madhaha Posted September 16, 2003 Author Report Posted September 16, 2003 So having a strict AOC is easier on them and us. The only thing wrong with that is the varied age from state to state. Maybe we should just change it to a world wide AOC Take a vote on what the majority of people beleive it should be. Possibly re-check this every 2-4 years or so. I'm not saying I can fix the world, but if I just sit back and don't give any input I might as well be on the other side. I reject the idea of 1 law for the world because the cultural differences are just too big and will remain so. Easier for enforcement is not necessarily better and I do not have faith in your draconian ideals. Monte please explain your views. In England the AoC is 16 and I have no concerns about it being so. But then again we are a welfare state.
divine.216 Posted September 16, 2003 Report Posted September 16, 2003 Most you talk about sex like it's a disgusting or bad thing (or that "they would only agree because it feels good so they would giggle"...that's the only reason to)... it's clouding rational judgment, so I'd just as soon they didn't change any "age of consent" laws and just continued to not enforce them. That said, "there ain't nothing wrong, with a little bump and grind".
Yupa Posted September 17, 2003 Report Posted September 17, 2003 16yos should not have babies. contraception: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation I agree, though, 16 is a risky age to have a lot of sex (even with birth control pills - much less so with condoms, but still) - it's not a very good time to have a child just physically - when you add on the usual pressures of a 16 year old in (for instance) American society...well, it's even moreso a bad idea
MonteZuma Posted September 17, 2003 Report Posted September 17, 2003 Hi mad... Well...its like this. According to the law....16yo is too young to vote. 16yo is too young to drink alcohol. 16yo is too young to go to an adult prison, etc, etc, etc. If this is the case, why is there a law that tacitly says that it is ok for a 16yo to get pregnant (or make someone pregnant). There is an inconsistancy there. Raising a child requires more maturity than most other things we are likely to do in our lives, and yet we have laws that send out a message that it IS ok for 16yo to have babies - but not to drink alcohol - WTF? Yes I know that there is contraception - but that is not written in the law. Determining the 'age of consent' is a legal question as much as it is a moral or ethical question. Anyway...if we as a community think that 16yo is too young to have babies then the law should reflect that. Just as the law reflects society's belief than incest and bigamy are wrong. OK...so using that logic (which I agree is philosophically questionable - as pointed out by millenium man), I think that the age of consent should be increased to the age when society does think that a person is likely to have the maturity to make babies. An alternative would be to specify that children (yes <18 = children) engaging in sex must use contraception or something similar (eg see a doctor or councillor first - or whatever). Yeah...it sounds authoritarian....and maybe it is, but fwiw, i think it is only authoritarian if the law is applied unjustly...as divine points out, it just isn't that simple..... Regardless..........Why is it that kids can make babies but they cant buy a bottle of wine? Does anyone dispute the fact that 16yo is too young to have babies? Monte.
»dr uniburner Posted September 17, 2003 Report Posted September 17, 2003 you dont want 16 yos to have babies, make birth control more available and free, and you teach them how to use it as much as you can and what diseases can be spread if they dont use protection.
madhaha Posted September 17, 2003 Author Report Posted September 17, 2003 You're physically capable of giving birth before the age of 16 (hard to believe though this may be). You are NOT physically ready for alcohol in any serious quan!@#$%^&*y. You are allowed an alcoholic drink at the age of 16 provided you're served it with a meal or are given it with parental consent. Laws apply in the UK, check if you live elsewhere. The voting age in my opinion is just plain wrong. With the current low turnout rate I'm surprised it isn't lowered anyway. I'd much rather people be persuaded not to have children at a young age than have it forced on to people. Its the only effective way of enforcing it anyway.
