkinnyHead was trying to say, albeit horribly, is that the only reason children cannot consent is because law says they cannot because they are children and they are children because the law defines them as children. Obviously apart from the fact that kids can, and do, consent to various things all the time, however, by our laws they have the mental capacity of an invalid and are not able to think for themselves.

So everyone here saying kids cannot legally consent think all statutory rapist should be in jail, right? After all that 17yr old girl, by law, cannot consent to having sex with an 18yr old boy. He should be locked up and the key thrown away afterall he is a kiddy diddler.

Our laws are not black and white, there are many shades of grey. And in defense of Gomer here (I know he is against teh gheys), I agree with him. Just "sexual orientation" could be construed to defend many perverse activities. Not having read the law, nor knowing its intent, I would say without further definition of what "sexual orientation" is, Gohmert is right and the law is vague and open to interpretation.

Perhaps a better thing to do would be defining "sexual orientation" in the body of the law so that vague open interpretations could not occur. Reasonable people, like myself and many of you, understand that "sexual orientation" describes hetero-, homo-, or bi-sexual relations between consenting adults. But don't think for a second, some unreasonable person, lawyer, or "activist" judge would not try to interpret "sexual orientation" to include kiddy diddlers or dog farkers. I think that is the point that Gohmert was maybe trying to make before going off on black people and Alan Keyes?
 
2009-10-08 02:16:13 PM
SkinnyHead: Dughan: Yes, by even joking around that the kid can consent, you mock them. Why?

I'm not joking. A child can give actual consent, but if the child is under the age of consent (which varies from state to state) it is not legal consent. That's why it is called a legal fiction (something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption.)


If it isn't legal then how is it actual? The child did not give you illegal consent did it?
 
2009-10-08 02:16:29 PM
Jackson Herring: SkinnyHead: Children can consent. The idea that children cannot consent is a legal fiction.

Well, he does have a GED in law...........
 
2009-10-08 02:17:54 PM
SkinnyHead: tnpir: Children "consenting"? A "sexual orientation towards children"? Even your trolling is total bullshiat. And your comment on children consenting being a "legal fiction" is wrong on so many levels.

If it was wrong, you would be able to state your reasons why you think it is wrong, rather than just make noises.


You're the one who made the initial statement that it was a legal fiction. Why don't you state your case instead of continuing to sound like a goddamn idiot? Didn't your GED classes cover this? Children do not have the legal capacity to consent, be it a contractual relationship or most certainly a sexual one. Yet you seem to want to defend that possibility.

You know what, fark this. I'm through feeding the troll. It has ceased being even a little bit funny.
 
2009-10-08 02:18:01 PM
Barbigazi: SkinnyHead: Dughan: Yes, by even joking around that the kid can consent, you mock them. Why?

I'm not joking. A child can give actual consent, but if the child is under the age of consent (which varies from state to state) it is not legal consent. That's why it is called a legal fiction (something assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption.)

If it isn't legal then how is it actual? The child did not give you illegal consent did it?


Consent ineffective-by-law. Same thing with consent obtained through fraud.
 
2009-10-08 02:18:05 PM
BeesNuts: Biological Ali: BeesNuts: He's right actually. Pedophelia is a sexual predilection. Just like being attracted to fat people, hairy people, tall people, etc.

Actually, he's wrong. A fetish (or sexual predilection, that's what you want to call it) is something quite distinct from sexual orientation.

I'd contest that it's very much the same in the mind of the person who is so oriented. But I see your point. You made my point sound much more asinine than it is by suggesting that I think homosexuality is so simple as a fetish.


I didn't suggest that you think homosexuality is a fetish (in fact, it appeared from your post that you understand the difference quite well) - I was just pointing out that SkinnyHead was trying to obfuscate the matter by conflating the principle of 'sexual orientation' (which has a more specific gender-based definition in academic understanding), with sexual deviances, fetishes, predilections, or whatever one wants to call them.
 
2009-10-08 02:18:35 PM
People in this thread don't seem to know what exactly a Legal Fiction (new window) is.

If something is a "legal fiction" doesn't mean it's an invalid law.

