213374U

I hear it also renders you totally impervious to attack - you can't be killed after that. Dude, stop posting winner strategies. I'd like the game to have some challenge when I get it!

It's a strawman because you are placing my argument and others you made in the same camp, and then using those arguments to attack my position. Jeez. Where do you get the idea that I'm all out against arbitrary limits for everything? A speed limit applies to cars and speed. An age of consent applies to people and sex. Can you really establish a flimsier analogy? Stop bogging down the discussion with misrepresentations. I'm more a Socrates kind of guy myself, tbh. You know, what with posing questions and all. Which is kinda at odds with your circular logic about the legitimacy and usefulness requirements and intent of laws. But hey, you're the lawyer. If you say the necessary and sufficient condition for laws is the govt's thumbsup, I guess you'd know better. I think I should ask for a second opinion, though. Not saying this isn't how things are, either. But it's a sad state of affairs. Yes, yes, I know. The real world, yadda yadda. What? Yeah, yeah. Because democracy is "of, by, and for the people", and therefore anything else (read: barbarians) is inferior and wrong. Okay. The Egyptians' example wasn't meant to establish moral comparisons, anyway (Isn't that supposed to be unrelated to this debate, at any rate?). You misunderstood or are (again) misrepresenting me. Professional deformation? I simply threw it in there to show that different realities can exist that conflict with what is generally assumed to be true (in this case, that non-adults can't cope with sex). I'm not even drawing any conclusions myself... I'm not qualified to. Yup.

How dare you. Whatever has Mickey Mouse done to you?

You were giving lessons of straw man fallacies, just a few posts ago. That's a textbook example. Not bad, Grom, not bad. Not exactly what I had in mind when I said you could do better, though. I think the question is, "is age of consent legislation the best way to protect children from sexual predators and abuse?" Since, by your own admission, its value as a deterrent for similarly aged teenagers isn't that great, and nobody actually bothers to enforce it in those cases. The Ancient Egyptians were just an example to show that just because CONGRESS set it up that way it doesn't mean it's the ONLY way. Gee, who woulda thunk it! Oh, wait. They are "barbarians", right? Yeah. You can also use a knife to open a tin can. Doesn't mean it's the best tool to do it - nor is having a knife an excuse not to go buy a can opener.

What slippery slope? All you can come up to support the, as you admit yourself, arbitrary line is that "society believes X". Well, is "society" (read: Congress) somehow infallible? Are those laws as effective as they could be? Is there a better way to achieve the same end? Just pointing your finger and going "relativist!" is not good enough to refute anything - I'm sure you can do better. This is a completely tangential topic, btw. It has no bearing on the case, as the law was such and such when he did the deed, and then it was illegal - it's no attempt to defend Polanski or legitimize child abuse in general. You can lay down your torches and pitchforks now, folks.

Your Honor, he has ho proof!

Not forensic evidence, perhaps. But I think the idea that she really wanted him to stick it in is rather indefensible. Ergo, rape. I agree about the mediatic judgement thing, though.

Yeah, guys! You need to let go of your bias and focus on the facts!

This is the real deal. Be discreet. SEGA is EVERYWHERE!

Yeah. This guy's like a mine of lol. He IS dead serious, though.

Thanks for proving that you have the reading comprehension level of a second grader.

This. From Wiki: I know nothing about US legal procedures, so I don't really know how relevant is that, but to the untrained eye, it looks serious. Grom? Now, we all want things to go according to THE LAW, but, shouldn't those charged with imparting justice be the first to do things by the book?

Hey the government says so, who are we to question it right? You can question the government, and seek to change the Law, but until the Law is changed then you must obey the Law or face the consequences of breaking the Law.

But it's against The Law!

This is a bit of, um, old news...

It was a false analogy. You were trying to assimilate my questioning of a poorly defined aphorism with questioning the substance and associated ethics of murder - a thinly veiled personal argument. That was dishonest. I didn't think it merited a serious response, so I took the rhetorical path. At that point there was no arguement to lose anymore. Depends. Looking just at the New Testament, it's "You shall not kill"/"You shall not murder", depending on translation. So killing another person is a no-no in all its forms. That's why it's not "defined"... it's an all-encompassing definition, and probably as close to a natural definition you can get. Not very good as a source of law, though. The Old Testament is much more fun, to be sure. Which one do you want to subscribe? It was a crime at the time he did it, so he should face the consequences, even if the law is changed further down the line. Simply because I reserve the right to break the law when I see fit doesn't mean I expect not to be prosecuted.