MillenniumMan Posted September 17, 2003 Report Posted September 17, 2003 Hi mad... Well...its like this. According to the law....16yo is too young to vote. 16yo is too young to drink alcohol. 16yo is too young to go to an adult prison, etc, etc, etc. If this is the case, why is there a law that tacitly says that it is ok for a 16yo to get pregnant (or make someone pregnant). There is an inconsistancy there. Raising a child requires more maturity than most other things we are likely to do in our lives, and yet we have laws that send out a message that it IS ok for 16yo to have babies - but not to drink alcohol - WTF? Yes I know that there is contraception - but that is not written in the law. Determining the 'age of consent' is a legal question as much as it is a moral or ethical question. Anyway...if we as a community think that 16yo is too young to have babies then the law should reflect that. Just as the law reflects society's belief than incest and bigamy are wrong. OK...so using that logic (which I agree is philosophically questionable - as pointed out by millenium man), I think that the age of consent should be increased to the age when society does think that a person is likely to have the maturity to make babies. An alternative would be to specify that children (yes <18 = children) engaging in sex must use contraception or something similar (eg see a doctor or councillor first - or whatever). Yeah...it sounds authoritarian....and maybe it is, but fwiw, i think it is only authoritarian if the law is applied unjustly...as divine points out, it just isn't that simple..... Regardless..........Why is it that kids can make babies but they cant buy a bottle of wine? Does anyone dispute the fact that 16yo is too young to have babies? Monte. Monte, I use to drink when I was 12, but I stopped because of my own good judgement, in most other countries they let the "kids" have whatever they want as early as four, france *ewwww* italy, spain, russia. We're the only ones with the say no to booze til 21 propaganda on this messed up planet and enforce it with jailtime. Speaking of jailtime, if you're old enough to kill and understand the consequences of your actions, then yes your sorry -*BAD WORD*- should go to jail. Noone in their right mind would think that if you're under a certain artificialy set age limit that you're automaticaly non-compus mentus and have no grasp of the situation. They should fry your -*BAD WORD*- for such a cold blooded act! Embeslement, armed robbery, DUI, B&E, same thing, if you know what you're doing you should pay for it the same way. As far as I can see, you're the one in the minority here Monte. Despite the laws and propaganda you've bought into, there are people around here from all over the world who would agree with me on most if not all of these points and say you're the one "WITH ISSUES" As I stated once before and will again, being an adult is not a matter of physiological age, but of mental state and the will and the means to be a responsible and productive member of society.
Yupa Posted September 17, 2003 Report Posted September 17, 2003 why is there a law that tacitly says that it is ok for a 16yo to get pregnant (or make someone pregnant).you know I don't think most people under the age of 20 actually want to get pregnant - they have sex because it is enjoyable Anyway...if we as a community think that 16yo is too young to have babies then the law should reflect that. Just as the law reflects society's belief than incest and bigamy are wrong. OK...so using that logic (which I agree is philosophically questionable - as pointed out by millenium man), I think that the age of consent should be increased to the age when society does think that a person is likely to have the maturity to make babies. An alternative would be to specify that children (yes <18 = children) engaging in sex must use contraception or something similar (eg see a doctor or councillor first - or whatever). the people that think they are justified in making laws can all lick my -*BAD WORD*- >>>>>>> you dont want 16 yos to have babies, make birth control more available and free, and you teach them how to use it as much as you can and what diseases can be spread if they dont use protection.birth control is available and free (in the US anyways) - and sex education is given in like 5th grade (10-11 years old) >>>>>>> You're physically capable of giving birth before the age of 16 (hard to believe though this may be). capable, it's just not an optimal age You are NOT physically ready for alcohol in any serious quan!@#$%^&*y. You are allowed an alcoholic drink at the age of 16 provided you're served it with a meal or are given it with parental consent. Laws apply in the UK, check if you live elsewhere....why not? >>>>>>> Monte, I use to drink when I was 12, but I stopped because of my own good judgement, in most other countries they let the "kids" have whatever they want as early as four, france *ewwww* italy, spain, russia. We're the only ones with the say no to booze til 21 propaganda on this messed up planet and enforce it with jailtime. mmm, if you allow kids to get into it gradually and just help them to exercise moderation, it's all good - but very small children shouldn't drink much alcohol Speaking of jailtime, if you're old enough to kill and understand the consequences of your actions, then yes your sorry -*BAD WORD*- should go to jail. Noone in their right mind would think that if you're under a certain artificialy set age limit that you're automaticaly non-compus mentus and have no grasp of the situation. They should fry your -*BAD WORD*- for such a cold blooded act! Embeslement, armed robbery, DUI, B&E, same thing, if you know what you're doing you should pay for it the same way.I think the reason they prosecute young people differently is precisely BECAUSE they often don't seem to understand the consequences As far as I can see, you're the one in the minority here Monte. Despite the laws and propaganda you've bought into, there are people around here from all over the world who would agree with me on most if not all of these points and say you're the one "WITH ISSUES" there are people all over the world that listen to polkas and worship comets, too As I stated once before and will again, being an adult is not a matter of physiological age, but of mental state and the will and the means to be a responsible and productive member of society.I disagree. I think adulthood is very much a physical state (as WELL as mental). adulthood: 1 : fully developed and mature fully developed = physicalmature = mental I'm not saying nobody is an "adult" by 16, just that a great many people are not
madhaha Posted September 17, 2003 Author Report Posted September 17, 2003 Concerning my stance on why there should be an age restriction on drinking, your brain does not cease growing until around the age of 18 and alcohol consumption is known to stunt that. Also, the law was put into place to prevent people from quieting children by giving them some strong alcohol mixed with their food as this lead to widespread death by alcohol posining. As you yourself have said, small children should not be drinking alcohol. Getting back on topic, I don't think that people that have not reached puberty are physically ready for sex and I think that the emphasis should be on education when they reach puberty instead of enforced contraception (like in India where abortions and steralisation have been the contraception of choice) and strict penaulties. This sets my preferred age of consent around the 15/16 years region.
