Alberta man gets 4.5 years in prison in sex tourism case

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yes, that is why called it nonsensical. Again, not saying that you or the article are labeling him as a pedophile. The informal usage is nonsensical.

It would be more nonsensical if the country where the crime was committed changed their perception of the deed. At least in this case, even with their incorrect usage of the term, they are using consistent logic.

And I understand that you are not saying that the article or I said he was a pedophile. I never thought otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah ha! The first defense of the age of consent being 18.

But the Age of Consent is not 18. 18 is the Age of Majority.

[Total Crica]

Ah ha! The first defense of the age of consent being 18.

I am not defending this law, I was explaining the law as it exists currently in the US.

Personally, I don't agree that all minors should not have any legal way to be independent.

All people are different and can be capable of being independent regardless of their age.

I understand its easier to have a blanket law to protect as many minors as possible that may not be capable of being independent, but it prevents those that are capable from being independent.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Simply saying one must obey the law without understanding the law is really asinine.

Just because a law exists doesn't mean that law is helpful or needed or even right.

After all, a runaway slave was breaking the law before the US Civil War, and I am sure you agree that law was ok to break?

Totally different argument. If someone wanted to make the case that the law was unjust that would be one thing. But even if a law is unjust...when you break it you also accept the consequences of doing so.

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse to break it.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not defending this law, I was explaining the law as it exists currently in the US.

Personally, I don't agree that all minors should not have any legal way to be independent.

All people are different and can be capable of being independent regardless of their age.

I understand its easier to have a blanket law to protect as many minors as possible that may not be capable of being independent, but it prevents those that are capable from being independent.

Minors do have a path to independence. It's called Emancipation of Minors.

[Total Crica]

Totally different argument. If someone wanted to make the case that the law was unjust that would be one thing. But even if a law is unjust...when you break it you also accept the consequences of doing so.

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse to break it.

That's not how the law works in the US.

People are not required to blindly obey laws.

They are required to not intentionally cause harm, regardless of the law.

People are not found guilty of a crime without due process to ensure the law they did not obey was just.

If someone intentionally harms another but did not break any law, they can be found guilty of a crime after due process, regardless.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That's not how the law works in the US.

People are not required to blindly obey laws.

They are required to not cause harm, regardless of the law.

People are not found guilty of a crime without due process to ensure the law they did not obey was just.

If someone harms another but did not break any law, they can be found guilty of a crime after due process, regardless.

US laws are meaningless here. This is a Canadian Citizen convicted of a crime on Irish Soil.

[Total Crica]

US laws are meaningless here.

Blindly obeying laws is meaningless anywhere.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Blindly obeying laws is meaningless anywhere.

I have never suggested blind obedience. Again, if anyone wants to challenge the law as being unjust...that's fine...they can go right ahead and do so. But just because you do not agree with the law does not mean you are immune to the consequences of breaking that law.

[Ghostpanther]

That's not how the law works in the US.

People are not required to blindly obey laws.

They are required to not intentionally cause harm, regardless of the law.

People are not found guilty of a crime without due process to ensure the law they did not obey was just.

If someone intentionally harms another but did not break any law, they can be found guilty of a crime after due process, regardless.

That is subjective at best if the person is ignorant of the details of the law. If a adult has sex with a minor, but was not aware of the age the other is considered to be a minor, they have caused harm to the minor and the excuse of, " I was not aware she was underage, is not going to fly". There are cases of " ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it."does apply.

Another example is lets say you have a license to carry a handgun concealed and in your automobile in your state, but you are stopped by the police in Maryland and you have the weapon loaded in your automobile. Guess what, your excuse, " you was not aware of Maryland's gun laws" is not going to save your ass from prosecution. The judge may not sentence you as much as he would a resident, but there are cases where those who where caught driving thru Maryland had to pay a fine. Because they broke the law. :P

[Socialhealer]

Easy there Jack Kelly

who? i'm not 65 years old.

[Clone]

Dude should have went to Southeast Asia for sex tourism.

[Mormolyce]

Look at your own map, it's 16 or 18 for most of the world.

Are you not seeing the green?

You've just defined every single law ever.

I know, don't tell it to me.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I know, don't tell it to me.

Then what is your point?

[Mormolyce]

Then what is your point?

Go back and read Ghostpanther's post that I responded to.

[Deleted]

Clinton, Weiner, Lena Dunham (who is proud to have sexually molested her sister), Canada. Liberals are all moral degenerates. Thank God that Republicans with their Christian values won last election.

infracted - trolling

It sad some people want to cover up the truth.

[Shadowferal]

Not saying it is. Just saying I don't understand how degenerates think.

Neither do I.
And I don't want to.
Their actions tell me all I need to know in this case.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Go back and read Ghostpanther's post that I responded to.

I did. Your point is still lacking.

You said:

The law in this case is literally forcing the opinion of those who support it on others.

I want to know why you think this specific law is special in that regard...because you've literally just defined what laws are.

[Mormolyce]

It sad some people want to cover up the truth.

Was he going to start at some point?

I did. Your point is still lacking.

You said:



I want to know why you think this specific law is special in that regard...because you've literally just defined what laws are.

His post:

It does matter if it is wrong or right because it is the law and if you are caught violating that law, guess what, your opinion will not matter to the judge. I have my own morals of course, but those can not be forced on others because I have them. No more than you can force yours on others. But the law can force it's rules on you regardless of your own morals. And we are talking about a democracy at work.

He's saying that the law determines guilt, he has his own morals but they can't be forced on others. But the law in question is precisely a moralistic one that's forcing its morals on society.

Yes that's true of a lot of other laws as well.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

He's saying that the law determines guilt, he has his own morals but they can't be forced on others. But the law in question is precisely a moralistic one that's forcing its morals on society.

Yes that's true of a lot of other laws as well.

I don't think it's really "forcing" anything...but it does hold people accountable. Laws are society's morals.

Let me cut right to the chase and ask a simple question:

Are you against Age of Consent laws entirely?

[Shadowferal]

He's saying that the law determines guilt, he has his own morals but they can't be forced on others. But the law in question is precisely a moralistic one that's forcing its morals on society.
Yes that's true of a lot of other laws as well.

That's true with all laws.
And you don't break them without consequences.

So..if you want to get that changed (ie, the no sexual contact with13-14yr old) you're welcome to try.
But everyone, especially the majority that have their own children, likely won't be supporting you at all.
But they probably will label you as a "pedophile."

[Mizix]

Why is 18 the cutoff age of childhood?

I understand he broke the law, but that seems to be the crux of counter-argument.

Gotta fix that somewhere, I suppose... Although if it was up to me, I would move the bar a little higher - around 21-23 - as most 18 y.o. that I know - and also thinking back at how I was at that age - are nearly no mature enough to be considered adults. They are at best young adults, starting to look more like adults and less like teenagers but still very much teenagers in many regards. However, the difference in development between a 14 and a 16 or a 18 y.o. is huge: one or two years at that age are like several years into your twenties or thirties.