41 year old man walks free as judge callls 13 year old a Predator

[Violent]

LOL it's cool world would be dull and no progress ever made if we all thought the same.

This is very true.

[Sorrior]

This is very true.

Actually I evrn dislike treaties for similar reasons...The more varied whether it be laws, politics, ideologies and yes genetics the better the chance of survivsl for if we become too similar the all it takes is the right thing to topple us all insteak of at least a few groups surviving.

[Destruktion]

Quetzl, what all of this ultimately boils down to are your desires to engage in pedophilic relations with young children.
You are clearly well-read. You are clearly intelligent. And you have clearly used all of this to your advantage.
Obviously, the onus is on you to prove that pedophilia would make the world a better place, so why anyone is surprised that (despite how open-minded you seem for holding such an insane viewpoint) you are so stubborn and close-minded about this issue is beyond me. Why give fair weight to what other equally intelligent people are saying when there is sex with children at stake?

The only people that benefit from this sort of "ideal" that you talk about creating are pedophiles. Normal people have nothing to gain from pedophilia. The only benefits the children receive are derived from this new ideal system, benefits that have no use in current society.
Speaking of the children, where are they in all of this? What do they have to say about making pedophilia legal?
I tell you, if prepubescent children come out in droves in support of pedophilia, I'll definitely reconsider my position.
Until then, we have to assume that they have no interest in having sex with you or any of your sick compatriots.

[Violent]

Actually I evrn dislike treaties for similar reasons...The more varied whether it be laws, politics, ideologies and yes genetics the better the chance of survivsl for if we become too similar the all it takes is the right thing to topple us all insteak of at least a few groups surviving.

I agree, same principal as humans living on more than one planet.. If something happens to Earth, right now. We're all screwed.. But say we had a second or third planet we could live on. Something could happen here, but it wouldn't wipe out the entire species.

And if we all think and do the same, then how will anyone ever know what should be "right" or "wrong".

[chrisberb]

And if we all think and do the same, then how will anyone ever know what should be "right" or "wrong".

Laws, morals, ethics?

[Deleted]

I think you're the one who's not getting it. You've explicitly stated that you don't want to use logic in a debate.

Human behavior is not unique. You're making assumptions. Human behavior is a conglomerate of other observed animal behaviors put through the machine of culture.

- - - Updated - - -



I draw my observations from humans. I look to other examples in nature to see if there are similarities there in order to strengthen the observations I make on humans. This is what biologists do. I don't see you calling all biologists lunatics.

The hell are you on about logic now? Getting desperate?
You must be cause you can't read anymore.
When it comes down to SEXUALITY we are quite unique and comparison with other species need to be done but with caution.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, same principal as humans living on more than one planet.. If something happens to Earth, right now. We're all screwed.. But say we had a second or third planet we could live on. Something could happen here, but it wouldn't wipe out the entire species.

And if we all think and do the same, then how will anyone ever know what should be "right" or "wrong".

Fair point. If no one fuck kids, how do I know it's wrong.... Hey hold on. This isn't a fair point at all.

[Velaniz]

Quetzl, what all of this ultimately boils down to are your desires to engage in pedophilic relations with young children.

Sorry, you expose all your biases with this forthright opener.

I tell you, if prepubescent children come out in droves in support of pedophilia, I'll definitely reconsider my position.

..and if it's not droves, but just a handful of them that want to? Like the girl this thread is about?

[endersblade]

Dammit, why'd you remove the original link? Was going to show that to a friend >.>

I've had this conversation with a few of my friends, when one of my other friends got 'busted' for a similar thing - he was 20, his gf was 17, and they'd been dating since he was 17 and she was 14. He and his dad got into an argument over something unrelated, and his dad dimed him out to the cops. He is now and forever will be labeled a sex offender, and that is just complete and utter bullshit. I do not, in any way, condone the coercion and/or rape/abuse of underage kids, but for fuck's sake, 13 year olds know what the fuck they're doing, it's not like they don't know what the hell they're getting into when someone wants to have sex with them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fucking blindly ignorant.

