Alberta man gets 4.5 years in prison in sex tourism case

[Tommi]

My sisters friend wanted to fuck me when she was 13 and I was 18. She ended up a raging lesbian though. I think she wanted to get to her through fucking me...

Who knows?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That seems like a big time stereotype of girls your age.
You really think this is the norm in Ireland?

I don't think it's the norm anywhere for someone to jump on a transatlantic flight to fuck a 14 year old girl. Alberta....for those of you not familiar with Canadian Geography...It's the province directly above the Western Half of Montana. That's like a thousand dollar flight each way.

[Mistame]

You understand that is much of the US Constitution, right?

I've already addressed this. The founding documents may have been influenced by religious teachings but they are not religious texts.

Yeah...like laws and ethics...

"Good/evil", as a concept, does not exist. "Laws and ethics" are neither synonymous with, nor relevant to that discussion.

Like Quakers fighting slavery...damn them, right?

I fail to see what this has to do with a modern society.

When has the US Constitution "had no relevance in modern society?"

Perhaps you misread what I wrote. I did not say the founding documents have no relevance in modern society, I said religions have no relevance in a modern society, especially in regards to law making.

Look, if you're in favor of child predation, just say so.
But stay away from children.

This is the equivalent of calling people who are again a ban on gay marriage "fags". And since I've already stated that I do not support adults sleeping with children (you even quoted it), you're just being cunty for the sake of being cunty.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Guys, the religious debate, as interesting as it may be, is off-topic and also against forum rules.

- - - Updated - - -

What in the actual fuck is going on in this thread.

Some people seem to have picked the Right to fuck children as the Libertarian Hill they want to die on.

[Mormolyce]

It places a condition upon children that they must do something that they have no choice in "for their own good".

Actually no, it places a fine on the parents if they don't send their kids to school.

Emancipation also has a minimum age which also varies.

I suppose you are also against child labour laws, minimum ages for drinking, voting, driving, military service, etc. Also, I guess all children should be tried as adults now as well...since the state has no business deciding what a minor is. No more juvie.

We do not have child labour laws because children can't consent to labour. Incidentally I think the US age of drinking is ludicrous. I'm not convinced we need that either, although once again it's not a question of consent - it's the businesses that are regulated.

And actually whether or not a child is tried as an adult is also a controversial question and can be overturned in some cases depending on the crime. Which makes no sense from a "consent" point of view.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Actually no, it places a fine on the parents if they don't send their kids to school.

And Age of Consent laws apply penalties to adults....not the children.

We do not have child labour laws because children can't consent to labour. Incidentally I think the US age of drinking is ludicrous. I'm not convinced we need that either, although once again it's not a question of consent - it's the businesses that are regulated.

It stands in the way of the child's "self-determination". If a twelve year old wants to show up to work at the copper mine drunk...that should be their choice...right?

And actually whether or not a child is tried as an adult is also a controversial question and can be overturned in some cases depending on the crime. Which makes no sense from a "consent" point of view.

We're not talking about occasionally trying a child as an adult though. Every child would be tried as an adult for every crime. They should not be treated any differently than anyone else...right?

[Mormolyce]

And Age of Consent laws apply penalties to adults....not the children.

Except that the state ends their relationship.

It stands in the way of the child's "self-determination". If a twelve year old wants to show up to work at the copper mine drunk...that should be their choice...right?

We're not talking about occasionally trying a child as an adult though. Every child would be tried as an adult for every crime. They should not be treated any differently than anyone else...right?

You're completely missing the point, the central question behind these laws is not whether or not the person is able to consent to them, so they aren't relevant here.

[Tennis]

What sentence would you prefer, Tennisace? 50 hours of torture by ISIS and eternal damnation in hell or something?

Life in prison seems right for a predator. Why risk him back out in society? Imagine he targets your niece next.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Except that the state ends their relationship.

It does not. It imposes punishment on the person that broke the law. If they desire to continue with their relationship...that's for them to decide. Example: Mary Kay Letourneau and her husband.

You're completely missing the point, the central question behind these laws is not whether or not the person is able to consent to them, so they aren't relevant here.

No, your argument was that Age of Consent interferes with their ability for self-determination. They are entirely relevant here. They're just inconvenient to your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Should age of consent be given at the current age it is given? Should age of consent be abolished (at least as a hard age)? That is what is being argued.

Like I said...people arguing for the right to fuck children.

[Sluvs]

she was 14 and it sounds consensual he's hardly a monster, but he did break the law.

also places like brazil and china have age of consent of 14, while the middle east basically has no age requirement except marriage.

oh and child pornography just sounds much worse than it is, basically she sent nudes = child porn

if he was blackmailing her into sending nudes and having sex that's one thing, but the law states a minor cannot consent = everything is his fault, he raped her etc etc even if she wanted him.

Misleading part about Brazil. The age of consent here is 14 but only if you are within the same age range(I believe it's 16 year old max) , for example, a 14 year old person CANNOT consent to someone who is 20 years old.

[Stelio Kontos]

I always wonder why certain posters will spend dozens (or sometimes hundreds) of posts arguing in favor of letting people screw minors (or even in defense of pedophiles).

You don't argue like that if you're not at least somewhat invested in the "cause".

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Again, no.

Again, yes. I'm not saying that you personally want to fuck children...just that you are arguing that if you did want to...there should be no problem with that.

[Deleted]

Gonna come up with a humane punishment, let's see. Have him shot!

[Ghostpanther]

Again, yes. I'm not saying that you personally want to fuck children...just that you are arguing that if you did want to...there should be no problem with that.

That is exactly what he is arguing.

