Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 07-30-2003, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Had I been the judge, I'd've thrown your ass in jail and slept like a baby.

Based on the information he had, what wrongful act did he commit? None! If I were on the jury I sure wouldn't convict. The law is badly flawed in this regard.

Loren Pechtel · 07-30-2003, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by McDuffie
Not only did she lie to me, but I met her in a bar. During that time, there is a logical presumption that everyone there was 19 or older. She certainly looked 19 or older. We saw one of those troubled teens shows on TV today in which there was a 12 year old who looked 18 or 19 and 2 fifteen year olds who looked 19 or older.

It happens. Yguy's real complaint is that I had sex at all. His "You just had to have sex with her" comment pretty much proves that.

And there is the flip side of this: Even in her early 40's, my wife looked young enough that casino security would not ask for ID, they would assume she was too young.

Should I have passed up the love of my life because she appeared to be under the age of consent?

Fred Flintstonensis · 07-30-2003, 12:27 PM

Isn't it obvious that yguy is offended by the 'sex' part, not the 'minor' part?

Loren Pechtel · 07-30-2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
I've already said. Licensing.

Someone who feels mature enough should get to sit an examination possibly following a compulsory education programme and if they pass then they get a fucking license.

I think that would be cool.

Think if the chat up lines; "Do you have a fucking license?"; "Bond 007 licensed to fuck." etc

Amen-Moses

I would be happy with the idea of a license.

Cut thee compulsory education, though--you get the license by passing a test. I think it would be quite workable. Look at driver's licenses, we have a perfectly good example of how to do it. (Note: The closest it would come to a practical would be putting a condom on a model.)

NHGH · 07-30-2003, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hedwig
Like what? I lied my way into college parties for the expressed purpose of picking up older guys...

This brings up an interesting legal question.

If a 15-year-old girl lies about her age in order to engage in a sexual relationship with an older guy, and he's held criminally liable for said relationship, should she be charged as an accessory?

It seems like we'd have to. After all, we can't allow psychopathic teenage superpredators to escape unpunished after subjecting poor, innocent children to that sort of sick and disgusting exploitation...

yguy · 07-30-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hedwig
Like what? I lied my way into college parties for the expressed purpose of picking up older guys.

I was curious to hear your reaction seeing as how you seem to be placing all the blame on the guy here.

If it were the girl on this board trying to McDuffie out to be the only culprit, you'd think I were trying to place all the blame on the girl. It's an illuison created by the fact that he is the only participant here trying to justify his behavior.

Fred Flintstonensis · 07-30-2003, 02:04 PM

He isn't trying to justify his behavior from what I could tell. He is denying that he willfully and knowingly had sex with a minor and he is right.

When you say he is the only here trying to justify his behavior, you are lying. He isn't trying to justify any thing. You are also betraying the fact that the behavior to which you object is the premarital sex, not the sex with a minor.

yguy · 07-30-2003, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fred Flintstonensis
He isn't trying to justify his behavior from what I could tell.

It would appear that your power of discernment is nothing to rave about.

Fred Flintstonensis · 07-30-2003, 02:54 PM

I notice you are quick with the insults. I just witnessed a decision in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff who should have lost the case was awarded money because the defendant became belligerent and insulting. It hurts your case. Please refrain from it in the future.

I also notice that the best you have done so far is to willfully ignore the main point of the posts while concetrating on little points that you can handle. You have no argument. You have yet to address the fact that it is obvious that you object to the 'sex' part not the 'minor' part.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justify

Please click that link above and see that I was using the primary definition of the word "justify", if you were were using the secondary definition you are right. McDuff was not trying to say "everything is A-OK! I got away with it! I slipped through a loophole and got a great piece of ass!" He is not trying to justify it in that sense.

What he is saying is that he only slept with her because he was fooled into thinking that she was legal. He is therefore only guilty of sex with a minor in a legal sense, not a moral sense. If you bought a car that was stolen, but the seller had cleverly fooled you into thinking it was a legitimate deal, by the letter of the law, you would be guilty of receiving stolen property, but ethically speaking you would know that you did nothing wrong, and I would defend you.

If someone came along and said "Well, that's what you get for buying cars" it would be like your complaint against McDuff. Buying cars is just as legal as having sex with a consenting adult. Just admit that your complaint extends only to the premarital sex aspect of this case and quit picking on little points like "fair game" and slinging insults. Debate the issue, man! Show us why we are wrong. Address the issue, not the periferal verbiage!

You are one more stupid, insulting comment from being ignored by me too. Obviously, McDuffie is not as patient as I am.

yguy · 07-30-2003, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fred Flintstonensis
You are one more stupid, insulting comment from being ignored by me too.

Could I get you to spot me one and go ahead and put me on ignore right now?

07-30-2003, 12:27 PM	#83
Fred Flintstonensis Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Orla Vista, FL Posts: 34	To Loren Isn't it obvious that yguy is offended by the 'sex' part, not the 'minor' part?

07-30-2003, 02:54 PM	#89
Fred Flintstonensis Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Orla Vista, FL Posts: 34	yguy I notice you are quick with the insults. I just witnessed a decision in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff who should have lost the case was awarded money because the defendant became belligerent and insulting. It hurts your case. Please refrain from it in the future. I also notice that the best you have done so far is to willfully ignore the main point of the posts while concetrating on little points that you can handle. You have no argument. You have yet to address the fact that it is obvious that you object to the 'sex' part not the 'minor' part. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justify Please click that link above and see that I was using the primary definition of the word "justify", if you were were using the secondary definition you are right. McDuff was not trying to say "everything is A-OK! I got away with it! I slipped through a loophole and got a great piece of ass!" He is not trying to justify it in that sense. What he is saying is that he only slept with her because he was fooled into thinking that she was legal. He is therefore only guilty of sex with a minor in a legal sense, not a moral sense. If you bought a car that was stolen, but the seller had cleverly fooled you into thinking it was a legitimate deal, by the letter of the law, you would be guilty of receiving stolen property, but ethically speaking you would know that you did nothing wrong, and I would defend you. If someone came along and said "Well, that's what you get for buying cars" it would be like your complaint against McDuff. Buying cars is just as legal as having sex with a consenting adult. Just admit that your complaint extends only to the premarital sex aspect of this case and quit picking on little points like "fair game" and slinging insults. Debate the issue, man! Show us why we are wrong. Address the issue, not the periferal verbiage! You are one more stupid, insulting comment from being ignored by me too. Obviously, McDuffie is not as patient as I am.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2003, 02:04 PM	#87
Fred Flintstonensis Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Orla Vista, FL Posts: 34	He isn't trying to justify his behavior from what I could tell. He is denying that he willfully and knowingly had sex with a minor and he is right. When you say he is the only here trying to justify his behavior, you are lying. He isn't trying to justify any thing. You are also betraying the fact that the behavior to which you object is the premarital sex, not the sex with a minor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.