I have absolutely no bloody idea when or where or why this suddenly became taboo, people have been having relationships with pre-18 year olds for centuries, and now suddenly it's against the law. K. Seems legit. I personally have zero interest in someone that age; hell, I wouldn't date anyone under the age of 25, and even that's kinda pushing it. But some people have different tastes and different views. Again, as long as it's willful on both sides, who are we to judge?

I for one am GLAD that not only did he NOT get into trouble for this, but that SHE did, because at least it wasn't just an open and shut case where everyone was biased and automatically assumed foul play on his part against someone who didn't have any idea what she was doing...because obviously, she did. It's just refreshing to see such a change-up.

[Sorrior]

Laws, morals, ethics?

All manmade....And what if the laws of one nation turn out to be faulty but multiple nations adopt them? A variety of laws and views is pretty much always better.

[Xarkan]

Yes.

Restrictions should not be considered by age, but by the actual metric that the age is trying to approximate. In terms of consent, harm; in terms of voting, intellectual capacity (but that's another argument), in terms of buying cigarettes, never :P (also another argument)

Yes i am 10 pages from the last page at least.. bah. Cannot keep up with this thread

In the context of this thread.. age of consent laws, which is what you are getting at not really voting.

If there are no arbitrary definitions but rather extensive testing and certifications as to when the individual is ready to have sex then the process of hooking up theoretically becomes bothersome or overly complicated. If you meet a 21 year old and need to check their certification then the system has largely failed, your system would in reality mandate that.

Having an age of consent on the other hand makes the requirement simple and thus obeying the law easy. Sure there are theoretical outliers that would not be able to get it on with 90 year old men and have to cry themselves to sleep next to their barbie doll but that is life, sucks to be 14. The law must be meaningful, create an environment that can be obeyed.

Yes yes, some girls look older, makes judgments harder. Not the point though, the point is your way gives no chance to know if you obey the law before extensive credential trading. Actually i am lying, judgments on girls who look older could be the point for someone but it was not my point anyhow.*

What credential trading? In order to follow the actual metrics you would need to certify such metrics. Age as you said approximates it.

*) In the context of the OP though it matters even less, the girl hardly even looked old enough, the convicted guy said it himself, she looked 14 or 15 but the limit was 16 so there is no reasonable claim that he obeyed the arbitrary line. Her capacity to make a sound judgment about sex (which i somewhat question to begin with but i lack strong evidence) was unproven, she had no credentials from a psychiatrist certifying her life choices. By either system he gone done wrong by having sex with her. Only thing is that the arbitrary line is easier to obey (with some blurring near the lines)

[Sorrior]

Yes i am 10 pages from the last page at least.. bah. Cannot keep up with this thread

In the context of this thread.. age of consent laws, which is what you are getting at not really voting.

If there are no arbitrary definitions but rather extensive testing and certifications as to when the individual is ready to have sex then the process of hooking up theoretically becomes bothersome or overly complicated. If you meet a 21 year old and need to check their certification then the system has largely failed, your system would in reality mandate that.

Having an age of consent on the other hand makes the requirement simple and thus obeying the law easy. Sure there are theoretical outliers that would not be able to get it on with 90 year old men and have to cry themselves to sleep next to their barbie doll but that is life, sucks to be 14. The law must be meaningful, create an environment that can be obeyed.

Yes yes, some girls look older, makes judgments harder. Not the point though, the point is your way gives no chance to know if you obey the law before extensive credential trading. Actually i am lying, judgments on girls who look older could be the point for someone but it was not my point anyhow.*

What credential trading? In order to follow the actual metrics you would need to certify such metrics. Age as you said approximates it.

*) In the context of the OP though it matters even less, the girl hardly even looked old enough, the convicted guy said it himself, she looked 14 or 15 but the limit was 16 so there is no reasonable claim that he obeyed the arbitrary line. Her capacity to make a sound judgment about sex (which i somewhat question to begin with but i lack strong evidence) was unproven, she had no credentials from a psychiatrist certifying her life choices. By either system he gone done wrong by having sex with her. Only thing is that the arbitrary line is easier to obey (with some blurring near the lines)

I think you'll find no one truly agrees with Quetzl and his basis for thinking the way he does is REALLY off base...Hell I may promote a lowering of the age but at least I stay in the teens and try and look at it as a human base instead of getging bonobos involved...

