Posted on 01/04/2013 1:11:56 PM PST by Morgana
The left-wing title provoked anger by quoting a convicted paedophile’s view that sex between a man and a child can be consensual — and not cause harm.
And it repeated controversial research that as many as one in five men is “capable of being sexually aroused by children".
The article, by feature writer Jon Henley, also stated that pervert Jimmy Savile was technically NOT a paedophile but an ephebophile — someone attracted to adolescents.
Cops believe he may have abused up to 300 victims. Stunned readers blasted the story online.
Henry Evans accused the paper of publishing “essentially pro-paedophile propaganda”.
Murun Buchstansangur wrote: “Guardian must be the only paper dementedly liberal enough to give a platform to a convicted paedophile.”
The story quotes Tom O’Carroll, former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs.
He said: “If there’s no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily... the evidence shows there need be no harm.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
Humans should strive to improve and not use past barbarism to justify indecent, oscene behavior.
Age of consent gets into the fact of liability and contract laws. It is still extremely relevant and useful.
In general these are protection laws for minors. Who no matter how mature they are, do not have long life experience to draw upon as an older adult who’s been in the world as an adult.
Further minors that do damage, their parents are liable for such damage done while their kid is under 18. After 18 the child is responsible for damages they do because they are now legally an adult. It provides a legal break in liability between parents and child and recognizes the child is not only responsible for things like damages, but they also are now able to enter into legally binding contrats as an adult.
They cannot just be arbitrary. The laws sets a standard so everyone (EVERYONE) knows what the age is. You can’t know that Johnny at 15 can enter into contracts that Sarah at 16 cannot. That is chaos. People would be breaking the law and have no idea because every kids’ age of consent could be anything. And we’re just supposed to take their word they can or can’t legally do something? Ridiculous.
THe law is there to remove such arbitrary confusion and resulting chaos. Some more mature kids on the high end suffer a little perhaps, but if they really are mature, they know why the law is set that way and their parents probably are less strict with them if they truly are more mature. On the other side there’s probably a bunch of kids that aren’t mature enough after 18 but many don’t run into trouble, and the ones that do, wise up.
No law is perfect for everyone. There’s always odd cases. That’s where case law and specific case-by-case rulings look at a particular incident and clarify the law based on that particular incident.
First, no one supports pedos here. Second, define obscene. You’d be the first. What I;m saying is that This 26 YO ‘children’ nonsense is killing us and we were better by far when ‘kids’ of 15 had and used responsibility.
You really want to try arguing that? You want to argue against the fact that in medical terms menstruation signifies biological ability and readiness for reproduction?
You think that because someone arbitrarily declared the laws of nature are superseded by the laws of man that nature gives a damn?
good luck.
If the kids are old enough for sex, they must be old enough to take care of a baby and provide for it without grandma and granpa around.
Let us say 18.
And anyone over 18 having sex with a minor should be permanently removed from society. Maturity means patience and good judgement.
The “ability” to procreate doesn’t mean you have to, just like the ABILITY to stab someone doesn’t mean its okay to go out and stab people.
So you jail the 18 yo woman with the 17 yo boyfriend?
Lots of our parents would still be in prison under your idea. Our grandparents would have been hung.
Sure you want to go there?
Look, this is pointless. Believe whatever you like. History, the very history that created/resulted in both our existence does not care what either one of us think.
But if you want 30 yo bubblewrapped children, keep on your present line of thought. Because it’s exactly how we got to 26yo bubble wrapped children. And 21. and 18....
I really think some of the liberturdians do
Of Leftist groupthink.
OK, I’ll give you that one. But no one to the best of my knowledge on this thread is.
Yes. I expect adults to have patience and judgement. When you expect people to act like animals, they will, lets give them an incentive to be better.
What, an adult who is 'mature' can't hold off a few months?
I have noticed they shy away from certain topics since the so-called “purges” during the primaries
Insanity. You apply 2 different standards based solely on time. Why specifically was it OK for granny and not people of our era?
In detail. WHY?
Without why, your whole rationalle crumbles.
?
You think I have a time machine?
I am talking about getting people to behave better now and in the future. I have no illusions about trying to change the past.
Insanity. You apply 2 different standards based solely on time. Why specifically was it OK for granny and not people of our era?
In detail. WHY?
Without why, your whole rationale crumbles.And while you and I have fought on the same team before, we couldn’t be further apart on jailing 17-18yos. That is batcrap Muslim crazy.
2 standards. Think about it. Why is one ok and one not? Forget time.
I wouldn’t approve if it was now.
OK good. That’s fine. Now tell me what specifically changed. Why was it OK then, 60 years ago, but now it’s wrong.
I never said it was okay 60 years ago
You said you wouldn’t approve of it now. That implied you would then.
OK, you just think you are morally superior than everyone who ever lived on the planet And all of history was wrong. You are entitled to that belief.
Not much point in arguing with God so I’ll stop here.
Nope and nope.
Just trying to provide some historical perspective on the issue. Our present approach to the age of consent, which is as I said fine by me, is cultural and legal, not medical or inherent in the human condition.
This should give us a little humility and help us avoid the arrogance of presentism. But it won’t. As your post eloquently shows.
“I am talking about getting people to behave better now and in the future.”
How ‘bout restricting your activities to your family and close friends and not ask for the 800 pound gorilla - now Fedzilla - to override the decisions of the family and parents?
AgencyPersons can’t make people behave better without exerting enormous amounts of force. That 800 pounder eats a Lot of bananas, and they are also called taxpayer dollars.
MY dollars! Let the parents deal with raising their Lil’ Darlins, ‘cause Gubment can’t do it.
While we are on this subject, Gubment funds wholesale, make that ‘industrial strength’ bastard farming, and we all know how well acculturated those spawn turned out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.