Age of Consent isn't, I don't *think*, technically a legal fiction, but it *is* rather arbitrary. The idea that under a magic age (that is higher in the US than most other first world countries, including our neighbor to the north) people are automatically unable to make rational decisions, however, is a *pleasant* fiction for many people who believe (wrongly) that until 18 humans (mostly women) are "innocent".

Also see: Youth Rights (new window)
 
2009-10-08 02:18:41 PM
tnpir: Seriously, Skinnydumbass, just cut it out.

Stop quoting him. That's what he'S here for.
 
2009-10-08 02:19:28 PM
ITT: we disregard that a Republican can't even stay on topic for one minute, but tries to make his wandering thoughts sound like they all relate to one another... to talk about whether or not kids, animals, corpses can (or should have to) give consent before being sexed up.

I'll agree there's a gray area in the teens, but true children can't give consent because they are mentally incapable of understanding several of the implications of copulation. Some 13 year olds might know exactly what's up, some 17 year olds still have no clue. And your dog is going to let you do whatever you want as long as you're paying attention to it... they're nature's masochists.
 
2009-10-08 02:20:27 PM
Oh, and the idea that having a "fetish" or "orientation" towards young humans is illegal is silly. That's like saying it's illegal to really like *bacon*.

It's acting on it that may or may not be illegal, depending on the circumstances at hand.
 
2009-10-08 02:20:56 PM
verbal_jizm: SkinnyHead: Isn't a sexual orientation toward children (pedophilia) a "sexual orientation"?

Hve you recently become less subtle? I can't believe I fell for your schtick before.


Can you do me a favor and directly quote trolls if you're going to insist on feeding them? I've gone to some trouble to ignore them.
 
2009-10-08 02:21:47 PM
You guys quit splitting hairs about whether children can consent...

Of course children can consent.

"Becky, would you like to go to the mall?"
"Yep"
"Becky, would you like to go to the movies?"
"Yep"
"Becky, would you like to go ride horses?"
"Yep"
"Becky, would you like to go to the pool?"
"Yep"
"Becky, would you like to touch my pee-pee?"
"Yep"

All of those are consent... but the consent for sexual activity is not a valid excuse for engaging in sexual activity with a child, because the child is not mature enough to understand what she is consenting to.

So yeah... it is a legal "fiction." Without writing that concept into law and overriding the actual act of consenting, then yes... the child would be said to have consented.

If you want to grasp the "fictional" nature of it, think about the age of consent... Does anyone here really believe anyone goes from being a "child" incapable of understanding the gravity of sexual decisions to a fully-formed, mature, reasonable "adult" at the stroke of midnight on their 16th birthday in certain states?

No, that's ridiculous and obviously a "fiction," but we have to draw an imperfect line because we have to draw *A LINE* and a perfect one is impossible.

Corporations are also a legal fiction, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

You're wasting time splitting hairs... Kids can consent, but it doesn't mean shiat when they do. You're still supposed to be the adult and be smarter than the kid and know better than to fark them. Still illegal.
 
2009-10-08 02:22:33 PM
Knara: Oh, and the idea that having a "fetish" or "orientation" towards young humans is illegal is silly. That's like saying it's illegal to really like *bacon*.

It's acting on it that may or may not be illegal, depending on the circumstances at hand.


Bacon, being an inanimate object, cannot give effective consent to sex.

/fortunately, it's not required
//how do you think I get that nice "maple" glaze?
 
2009-10-08 02:23:39 PM
Biological Ali: I was just pointing out that SkinnyHead was trying to obfuscate the matter by conflating the principle of 'sexual orientation' (which has a more specific gender-based definition in academic understanding), with sexual deviances, fetishes, predilections, or whatever one wants to call them.

picadilleos is the proper term.
 
2009-10-08 02:23:42 PM
Theaetetus: Knara: Oh, and the idea that having a "fetish" or "orientation" towards young humans is illegal is silly. That's like saying it's illegal to really like *bacon*.

It's acting on it that may or may not be illegal, depending on the circumstances at hand.

Bacon, being an inanimate object, cannot give effective consent to sex.

/fortunately, it's not required
//how do you think I get that nice "maple" glaze?


Consent is only required if you are acting on the impulse.

Having a fetish or orientation doesn't mean you act on it.

People need to be more precise with their language

/i know, i know, internet argument
 
Displayed 50 of 277 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report