Still not getting why he thinks THAT is a bright idea...

[Velaniz]

I think you'll find no one truly agrees with Quetzl and his basis for thinking the way he does is REALLY off base...Hell I may promote a lowering of the age but at least I stay in the teens and try and look at it as a human base instead of geting bonobos involved...

Still not getting why he thinks THAT is a bright idea...

Off-base? I myself have recoiled many a time at much of what he's written, yet I don't possess the intellectual disingenuity to actually deride him for his lack of reasoned logic. None of what he's said was just a pedophilic notion pulled out of his ass. The reason I'm able to see that is because I am also able to see the fact that several of my views on the matter, many of which are so often in conflict with his, are influenced in no small part by the zeitgeist of the society I've been nurtured in. There simply is no objective basis on which to accuse him of anything other than keeping an outrageously open mind. The fact that he persistently upholds such wildly unpopular views and manages to back them with surprising amounts of logical/empirical validation is worthy of commendation in itself, even if I don't think those views themselves are.

Inb4 I'M called a pedophile/pedo-apologist.

[Underverse]

Quetzl, what all of this ultimately boils down to are your desires to engage in pedophilic relations with young children.
You are clearly well-read. You are clearly intelligent. And you have clearly used all of this to your advantage.
Obviously, the onus is on you to prove that pedophilia would make the world a better place, so why anyone is surprised that (despite how open-minded you seem for holding such an insane viewpoint) you are so stubborn and close-minded about this issue is beyond me. Why give fair weight to what other equally intelligent people are saying when there is sex with children at stake?

The only people that benefit from this sort of "ideal" that you talk about creating are pedophiles. Normal people have nothing to gain from pedophilia. The only benefits the children receive are derived from this new ideal system, benefits that have no use in current society.
Speaking of the children, where are they in all of this? What do they have to say about making pedophilia legal?
I tell you, if prepubescent children come out in droves in support of pedophilia, I'll definitely reconsider my position.
Until then, we have to assume that they have no interest in having sex with you or any of your sick compatriots.

Yes, the onus is on me. You're right. I'll get to that in a sec, but first I just want to say that my arguments don't stem from my desires (other than the desire to make the world a better place). I am indeed stubborn, but I would also say that I've given everyone's argument a fair chance - as in, I've considered them all instead of dismissing them for no reason (if they are in fact arguments, vs the often slander I get especially from Djalil).

So, benefits. The benefits are not for the pedophiles. I don't give a shit about pedophiles, especially in their contemporary form, which is pretty negative. The benefits are for society, and for normal people, both those who give and receive the attention. In our current society we place so little value on emotional attachments (thanks in part to money, capitalism, and individualism, which have all been exacerbated for the purpose of social control for those individuals who can game the system). I would like to see that changed. Changing that would result in less crime, more altruism, fewer psychological problems, and a host of other social benefits. One way of changing it would be to increase sexual freedom. One result or method of increasing sexual freedom would be to allow sexual relations between broader groups of people. I could go on for days about this. But there are other posts I have to reply to.

It might be worth noting that prepubescent children don't come out in droves for anything. I also have no interest in having sex with children, because I grew up in this culture just like you did. This is the slander I'm talking about. It's senseless.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, same principal as humans living on more than one planet.. If something happens to Earth, right now. We're all screwed.. But say we had a second or third planet we could live on. Something could happen here, but it wouldn't wipe out the entire species.

And if we all think and do the same, then how will anyone ever know what should be "right" or "wrong".

This is exactly true. However, there's an opposite force also at work - and that's the force of cohesion within a species. Humans have innate mental functions that serve to reinforce this cohesion - partly by fearing things that are different. So a balance between variety and homogeneity needs to be found. I tend to think that balance can be organized in such a way that you can have an externally homogenous system with internal variety - sort of like division of labor, but in terms of non-social traits.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes i am 10 pages from the last page at least.. bah. Cannot keep up with this thread

In the context of this thread.. age of consent laws, which is what you are getting at not really voting.

If there are no arbitrary definitions but rather extensive testing and certifications as to when the individual is ready to have sex then the process of hooking up theoretically becomes bothersome or overly complicated. If you meet a 21 year old and need to check their certification then the system has largely failed, your system would in reality mandate that.

