Moi? That works BOTH ways. You stupidly bring up Martin, who was a far older than six... Nananana-boo!
See, you can call me stupid, and I can call you stupid. I don't think it's true in either case. However, I still disagree with you.
Disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily make the other person stupid. That's a six year old's argument. ;-) And I'll still contend that age does matter. We don't let adults have sex with minors because they simply cannot comprehend consent.
Now that's a little stark, argument wise, but it shows the law acknowleges that the younger the mind, the more likely it will not understand.
Now that I do know, however, that the parents couldn't be found, I do see the need to call the cops. That was not in the original story, however. Now, did they apprehend the child, or arrest? The original story was arrest, implying criminal charges, and yes, I still contend that's wrong. I thought about it, too. I'm sure we still disagree, but that still doesn't make me--or you--stupid.
Well, certain things do indicate stupidity - ignoring rational arguments is one of them.
I bring up Martin because, LIKE THIS CASE, people were making a big deal about age.
Sure (speaking to a six year old) age matters in certain things. Age does not matter when injury and destruction is taking place. What matters then is the capacity and the intent to destroy and injure. BUT - like a three year old, you refuse to argue, address or concede the point...you are too busy arguing points that I have not made, which IS stupidity. I have addressed every point you have attempted to make - you keep coming back with an “Is not!” equivilant.
Bringing up sex with minors in this case is pure sophistry, whether intended (dishonest) or not (stupid). In such cases, the child is the one preyed upon and being damaged, not the other way ‘round. My point has always been, capacity to damage (in sexual case, the minor is being damaged) and intent to inflict damage (does not apply here either). Using your tactics I could easily say - age does not matter, because everyone needs air, food and water regardless of age! That argument would have no bearing on the foundation of my position (capacity and intent - maybe if I repeat it enough you will catch on - your arguments so far prove that you haven’t yet; so how can you address or even disagree with an argument you don’t understand?) - neither does your argument. So let me try once more...in cases such as this, AGE IS NOT A FACTOR, the ability of the person (whatever age) do do harm to themselves, others or property, is what is relevant IN CASES LIKE THIS, when deciding how to deal with the situation.
At least - once you UNDERSTOOD the situation - you backed off your condemnation of bringiing in the police (we often leap to poor conclusions when we jump in ignorance). Once you UNDESTAND my argument, you will likely change on this one too. But I despair of your likelyhood of understanding my sophisticated argument, you are too focused on the fact that 6 year olds are different fromm 20 year olds.