No such thing as evil - top trumped

[Chairchucker]

 

..  I can't believe I'm actually agruing this....

 

 

It's a common enough argument to be worth tackling, I'd say.

 

1) Consent is a defining factor sex, as distinct from rape. If you assume that rape is OK then frankly whatever culture that is can **** off.

 

I am reminded inevitably of Charles Napier's comment when administrator of India [am obliged to wikiquote]:

 

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

• S. M. Stirling, Island in the Sea of Time. New York: Penguin (1998); pg. 526

 

 

2) The debate over the age of consent is exactly that, but then so is there a debate on what constitutes murder. The fact that the dividing line can be and often is debated does not mean there is no line. I would say that if anything it makes the prohibition meaningful.

 

3) The law is a blunt instrument. The age of consent in the UK is 16. It may be that some 15 year olds are capable of making informed consent. Frankly it's scientifically implausible that the transition occurs arbitrarily on their birthday. But the line is drawn so that those who have not yet matured are protected.

 

As an aside, I knew some 19 year olds who went doolali over sex because they still weren't ready. But you can't protect everyone with the law.

 

 

Some, however, would argue that sometimes the law is wrong. For example, in much the same way that it is currently against the law for an adult to have sexual intercourse with someone under the age of whatever it is in a given country, in many countries it is (or has been until relatively recently) illegal to practice sodomy. I suspect a large number of homosexuals would argue that that is a case where 'the law draws a clear line' is an inadequate explanation.

 

EDIT: On a side note, these quote pyramids are kind of annoying, is there an easy way to kill the previous one?

Edited September 24, 2013 by Chairchucker

[Walsingham]

See point two of my last, Chairchucker.

 

The fact that scientific enquiry is predicated on the idea that all current theories are wrong and should be proven so doesn't make those theories pointless. The law isn't automatically right, but it is the best approximation of right that we have. It has been intellectually and logically tested, and is formulated by our peers (in a coherent democracy) and is therefore most likely to seem just.

[Chairchucker]

See point two of my last, Chairchucker.

 

The fact that scientific enquiry is predicated on the idea that all current theories are wrong and should be proven so doesn't make those theories pointless. The law isn't automatically right, but it is the best approximation of right that we have. It has been intellectually and logically tested, and is formulated by our peers (in a coherent democracy) and is therefore most likely to seem just.

 

So if the law is no sodomy, we must assume that is correct?

[Walsingham]

 

See point two of my last, Chairchucker.

 

The fact that scientific enquiry is predicated on the idea that all current theories are wrong and should be proven so doesn't make those theories pointless. The law isn't automatically right, but it is the best approximation of right that we have. It has been intellectually and logically tested, and is formulated by our peers (in a coherent democracy) and is therefore most likely to seem just.

 

So if the law is no sodomy, we must assume that is correct?

 

 

Have another cup of coffee old boy.

 

We must obey it, because we must assume it's the best we've got. But we must also challenge it, because we must assume we can do better.

[BruceVC]

 

See point two of my last, Chairchucker.

 

The fact that scientific enquiry is predicated on the idea that all current theories are wrong and should be proven so doesn't make those theories pointless. The law isn't automatically right, but it is the best approximation of right that we have. It has been intellectually and logically tested, and is formulated by our peers (in a coherent democracy) and is therefore most likely to seem just.

 

So if the law is no sodomy, we must assume that is correct?

 

 

You know very well that certain laws in certain countries  are based on religious doctrine like making homosexuality illegal. This is clearly a form of discrimination

 

Its not the same thing as saying its illegal  to have sex with an 8 year old child. This is done as the child is not emotionally, mentally  and physically ready for this type of sexual relationship

[Dawn Quixotic]

2) The debate over the age of consent is exactly that, but then so is there a debate on what constitutes murder. The fact that the dividing line can be and often is debated does not mean there is no line. I would say that if anything it makes the prohibition meaningful.

 

3) The law is a blunt instrument. The age of consent in the UK is 16. It may be that some 15 year olds are capable of making informed consent. Frankly it's scientifically implausible that the transition occurs arbitrarily on their birthday. But the line is drawn so that those who have not yet matured are protected.

 

As an aside, I knew some 19 year olds who went doolali over sex because they still weren't ready. But you can't protect everyone with the law.

 

 

What I guess you could say is...

 

There's a difference between these two questions:

 

Is it possible for someone of a given age to meaningfully consent to sex?

 

Should we have an age off consent regardless of the variance in young people's development in order to facilitate the workings of society?

 

 

Age of consent in the US is 18.

Many other countires (such as UK, like you say) have it at 16.

 

It's clear that children can't consent. But it's not clear where a child reaches a point in their adolescence where they can.

As such, I think it is good for a culture to have a legal age of consent in order to facilitate prosocuting people who abuse children. In a society without a legal age of consent, which in a way would make sense, there would be a lot of debate in child sexual abuse cases of whether or not they consented... since mostly the children don't fully understand what is happening... which is why they have an age of consent.