Having an age of consent on the other hand makes the requirement simple and thus obeying the law easy. Sure there are theoretical outliers that would not be able to get it on with 90 year old men and have to cry themselves to sleep next to their barbie doll but that is life, sucks to be 14. The law must be meaningful, create an environment that can be obeyed.

Yes yes, some girls look older, makes judgments harder. Not the point though, the point is your way gives no chance to know if you obey the law before extensive credential trading. Actually i am lying, judgments on girls who look older could be the point for someone but it was not my point anyhow.*

What credential trading? In order to follow the actual metrics you would need to certify such metrics. Age as you said approximates it.

*) In the context of the OP though it matters even less, the girl hardly even looked old enough, the convicted guy said it himself, she looked 14 or 15 but the limit was 16 so there is no reasonable claim that he obeyed the arbitrary line. Her capacity to make a sound judgment about sex (which i somewhat question to begin with but i lack strong evidence) was unproven, she had no credentials from a psychiatrist certifying her life choices. By either system he gone done wrong by having sex with her. Only thing is that the arbitrary line is easier to obey (with some blurring near the lines)

The system would not be prospective credentials. The system would be retrospective if harm is done. You might say: "But wait, if you're only addressing it after harm is done, then you're not doing anything to prevent it!", to which I would reply that the prevention is in the punishment/consequence of harm; similar to how we deal with other forms of harm, such as murder. We put a punishment on that harm to dissuade people from doing it.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you'll find no one truly agrees with Quetzl and his basis for thinking the way he does is REALLY off base...Hell I may promote a lowering of the age but at least I stay in the teens and try and look at it as a human base instead of getging bonobos involved...

Still not getting why he thinks THAT is a bright idea...

Model organism. Look it up. Seriously, just read the wiki page. Even if it's just the first sentence.

- - - Updated - - -

Off-base? I myself have recoiled many a time at much of what he's written, yet I don't possess the intellectual disingenuity to actually deride him for his lack of reasoned logic. None of what he's said was just a pedophilic notion pulled out of his ass. The reason I'm able to see that is because I am also able to see the fact that several of my views on the matter, many of which are so often in conflict with his, are influenced in no small part by the zeitgeist of the society I've been nurtured in. There simply is no objective basis on which to accuse him of anything other than keeping an outrageously open mind. The fact that he persistently upholds such wildly unpopular views and manages to back them with surprising amounts of logical/empirical validation is worthy of commendation in itself, even if I don't think those views themselves are.

Inb4 I'M called a pedophile/pedo-apologist.

Little tear in my eye, someone else can peek past the veil enough not to hate me

[Choptimus]

Why do you insist on attacking Quetzl's views? His might be as extreme as yours, but at least he attempts to use some sort of reasoning, even if most people disagree.

Maybe because he said he'd let his 40 year old neighbour have sex with his 8 year old daughter if he knew the neighbour for a long time and maybe had sexual relations with them.

I mean what the actual fuck am I reading?

"Changing that would result in less crime, more altruism, fewer psychological problems, and a host of other social benefits. One way of changing it would be to increase sexual freedom. One result or method of increasing sexual freedom would be to allow sexual relations between broader groups of people."

Other than a few areas that are still "anti-gay" the only thing you are advocating is the legal right to fuck kids.

Ronald McDonald take you.

[Underverse]

Maybe because he said he'd let his 40 year old neighbour have sex with his 8 year old daughter if he knew the neighbour for a long time and maybe had sexual relations with them.

I mean what the actual fuck am I reading?

"Changing that would result in less crime, more altruism, fewer psychological problems, and a host of other social benefits. One way of changing it would be to increase sexual freedom. One result or method of increasing sexual freedom would be to allow sexual relations between broader groups of people."

Other than a few areas that are still "anti-gay" the only thing you are advocating is the legal right to fuck kids.

Ronald McDonald take you.

I'm against gays. Why? Because I'm against the cultural categorization of sexuality. Categorization creates rifts. Humans are not gay by nature. Therefore there is no need.

I'm advocating for a more ideal culture. Part of that is a change in legal systems.

[Choptimus]

I'm against gays. Why? Because I'm against the cultural categorization of sexuality. Categorization creates rifts. Humans are not gay by nature. Therefore there is no need.