MillenniumMan Posted September 27, 2003 Report Posted September 27, 2003 It is a serious issue. I'm sure that there are women in this board over the age of 30 whom have passed by a high school or two in their lives just as school has let out, seeing many young studs strutting out and those women would go "Oh dear god if I weren't married I'd jump every single one of them right now" but then the past forty years of brainwashing due to the AOC has them thinking "OH NO WHAT AM I THINKING? WHAT IF I GET CAUGHT? I BETTER LOOK STRAIGHT ON THE ROAD BEFORE SOMEONE SEES ME STAIRING! OH GOD LOOK AT THAT PACKAGE! NO IT'S ILLEGAL!" Ain't that right fallen angel? And while on that matter, why the -*BAD WORD*- do you think clothing designers make such skimpy clothing nowadays for those between the ages of puberty and 21? It's because it's the most natural thing in the world for a man to look at such things. And don't tell me you don't pop a -*BAD WORD*- when you see a tight -*BAD WORD*- and pert !@#$%^&*ties because they you are lying your -*BAD WORD*- off! They make laws to fight biology and human nature, which is unnatural just to stay in power, and they make examples of these poor people who go with their gut feeling rather than with what some idiot politician says is moral or natural. Remember prohibition? Most of you weren't there, but as an example this would fall under the same line as the AOC. It's the most natural thing to want to get -*BAD WORD*--faced and feel good about it, just so long as you aren't hurting anyone what does it matter? People still fought this unnatural law and the people won, not the politicians. No matter what state you are in, if you are under the state's legal age, write to your state senators, governors and other politiworms and demand that the AOC be lowered or overturned in your jurisdiction and get your friends to do the same. If you're old enough to hold a job, pay taxes, feel urges, think for yourself, be responsible and hold your own on your own then you should be thought of as an adult and not a child until you reach this magical age when you're suddenly smart enough to do on your own. "OH LOOK I'M 15 AND THE LEGAL AGE HERE IS 16 AND I'M STILL A DUMB -*BAD WORD*-ER UNTIL I REACH A MAGICLY AND ARTIFICIALY SET AGE! LOOKIE AT ME I DON'T KNOW -*BAD WORD*- ABOUT -*BAD WORD*- BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE SAYS I DON'T KNOW BETTER" is the spirit of the AOC laws. While I can point out 30 and 40 year olds that don't know -*BAD WORD*- about -*BAD WORD*-. Hi, we're with the government and we're here to help you. You don't have to think we're here to do that for you. Follow us, we are your god now...
madhaha Posted September 28, 2003 Author Report Posted September 28, 2003 In reply to Millenium Man, Without our artificial limits our society will not function. We would in fact be animals. In broad terms what you propose is anarchy whereby we do whatever we want when the urge takes us. Our entire existances would be driven by impulse without purpose. Perhaps you would enjoy that sort of lifestyle but I don't see it as the correct choice in our society.