Because it's much to complicated and time-consuming to each individual time determine whether or not a given person is capable of meaningful consent. They might be 12 and perfectly capable... but it is simpler to say, "It's not likely, so we'll go with 12 year olds cannot consent".

 

"Close in age" exceptions exist to mitigate situations where it would be ridiculous to use these laws... in the US where an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old, it's like, come on... and I think more attention needs to be paid to those because these laws aren't meant to target teens having sex with other teens.

 

 

Same thing with death penalty, really. There's a difference between asking, "Would the world be better if these people died?" and "Should we be legally allowed to execute people for crimes?

If you saw someone trying to murder a child and killed them... no way would I say that was wrong. But translating that morality into a precise legal system is a much more complicated matter.

[Chairchucker]

 

 

See point two of my last, Chairchucker.

 

The fact that scientific enquiry is predicated on the idea that all current theories are wrong and should be proven so doesn't make those theories pointless. The law isn't automatically right, but it is the best approximation of right that we have. It has been intellectually and logically tested, and is formulated by our peers (in a coherent democracy) and is therefore most likely to seem just.

 

So if the law is no sodomy, we must assume that is correct?

 

 

You know very well that certain laws in certain countries  are based on religious doctrine like making homosexuality illegal. This is clearly a form of discrimination

 

Its not the same thing as saying its illegal  to have sex with an 8 year old child. This is done as the child is not emotionally, mentally  and physically ready for this type of sexual relationship

 

 

I was just responding directly to the proposition that the law was the best approximation of right that we have.

 

...seriously, how do we kill these quote pyramids? I've tried just backspacing them before but they always keep the bubbles!

[Gfted1]

...seriously, how do we kill these quote pyramids? I've tried just backspacing them before but they always keep the bubbles!

Toggle BBCode mode (upper left hand corner button) and delete what you don't want.

[TrashMan]

 

As an aside, I knew some 19 year olds who went doolali over sex because they still weren't ready. But you can't protect everyone with the law.

 

 

*still playing DA*

 

Oddly enough, all of those individuals seem to turn out into normal, productive members of society.

With sex being a natural part of life, one has to wonder just how much damaging it really is, and how much our own society and teaching/stances are a factor in it.

[Walsingham]

 

 

As an aside, I knew some 19 year olds who went doolali over sex because they still weren't ready. But you can't protect everyone with the law.

 

 

*still playing DA*

 

Oddly enough, all of those individuals seem to turn out into normal, productive members of society.

With sex being a natural part of life, one has to wonder just how much damaging it really is, and how much our own society and teaching/stances are a factor in it.

 

 

All I can say is that you've obviously not known anyone dear to you who's been raped.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

As an aside, I knew some 19 year olds who went doolali over sex because they still weren't ready. But you can't protect everyone with the law.

 

 

*still playing DA*

 

Oddly enough, all of those individuals seem to turn out into normal, productive members of society.

With sex being a natural part of life, one has to wonder just how much damaging it really is, and how much our own society and teaching/stances are a factor in it.

 

 

All I can say is that you've obviously not known anyone dear to you who's been raped.

 

There is a difference here, I recall a study that concluded that victims of child abuse that were just isolated incidents had grown to be normal. Children brains have more neuroplasticity than adults, which is why they can bounce back from events such as those better than adults.

[Dawn Quixotic]

And well, I mean... there's a difference "having sex when you're  not really psychologically ready"  and being sexually assaulted, so it depends on what you're talking about.

[BruceVC]

 

 

As an aside, I knew some 19 year olds who went doolali over sex because they still weren't ready. But you can't protect everyone with the law.

 

 

*still playing DA*

 

Oddly enough, all of those individuals seem to turn out into normal, productive members of society.

With sex being a natural part of life, one has to wonder just how much damaging it really is, and how much our own society and teaching/stances are a factor in it.

 

 

I can only assume that Trashman means people that weren't emotionally ready for consensual sex and not rape?

 

Maybe he can clarify?

[TrashMan]

Both.

 

Those people still end up holding stable jobs, having kids and being productive members of society.

Humans are anything if not ressilient. Traumas leave scars, but humans endure.

[Walsingham]

The endurance and courage that humans can display is indeed inspiring. And yes, it's possible to come back from that. But it's also possible to come back from having your face and arms burned off. It doesn't mean the perpetration is any less serious.

[Orogun01]

The endurance and courage that humans can display is indeed inspiring. And yes, it's possible to come back from that. But it's also possible to come back from having your face and arms burned off. It doesn't mean the perpetration is any less serious.

You are comparing a physical disability with mental trauma, I don't think that you can quantify pain but at the very least apples to apples and whatnot. 

After all, you can't see rape in your profile pictures.

[Walsingham]

 

The endurance and courage that humans can display is indeed inspiring. And yes, it's possible to come back from that. But it's also possible to come back from having your face and arms burned off. It doesn't mean the perpetration is any less serious.