I'm advocating for a more ideal culture. Part of that is a change in legal systems.

You still said you'd let your 8 year old daughter fuck a 40 year old man if you knew them for long enough and maybe had sexual relations with them.

You deffinitely get the pedo bear seal of approval.

Edit: Wait, what? "Categorization creates rifts. Humans are not gay by nature. Therefore there is no need."

Please do elaborate on that. Or don't, I honestly ain't gonna be around long enough to read your reply. Fair play to you for sticking by your opinions, but don't go around telling people you're right and they're wrong, because that's just foolish.

You do sound like a massive pedo tho, with the whole letting your 8 year old fuck a 40 year old that you too have fucked. That just sounds like some sort of messed up edgy thriller novel waiting to happen... Fifty shades of hey wanna fuck my 8 year old?

[Underverse]

You still said you'd let your 8 year old daughter fuck a 40 year old man if you knew them for long enough and maybe had sexual relations with them.

You deffinitely get the pedo bear seal of approval.

lol. Letting someone else do it is not the same as doing it yourself

Edit: Wait, what? "Categorization creates rifts. Humans are not gay by nature. Therefore there is no need."

Please do elaborate on that.

Elaborate on what? We see social rift creation all the time. It's terrible. Look at Europe, for example, and the rifts created by religion and culture coming together with the recent influx of muslims. Lots of problems being created, because people refuse to mend the rifts by assimilating/becoming more homogenous.

[Choptimus]

lol. Letting someone else do it is not the same as doing it yourself



Elaborate on what? We see social rift creation all the time. It's terrible. Look at Europe, for example, and the rifts created by religion and culture coming together with the recent influx of muslims. Lots of problems being created, because people refuse to mend the rifts by assimilating/becoming more homogenous.

Nope, you dodged.

This bit: Humans are not gay by nature. Therefore there is no need.

Anyway, see above. Done here.


"Letting someone else do it is not the same as doing it yourself" no it makes you a pedo enabler.

I saw a girl getting raped the other day, didn't do anything. Letting someone else do it is not the same as doing it yourself.

[Underverse]

Nope, you dodged.

This bit: Humans are not gay by nature. Therefore there is no need.

Anyway, see above. Done here.

Oh, I'm not afraid to answer questions and defend my points. I just didn't know which bit you were referring to.

Humans are not gay by nature because it would be devastating to darwinian fitness to not reproduce. Also, sex drive doesn't simply go away if you're 'gay'; you would have to find a gay mate. Which in a group of 20-70 humans of all different ages, can be incredibly difficult. Also, you have the rift formation I was talking about; humans like variety in static traits, not differences.

"Letting someone else do it is not the same as doing it yourself" no it makes you a pedo enabler.

I saw a girl getting raped the other day, didn't do anything. Letting someone else do it is not the same as doing it yourself.

Pedophilia and rape are two different things. Pedophilia CAN be rape if consent is denied.

Oh and yeah also that's the bystander effect, you won't go to jail for not interfering because you are not committing a crime.

[Sorrior]

Off-base? I myself have recoiled many a time at much of what he's written, yet I don't possess the intellectual disingenuity to actually deride him for his lack of reasoned logic. None of what he's said was just a pedophilic notion pulled out of his ass. The reason I'm able to see that is because I am also able to see the fact that several of my views on the matter, many of which are so often in conflict with his, are influenced in no small part by the zeitgeist of the society I've been nurtured in. There simply is no objective basis on which to accuse him of anything other than keeping an outrageously open mind. The fact that he persistently upholds such wildly unpopular views and manages to back them with surprising amounts of logical/empirical validation is worthy of commendation in itself, even if I don't think those views themselves are.

Inb4 I'M called a pedophile/pedo-apologist.

Oh no I would agree only that his way of solving it is to involve multiple species as well...We know more about humans then any other kinds making involving other species unnecessary as well as ignoring certain things...Some of our repulsion IS innate and some of his comments do go too far...

THAT is what I mean. He is essentially ignoring natural development rates of homo sapiens such as that we naturally seek sexual contact at certain ages AS sexual not as exploration...Doing that too soon CAN be dangerous.