MillenniumMan Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 In reply to Millenium Man, Without our artificial limits our society will not function. We would in fact be animals. In broad terms what you propose is anarchy whereby we do whatever we want when the urge takes us. Our entire existances would be driven by impulse without purpose. Perhaps you would enjoy that sort of lifestyle but I don't see it as the correct choice in our society. I'm not talking total anarchy, I'm talking about making laws that make sense, not making laws because some politician needs a new bad guy to fight or he wants more pork barrel spending privelages so he can buy himself a new *fill in the blank for expensive thingies here* There are laws that make sense, like not going out and killing people or various forms of theivery. But when you go into things that make no sense like the AOC or prohibition or outlawing something that would go against ones faith convictions, then you're asking for trouble. For me, this is purley a matter of principle, as no matter where I look, there is some politiworm out there looking for a photo op or a cons!@#$%^&*uency rally to line their pockets for the next election. They do it by whatever means nessecary and while in the process trample on our rights as human beings! *slams his fist into the podium* They have gone TOO FAR! -*BAD WORD*- YOU! ALL YOU POLITICIANS! I WILL EAT WHATEVER I WANT! DRINK WHATEVER AND HOW MUCH I WANT! BONE WHOEVER OR WHATEVER I WANT! SMOKE WHAT AND HOW MUCH I WANT! AND NONE OF YOU OR YOUR TRIAL LAWYER PALS ARE GOING TO TELL ME WHATS RIGHT AND WRONG... ANYMORE!!! YOU SEE SOME IDIOT SUING MCIDEES BECAUSE THEY SPILLED HOT COFFEE ON THEIR OWN -*BAD WORD*-ING LAP! SURE SUE MCDONALDS FOR YOUR OWN STUPIDITY! SUE THE TOBACCO FARMERS AND CIGARETTE COMPANIES FOR SOMETHING YOU KNEW WAS GOING TO KILL YOUR SORRY STUPID -*BAD WORD*- ANYWAYS! CREATE ANOTHER BAD GUY I DON'T CARE! I'LL TAKE ALL OF YOU ON AND I WILL BEAT YOUR !@#$%^&*ES DOWN COLD NO MATTER WHERE YOU STRIKE AT ME FROM!*POUNDS the podium so hard the top shatters* I AM A HUMAN BEING... And I shall do as I "-*BAD WORD*-ED WELL PLEASE!!!" *Dennis Leary's jaw drops and Lenny Bruce starts to clap*
madhaha Posted September 28, 2003 Author Report Posted September 28, 2003 I don't see having no age of consent as responsible. People's lives Will be ruined.
Silk Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 whether you like it or not, the rules the government set up are for our benefit. They arent trying to screw us over in everything they pass if they legalized cigerrates, booze, drugs to everyone at any age we would collapse as a nation.
MillenniumMan Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 whether you like it or not, the rules the government set up are for our benefit. They arent trying to screw us over in everything they pass if they legalized cigerrates, booze, drugs to everyone at any age we would collapse as a nation. Actualy, banning such things would cause our country to collapse alot quicker. Prohibition and the confiscation of privatley owned gold for instance did more damage than their use and ownership. If they banned the sale of cigarettes today, almost 40% of the economy would collapse overnight. And frankly I am sick of the powers that "wanna"be telling me what to do. Ahh well, at least they make the trains run on schedule... mein heir. Oh wait, they can't even do that right anymore... I just realized something, you're living in Ruby Ridge country, you should appreciate what I'm saying most of all. Not telling you that you should, but you're out in New America for a reason aren't you?
madhaha Posted September 28, 2003 Author Report Posted September 28, 2003 Wake up Hurricane. Jin didn't move to America to escape persecution and excersise his religious freedom. We're talking about sensible laws here that are aimed to stop paedophiles and prevent people from sustaining terminal illnesses. These aren't laws which make people suffer unnecessarily, they're there for good clear reasons and have direct benifits that other members of society understand.
Silk Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 I meant if they legalize that stuff, what would our nations youth turn out to be? A bunch of idiots (not that some already arent) and then what would we do in the future? All great civilizations collapse and we are given something like 50% chance of surving the next 76 years i think, dont know where i got that.