You're just trying to justify child rape!

Lol, stop being such a pathetic attention whore, Hades. Nobody cares. Order a mail bride already. Oh, ****. You got me there. WoD tried to paint me as the bad guy with a poorly built fallacy, and I just played along. Heh, if he had admitted to be quoting from his Bible, I would have had to accept it, as murder as defined in there is immutable. But if there was a natural definition for murder, there would be no need to codify it, no? Anyway, I think you are just playing hard to get. Why don't you tell us what you think (and not what you "know").

Thanks for the link, Gfted. Transcript is incomplete, though. And this, girls, is why you shouldn't smoke crack during a pregnancy. He could have been a Mozart or an Einstein! Nobody's trying to legitimize anything, Grom. There isn't a relativist approach, either. Just discussing the law and its foundations. What's your interest in this, anyway? Know something we don't?

I keep hearing this, but nobody actually knows (or wants to explain) what these are. That's only true in a very strict sense. Remove "according to society" from your statement, and it's plain wrong, actually. Legally they were not a man's equal, but inside the household the woman held power. Socially they were little more than a man's appendix, but relegating them exclusively to the role of baby-making machines is oversimplifying and dishonest. And of course, there's Ancient Egypt where men and women were absolute equals (legally and otherwise), and women were married at 14. I'm sure somebody more versed than me in ancient history could find more counterexamples. Yes, the older party is definitely going to exert a deciding influence on the relationship. But this often happens regardless of age, as well. It also doesn't work very well when talking about two same age minors going at it. So, basically what you are saying (by that and the other paragraph I didn't quote) is that laws are as they are to protect the development of women as individuals, from a personal and possibly academic perspective - unwanted pregnancies mean that a child is no longer a child. An unwanted pregnancy usually also means that the mother needs to quit what she's doing and tend to her baby. That I can understand, but it's far from the published rationale for age of consent legislation - and it doesn't work very well as birth control is readily available. It also may help explain the current population pyramids in developed countries and what they entail. Coming from you, I can't think of a greater compliment. On the other hand, I know a few guys that scored really early, and they are perfectly happy with their lives. Anecdotal evidence is a bitch, huh? Did you somehow miss my other posts in this thread where I: a) charge against a govt official who is openly against "Romanski" being prosecuted, and b) make it clear I'm not defending the man?

Didn't your mom teach you to shut up and go play in a corner when the grown-ups are talking? Hey, you are the one arguing for pedophilia. Hey man, you should thank me. People like me would make it easier for people like you to lose their virginity.

Hey, Grom! Having fun yet?

So we just accept whatever's written on a piece of paper as the ultimate truth and guiding light for our actions (until somebody comes along and rewrites the whole thing, that is)? Why are you trying so hard to mischaracterize me as defending statutory rape? That's NOT what I'm going on about. Care to try again, without the strawmen? While I have trouble swallowing this (I guess, following this, that Gfted1 must be horribly scarred from the experience, for one), I'm going to let it slide, and pose a question instead. Is this an impossibility in the same sense as "a human cannot survive in a vacuum", or just a result of how our children are reared and other cultural influences? During the Classical period, girls were bethrothed just after reaching sexual maturity, generally to older men. They were mature enough for maternity. There were many factors contributing to the collapse of the Roman Empire, but women marrying and becoming mothers while in their teens wasn't one of them. Does this even have any semblance of scientific rigour? Yes, the lawmakers need to tell me what murder is, because there's a lot involved in determining whether something is murder, manslaughter, or whatever. Not to mention the changing nature of those things being, as they are, legal details. Or are you quoting from your Bible, now? You may want to take a look at this, specifically the part where it talks about the disconnection between law and morality. Just a quick clarification, too: "subjective" does not mean "thoughtless". Hahaha. And, of course, you belong to the "civilized" group, right? It would be hilarious if you weren't serious. Didn't your mom teach you to shut up and go play in a corner when the grown-ups are talking?

Oh, crap. I just realized I had donned my "fight the power!" t-shirt. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Oh, has it? Well then. I feel so reassured, now. It's a good thing that legislators don't ever reverse changes by previous legislators and go back on old topics, and always tackle new issues and problems, right? Further, I am now going to switch my brain off. Given that I have my dear politicians to shape my opinions for me, I don't really need to waste glucose pointlessly - choosing which brand of toothpaste to purchase doesn't really require that much brainpower anyway. After all, it is the LAW and God forbid I question my betters. Gimme a break.