You are comparing a physical disability with mental trauma, I don't think that you can quantify pain but at the very least apples to apples and whatnot. 

After all, you can't see rape in your profile pictures.

 

 

Not without breaking forum guidelines, certainly.

[BruceVC]

Both.

 

Those people still end up holding stable jobs, having kids and being productive members of society.

Humans are anything if not ressilient. Traumas leave scars, but humans endure.

 

I'm not sure what you overall point is? Are you saying that rape isn't as serious as people make it out to be as some people get raped and live a normal life?

Edited September 25, 2013 by BruceVC

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wals, what the hell does "top trumped" mean?

[Walsingham]

Wals, what the hell does "top trumped" mean?

 

It's the original (maybe) kids card game.

 

Each pack of Top Trumps is based on a theme, such as cars, aircraft, dinosaurs or characters from a popular film or television series. Each card in the pack shows a list of numerical data about the item. For example, in a pack based on cars, each card shows a different model of car, and the stats and data may include its engine size, its weight, its length, and its top speed. If the theme is about a TV series or film, the cards include characters and the data varying from things like strength and bravery to fashion and looks, depending on the criteria.

All the cards are dealt among the players. There must be at least two players, and at least one card for each player. The starting player (normally the player sitting on the dealer's left) selects a category from his or her topmost card and reads out its value. Each other player then reads out the value of the same category from their cards. The best (usually the largest; in the case of a sports car's weight or a sprinter's 100m time, for instance, lower is considered better) value wins the "trick", and the winner takes all the cards of the trick and places them at the bottom of his or her pile. That player then looks at their new topmost card, and chooses the category for the next round.

In the event of a draw, the cards are placed in the center and a new category is chosen from the next card by the same person as in the previous round. The winner of that round obtains all of the cards in the center as well as the top card from each player.^[1]

Players are eliminated when they lose their last card, and the winner is the player who obtains the whole pack. Some variants of the rules allow 'three card pick', whereby a player who has only three cards remaining is allowed to choose any of their three cards to play with. Typically, this lengthens the game considerably.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Trumps

[josan motierre]

I can't believe I actually read this entire thread. What a marathon.

 

Although some of the most heinous crimes may make you really think that someone should die, upon reaching that conclusion, you have forfeited reason and begun to think emotionally. This is the entire problem with the death penalty. The death penalty in modern society will always be wrong. Humans are infallible and while ever there is a chance of error (which there ALWAYS is, even with "clear cut" evidence) then the death penalty is simply wrong because it is irreversible. The chance of wrongly convicting someone is simply too high - especially because of police corruption and other factors. There have been cases of people who have been imprisoned for decades because of an engineered case by corrupt police, or simply because of a mistake. If you took the lives of these people, then the justice system has failed. It serves to PROTECT, not to PUNISH. That is why the whole vengeance side of things needs to be left out. You just have to remove the criminal from society by locking them up to keep the rest of society safe.

 

You might say "Oh but what about the guy who was caught red handed drinking the blood of an innocent child!" but my stance does not change. Even if there is no chance that this person isn't guilty, the law should not discriminate. It should treat the suspect as it should any suspect because it fundamentally MUST be applied EQUALLY to EVERYONE. Thus the death penalty still inappropriate.

 

The death penalty is an emotional punishment full of vengeance. It is reckless because it is final and cannot be reversed. It is fundamentally wrong because the law is supposed to protect, and if it executes the wrong person then it has failed. It is simply a relic from the days when things were more brutal, because no one had resources to spare to do things right.

 

---

 

As for those pictures of the Norwegian prisons, I find them absolutely disgusting. A prison shouldn't be a palace.

[Walsingham]

 Humans are infallible and while ever there is a chance of error

 

I presume this is deliberate?

 

Humans are obviously fallible, but it is equally obvious that to embrace fallibility as the guiding principle of civilisation is as self-contradictory as it is pointless. Fallibility is no more an absolute than infallibility. Logic is therefore hardly better than emotion itself. Justice of any description a mirage. My own legs might be a cheese sandwich. And so forth.

 

To permit appeal via reason makes sense. To invalidate reason itself you might as well retire to a ditch and weep yourself to death.

[Augusta Corvina]

As for those pictures of the Norwegian prisons, I find them absolutely disgusting. A prison shouldn't be a palace.

 

Maybe you feel so, but as far as we norwegians can tell it turns out that treating people decently and giving them a shot at rehabilitation is a very effective way to deal with criminals.

[Walsingham]

Oh well, as long at the criminal can live a rehabilitated and happy life I guess everything's FINE.

[Gorgon]

So which is more desirable, the macro level approach to rehabilitation or the satisfaction of vengeance. The law needs to supply both or  vigilantism would be the result. It does not, however, need to supply one at the cost of the other. 

 

 

When we are talking about the entirety of the justice system then these singular horror stories are statistically insignificant. As are individual high profile cases where one may feel that not enough punishment has been doled out, but they do contribute to a sense of deficit in the vengeance part of the equation which usually realizes itself in collective punishment.