MillenniumMan Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 I meant if they legalize that stuff, what would our nations youth turn out to be? A bunch of idiots (not that some already arent) and then what would we do in the future? All great civilizations collapse and we are given something like 50% chance of surving the next 76 years i think, dont know where i got that. Up until the early 30's, MaryJ was not only legal, but considered a more valid form of medicine than the man-made crap dispensed nowadays, pushed on us by overbearing, GOV-sponsored drug companies that overcharge for their poisons, which not only leaves many poor folks blowing in the wind, but -*BAD WORD*-s up some of the people that use these "LEGAL" drugs more than the disease they suffer from. Look at the side effects from alot of the antidepressants, painkillers, ADHD medicines, and other things that "treat" other diseases. You'll see that the side effects are often worse than the disease. As for the nations youth turning out to be a bunch of idiots..... kinda late for that don't you think *COUGHpokemonCOUGH* And as for great civilizations, that's true. The Phonecians were wiped out by the Greeks, who were smited by the Romans, who were smited by the Galls, who turned into a bunch of whiny pussies we now call the French. I'm looking at this planet's track record, and we will most likley die of crib death in less than 20 years time. What a great way to wipe the slate clean though. Let's all sing along shall we?We didn't start the fire.... It's been always burnin' since the world was turnin...We didn't start the fire, we didn't light it 'cause we tried to fight it... Annnnnnnnnnnnyway, we've gotten way off track on the AOC issue and turned it into an an arguement that's starting to look like the climax to 1984. I say biology and brains determine who's an adult, gotta have both.If you can't think but are old enough to -*BAD WORD*- than watch yourself, and if you're can do adult things like hold a job, pay taxes, do simple household work, change a diaper, do grocery shopping, drive a car without thinking you're driving the Batmobile or the General Lee and can reproduce, then be my guest. BTW, if anyone here has an orange 68 duster with the stars and bars on it, I've been looking for a new car and you may be able to help me
Silk Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 I wasnt talking about marijuana, i can care less about that. Im talking about other drugs, the harmful ones.
Aileron Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 I have a tendancy to be against laws that protect people from themselves. However, I am pretty undecided with AOC. After all, those who are immature really cannot make an educated decision about this. That is about as far as it should go. People should have a right to screw up their lives if they want to. If they are that stupid, it is only a matter of time before they would do so in a different fashion. We would have to protect them from everything for their entire life for it to work, and that is neither pausible nor does it respect the person's rights. The only exception to this is with children, of whom the stupid ones are either ignorant in the ways of the world or have the possibility of eventually growing a brain. Thus, they can justifiably be protected from themselves, because the protection only has to be temporary. Thus, the age of consent should coincide with one of the dates in which a child passes into adulthood. The current age is 18, the voting age and the age of citizenship as an adult. The other possiblities are 21, the drinking age, and 16, the driving age. We can dismiss 21 as too late because the person has been responsable for a great deal of time. The only real debate then is between 16 and 18. In my opinion, it should be 18. Those of 16 and 17 still have a tendency to think as a child. The only reason it is good to have the driving age that low is to facilitate and to encourage them to get jobs. A job not only will provide them a source of funding but also teaches to discipline needed for adulthood. Sexual relationships do not have such benefit unless you count pros!@#$%^&*ution as a disciplined job, which it isn't, or unless a child born of underage parents is worth the maturity, which it is not. Sex does not force the child to mature at all. Thus, I agree with the status quo of 18 until our society changes.
madhaha Posted September 29, 2003 Author Report Posted September 29, 2003 AoC is also a little different from other "protecting you for your own good" laws because they are aimed not just at protecting the parents but the offspring. MilleniumMan's suggestion that there be no age of consent would probably result in a great deal of orphans, extremely young single parents and maltreated children.
MillenniumMan Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 There are many Americanized countries where the AOC is high, and you still have a high rate of mistreated children, extremley young parents and orphans coming out of the -*BAD WORD*- *no pun intended* You will also find that many non-americanized or partialy americanized countries such as Japan and Canada with a low AOC have low orphan rates and less mistreatment of children, unlike this once great country.
madhaha Posted September 29, 2003 Author Report Posted September 29, 2003 That is faulty logic though. Its much like the arguments about gun possession. Switzerland has high availibility of small arms but low gun crimes. America has high availibility of small arms and high gun crime. Reducing the availibility of weapons is unlikely to make a difference to gun crime in switzerland because people treat the weapons with respect but is very likely to cut gun crime in the USA by making it harder to glamourise weapons. Hm.. thats the nicest way I can find of saying "I wouldn't trust americans to make their own decisions". Perhaps someone could find a better way of putting the idea across to mr. patriot.
Recommended Posts