Turkish court ruling 'lowers age of consent to 12'

[Independent voter]

So West Virginia did away with age of 12 consent and now Turkey picks it up, things never change they just move around.

[ls-]

You sure seem to know a lot, why don't you take a seat over here?

Knowledge is power And I like having this kind of power to avoid Thai prison, haha, as a foreigner it's quite easy to get there...

There's an American dude who lives w/ 12yo local girl in my condo, and she's not his daughter. Security guards are quite cool w/ it, cuz they say that he takes care of her, and she has much brighter future than many other local girls, he even pays for her to attend proper international school

[IIamaKing]

So judges who sit on the court in Turkey like to bang 12 year olds.

[Deleted]

i bet all pedophiles in the world are gonna head to turkey now i suppose

[Deleted]

i bet all pedophiles in the world are gonna head to turkey now i suppose

I think they already are there with the amount of unsupervised minors in their refugee camps

[shadowmouse]

@May90

In other words, "No, Bungee, I don't have any facts. I'm going to keep derailing this thread to talk about my theories". I asked for facts, you can't produce any, so I'm going to stop helping you derail the thread.

[Sorrior]

Isn't it ultimately a splitting of hairs, though?

Without some sort of hard science on the matter (inviting questions of how that would be determined,) what's to determine it?

Various countries scoff at the age of consent being 18 in the US, saying it's unnecessarily high. Well then what isn't too high? Is it 16? If it's 16, why not 15? And then why not 14, 13, 12, yadda yadda yadda.

Frankly, I'm fine with the age of consent being 18, as that's legally considered an adult for all other intents and purposes. But once you start to question and denounce ages, you'd best be able to defend why yours is the "right" one and the other one is "wrong."

Most of the US it IS 16 with 17 and 18 in some states

[Raelbo]

You are still failing to address my major point. How does someone not being able to have sex at 17 years 364 days old and being able to have it next day makes any sense from the "child/adult" point of view?=

If you have followed what I have said, then it should be obvious: It is irrelevant and your argument is disingenuous.

It's completely unreasonable, impractical, unfeasable and impossible to expect society to evaluate each individual to see when they are personally ready. The best that a real world system can do is find an age at which you would expect enough people to be sufficiently ready that it makes sense to green light it.

For example (totally thumb sucked numbers, but to illustrate the principle):
At age 10, 99% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 12, 95% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 14, 80% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 16, 50% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 18, 10% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 20, 1% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.

It's not about finding the exact solution tailored to each individual. It's about finding a practical and fair solution that overall achieves the most good (or conversely the least harm).

It is silly to think that evolution happens in such leaps.

It's silly of you, not to mention somewhat condescending, to suggest that I should think this. Maybe you need to start being less silly and apply a bit of rational thought to what I am saying?

People evolve gradually, and if the law separates adults from children like that, then it puts completely different people in two very wide categories, and puts those who are close to the border between these categories in one of them arbitrarily. It is a silly concept.

No it's not silly. It's pragmatic. More silly would be trying to create a ton of different categories and then have each individual assessed and processed through a bunch of different categories. It would be impossible to implement.

And from a strictly rational perspective (let's assume a place where age of consent is 18), it's not like 17 year olds are being told they can't ever have sex. They're being told they need to wait a bit longer. Ironically, if such a person is so impatient that waiting a few months longer is that much of a big deal to them, then that is a good indicator that they are lacking in maturity.

Not to mention that the concept of legal banning people from doing something "for their own good" is even more silly.

No, what IS silly is your insistence on applying this argument equally to children and adults. I can accept, in principle (as another poster said, as an undergraduate level purely hypothetical whimsical and casual debate) that legally dictating what adults can and cannot do "for their own good" is dodgy. But if you don't recognise that children require firm boundaries, for their own good then that makes you ignorant. Worse, if you refuse to accept that position from other people, that makes you obstinate.

[Deleted]

Outrage as Turkish court ruling 'lowers age of consent to 12' | World | News | Daily Express

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...age-of-consent

Well according to Mohammad its ok to have sex with 9 year olds.... so theyre just living up to the expectations of their prophet.

[alemaite]

Deception and coercion as a means of getting sex are already illegal, no need to ban that for children specifically. Manipulating people with these purposes is not legal.

You just don't WANT to understand it, do you? You can't arrest someone for deception IF YOU DONT KNOW the kid, or someone else, is being deceptive. You can't be this innocent, the real world isn't a video game where everything works in binary code. People lie, cheat and find loopholes. You need strict laws to protect the weak so it's harder to abuse them.

[snackfeat]

How have this thread even reached 7 pages? Surely nobody actually argues that this is okay.. right?

[Deleted]

How have this thread even reached 7 pages? Surely nobody actually argues that this is okay.. right?

Oooooh you'd be surprised man.

[Nitro Fun]

How have this thread even reached 7 pages? Surely nobody actually argues that this is okay.. right?

Check May90's replies in the thread. It's not other peoples business if someone has sex with a child. Shame on them for being authoritarians who wants to control what goes in the bed room of the upstanding citizens who just want to have sex with...

Sorry, wants to rape children.