- - - Updated - - -

Gonna come up with a humane punishment, let's see. Have him shot!

Na. First time offense, 4.5 years in a real prison is enough. He does it a second time, you cut off his balls.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That is exactly what he is arguing.

Yep...and I just wish people would be honest about that... whatever their intentions might be..they are arguing for the right to fuck kids.

[Mizix]

No, this is not exactly what you said. You said the opposite. "Law making does not rely on science alone."

Nope, I said that "we all know law making does not reflect scientific facts alone" which means that sometimes it will reflect scientific facts but not always and not necessarily. English is not my main language though so do not nitpick on semantics when I made my point perfectly clear in the subsequent post.

This is simply not true. Both your reasoning for the age of consent and age of majority do not reflect the reality of how these ages came about.

Can you provide any proof that discredits decades of scientific research or we should just trust your word and fuck off with the stages of cognitive development? Also, are you seriously arguing that a 14 years old is just as mature as a normal - not mentally retarded - 34 years old? And finally, again: I do not care how historically we came to change age of consent, what I care about is that we now know that maturity is a largely measurable quantity and that age of consent does not necessarily - in fact it does not in most laws - correspond with biological and psychological adulthood. Unless you start providing sound scientific arguments against this empirically proven fact, you are dead wrong and there is nothing more to discuss here.

This is very new and certainly won't have an impact on law making (if it ever does) in the next couple of decades. If this science changes (like it has many times before), then you can expect a far less chance of this neuroscience impacting law making.

Very new my ass. It has been argued the first time almost half a century ago, which is new compared to the beginning of time but still plenty old by now for people to start paying attention instead of going "buu-hu science does not agree with me, let us wait it changes to a more favorable outcome for my views". Which is pretty much what you are doing here. I agree it will not have any major impact on law making anytime soon though because, as I said, law making does not reflect scientific facts alone.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Have i grossly misrepresented your argument? If i did, i can understand you grossly misrepresenting my argument.

When you talk about abolishing the Age of Consent...you are essentially talking about the right to fuck children. If the reality of your argument makes you uncomfortable...well,maybe you shouldn't be making it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Hmm............

I can quote you as well

Should age of consent be given at the current age it is given? Should age of consent be abolished (at least as a hard age)? That is what is being argued.

[Mizix]

What you meant to say is different than what was said. I am sorry, i didn't intend to make fun of your English. Nonetheless, semantics are crucial to any logical argument.

Fair enough, hopefully I made myself clear.

This is irrelevant. You are stating that the age of consent and the age of majority were, at least partially, determined because of scientific research. That is not true.

No, I am not stating that. I am and have been stating that age of consent and maturity - I have also been talking about stages of maturity not "age" because there is no magic number - are different things. The concept of maturity is based only upon scientific research whilst age of consent has been fixed accordingly to different criteria too - mostly -, such as religious morale. What I later argued is that, if we were to only follow science research in law making, we would have brackets for age of consent that would correspond to the different stages of maturity - which is not going to happen anytime soon, we both agree on that.

After the purposeless insult, you state that the age of maturity is based upon scientific research. That is what i am saying is not true.

Yet you have not provided one single fact or scientific argument for your opinion... It literally is your word against decades of empirical research into cognitive and brain development. Also, there is no "age" of maturity, there are "stages" of maturity.

Either way, the decades of research does not all agree. Only recently came about the idea of the brain fully maturing at 25ish.

Of course they do not always agree, that is how scientific research works but the basics of the theory are well agreed upon by now. You either disprove them scientifically or get behind them. You saying "it is not true" without providing any fact is not a sound nor valid argument.

Not really. My question to you is, "Is a 34 yo just as mature as a 74 yo?" Maturity is too difficult to properly quantify. Sexual maturity is far easier. Developmental maturity, not so much.

No, they are not as mature. However, they both belong to the same broad stage of maturity: adulthood. I do not know now if the stage of adulthood has been divided into sub-stages - I would guess so, but have not really researched into that. Sexual maturity is biological but that is not all there is to a person: psychological development matters too, which is why a 34 years old fucking a 14 years old is messed up big time, given what we now know about cognitive development and the different stages of maturity.

- - - Updated - - -

I am just redefining adulthood.

But you are pulling your definition out of thin air though, that is the problem with your argument: it has absolutely no scientific base. You are trying to back it up by historical facts while grossly discarding scientific progress in doing so. You are entitled to your opinion but do not pretend it carries the same weight in an argument as the theories of developmental psychologists and neuroscientists.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

We can quote each other. But, your quote contradicts what you said. My quote doesn't.

You are representing my argument as arguing for the "right to fuck children." Now, there are one of two logical possibilities for saying this. 1) You believe that childhood ends upon being given right to give sexual consent. As it stands, an adult already has the right to have sex with someone under the age of majority (at least in the countries of question). Or 2) you believe that i am arguing for an adult's right to have sex with a child. I am not. I am arguing that adulthood (and ability to give legal, sexual consent) should be lowered. I am arguing that an adult should have the right to have sex with another adult. I am just redefining adulthood.

In case #1, YOU are confusing the age of consent with the age of majority. In case #2, YOU are grossly misrepresenting my argument.

Case 3: You are still confusing the Age of Consent with the Age of Majority and You are grossly misrepresenting your own argument.

As you said the discussion is about two things:

a) Should Age of Consent be given at the age it currently is
b) Should Age of Consent be abolished

The argument to lower the Age of Majority is neither a nor b.

Lowering the Age of Majority would have little bearing anyway...because the Age of Consent is a different concept. By lowering the Age of Majority you have not addressed the Age of Consent.