[nextormento]

For the people wondering about Spain's legislation, it was set at "puberty" and later at 12 in the XIX century, 13 in 1995, and 16 last year.
The rationale over any change has followed much of the same debate we could have on these forums: how to make adequate laws for our current reality.
-A non trivial amount of kids are having sex at around 15.
-We have the figure of underage marriages, which were a bit of a thing among our Roma people.
-Up till last year's reform we didn't have "close in age" exceptions.

Ultimately these pieces of legislation are not aimed at controlling when are kids allowed to have sex, but when is their consent legally valid. If two people have sex and one is under that age, the state will simply judge the other party to figure if abuse was present disregarding the opinion of the non-consenting party.
That people are having sex at a young age is not an issue. The issue was always the abuse adults can exert over kids.
The nonexistence of the close in age thing is what forced it to be so low for so long. Because penalizing a 18 kid having sex with a 15 kid is absurd.
The marriage age is as low as 14 (only if explicitly allowed by a judge). It very rarely happens, but it's a thing. So then we also had the issue of penalizing underage married couples which is also absurd.

With last years's change we now have a new small absurdity: the criminal code for minors. People aged 14 through 18 can be "responsible" for some crimes, yet 14 through 16 can't consent to -be responsible about- sex.

[JoshuaNLG]

I wonder if Islam is playing a role in this.. Oh wait, yes, it is.

[Vash The Stampede]

How have this thread even reached 7 pages? Surely nobody actually argues that this is okay.. right?

I think we're just bowing to the absurd.



Just... bring the cake.

[May90]

If you have followed what I have said, then it should be obvious: It is irrelevant and your argument is disingenuous.

It's completely unreasonable, impractical, unfeasable and impossible to expect society to evaluate each individual to see when they are personally ready. The best that a real world system can do is find an age at which you would expect enough people to be sufficiently ready that it makes sense to green light it.

For example (totally thumb sucked numbers, but to illustrate the principle):
At age 10, 99% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 12, 95% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 14, 80% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 16, 50% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 18, 10% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.
At age 20, 1% of people are with a 95% certainty level, not ready.

It's not about finding the exact solution tailored to each individual. It's about finding a practical and fair solution that overall achieves the most good (or conversely the least harm).

Most people by 30 know how to drive. Let's make a new rule: everyone reaching 30 y/o gets a driver license automatically. Sounds fair?

What, sounds like nonsense? Um... You might want to reconsider your reasoning then.

No, what IS silly is your insistence on applying this argument equally to children and adults. I can accept, in principle (as another poster said, as an undergraduate level purely hypothetical whimsical and casual debate) that legally dictating what adults can and cannot do "for their own good" is dodgy. But if you don't recognise that children require firm boundaries, for their own good then that makes you ignorant. Worse, if you refuse to accept that position from other people, that makes you obstinate.

Okay, applying this argument equally to a 18 y/o and a 110 y/o seems fair to you, but applying this argument equally to a 18 y/o and a 17 y 364 d/o does not. Mind explaining why?

When does the child end and the adult start? Why is it 18 y/o? Or why is it 21, 17, 16, 14, 12, etc.? Who came up with this nonsense that a person at X years - 1 day old is a child, and next morning he magically wakes up an adult?

This logic is nonsensical, and you can easily see that it is nonsensical if you try to apply it to other things. But you won't, because it is easier to accept the logic the society offers to you, then to challenge it and try to find your own beliefs, not based on widely accepted dogmas.

You just don't WANT to understand it, do you? You can't arrest someone for deception IF YOU DONT KNOW the kid, or someone else, is being deceptive. You can't be this innocent, the real world isn't a video game where everything works in binary code. People lie, cheat and find loopholes. You need strict laws to protect the weak so it's harder to abuse them.

That's what we have qualified judges for: to make sense of hard and questionable cases. "Strict laws" is a simple solution to a complex problem, and, as such, it isn't expected to work. And it doesn't: what is the rate of unwanted pregnancies nowadays? What is the rate of pre-adult pregnancies? What is the rate of STDs? Doesn't seem to work all that well.

[alemaite]

That's what we have qualified judges for: to make sense of hard and questionable cases. "Strict laws" is a simple solution to a complex problem, and, as such, it isn't expected to work. And it doesn't: what is the rate of unwanted pregnancies nowadays? What is the rate of pre-adult pregnancies? What is the rate of STDs? Doesn't seem to work all that well.

The people who are qualified for these sort of questions have decided that the strict laws we have now are the right way to do it. The other things you are talking about are completely out of context and have nothing to do with sexual child abuse of 12 year olds and younger. You keep taking things out of context and talk about totally random things when you have no arguments, which is why I won't even bother responding to you anymore.

[Hooked]

I would say pull all of our weapons from turkey immediately, erect an impenetrable wall for "walkers and swimmers", put up a naval blockade that will sink any boat on the north of africa or any other shore that is sending their migrants to the west. This is like the mariel boat lift on global steroids.

[Deleted]

What researches do you speak of? I mean a pregnancy at 14 can be pretty dangerous and that's not even talking about the consequences at psychological level.
Yes, we know now a bit more about the human mind and that's why for example we don't employ little orfans as chimneysweepers anymore.