or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dutch perverts go too far....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dutch perverts go too far.... - Page 2

post #41 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Paedophilia in a legal sense is a matter of definition and can easily be redefined by courts. Once/if the age of consent is lowered, then it is no longer legally paedophilia but acts between persons of consenting age. Other definitions are being successfully challenged and changed, so this should not be unexpected.

As a mental disorder, this can also be redefined by matter of a vote or decision by a professional body. Again, this has happened with other sexual behaviors which were once considered deviant.

True - I suppose I am assuming that the 'legal age' issue at 12 (say) is a kind of stalking horse by this group or else the lowest they can morally expect to get away with. They wouldn't stand on a platform of 6 years old for example.

Personally I have no problem with 12 as an age of consent as such - depending on the individuals. And that is the issue, not all 12 year olds are the same in terms of development.

My concern is not with that, there must be an age at which the 'age of consent' cannot logically apply and paedophiles have been known to extend their activities into this range. A recent case for example in the UK concerned a 6-month old baby that was raped.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #42 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
There is no "right" -- meaning no guaranteed assurance your advocacy will gain any traction -- of victory in your quest to persuade others.

No guarantee. Got it. The word "guarantee" is not a synonym for the word "right".

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
If you're simply having a problem with my usage of the word "right", then simply f*cking spit it out, instead of going through this GD annoying "So, they do have a right, huh? So, they don't have a right, huh?" BS.

Calm down sparky. I was asking for clarification of your meaning (since it was...well...unclear...because you used the wrong word). Relax.
post #43 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
All you have to do now is show how notification is the same as consent.

Nick

As far as I know, it is the same in the eyes of the current law - as long as there's an exception for special cases, it's OK to require parental consent. Do you have any information that there's a difference?

In addition, do you know of any laws about minors being required to have parental consent or notification before receiving other kinds of medical services aside from abortion? As far as I know, abortion is singled out by pro-lifers who want all abortion illegal, not because they're genuinely interested in issues of parental consent in general.
post #44 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
As far as I know, it is the same in the eyes of the current law

Notification is the same as consent?

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
In addition, do you know of any laws about minors being required to have parental consent or notification before receiving other kinds of medical services aside from abortion? As far as I know, abortion is singled out by pro-lifers who want all abortion illegal, not because they're genuinely interested in issues of parental consent in general.

I think the singling-out is happening the other way. If I take my minor child in for any medical procedure there are a raft forms I must sign (that she cannot) as her parent/guardian authorizing the medical care to be given.
post #45 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I actually agree with this - from the Government's pov they should be monitoring people like me if they publicly espouse certain views. To fail do so would be more dereliction of duty.

I think my objection in these matters would be if my rights did not increase with the pervs. For example, if they achieved the right to, say, molest small children then I would be happy with this if I had simultaneously increased rights to blow their heads off if they tried it on mine.

This doesn't often seem to be the case - here in Europe anyway. There was a famous recent case where the rights of burglars were increased in some way which resulted in a householder being jailed for shooting one who was then able to sue.

Often we see the rights of one party - often this is allied to Political Correctness which is a particularly pernicious aberration - increased to the detriment of others who may well be the victims of these parties.

So, give these pervs their political party - but I would ask, where is the anti-perv gunslingers party?

I see your point and will look forward to the legal test regarding your anti-perv gunslingers party !

You are right, and we see this portrayed on here often as well, that when a "victim group" claims a new right, often while additionally claiming to avoid tyranny of the majority, they actually are setting up a right seperate and above that majority. I've made this point with homosexual marriage and watch plenty a person lose their cool on such matters.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #46 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No guarantee. Got it. The word "guarantee" is not a synonym for the word "right".

The word "right" and the word "guarantee", while not synonymous for all usages of those words, are obviously closely related words. The right to free speech, at least when that right is more than a conceptual ideal, but instead a right which is actively protected by public policy, is in fact something that can be treated as a guarantee of free speech without government interference.

When context provides the idea that you're talking about recognized, enforced rights, I think it's reasonable to use the words "right" and "guarantee" interchangeably in many cases.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #47 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Due process has nothing to do with adults.

Nick

Quite right. However, the application of due process in THAT case was due to the fact that they were both consenting adults. The court commented first on the fact that they were consenting adults and then gave their decision based upon due process. You can't parce legal arguments by saying that they only used due process to come to their decision -- that isn't true.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #48 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
As far as I know, it is the same in the eyes of the current law - as long as there's an exception for special cases, it's OK to require parental consent. Do you have any information that there's a difference?

It isn't special cases, more like a court consultation with some adult. The court language called it an alternative if I recall correctly. There obviously is a difference between consent and notification legally. However to those that hold the view that both are an abridgement to reproductive rights, they are held in the same regard. This is because while the parent cannot deny the abortion, they can, once notified, take actions that prevent the child from getting to the hospital or clinic where they can consent to the abortion.

The distinction is legal, but due to real life circumstances, they are probably the same.

As for other laws, I'm not aware of any other procedure a minor can consent to without adult permission. This is why permission slips are required on all the field trips we undertake for example. The child can't even consent to stitches.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
The word "right" and the word "guarantee", while not synonymous for all usages of those words, are obviously closely related words.

Just admit you used the wrong word and move on.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
The right to free speech, at least when that right is more than a conceptual ideal, but instead a right which is actively protected by public policy, is in fact something that can be treated as a guarantee of free speech without government interference.

The "right" is "guaranteed" (by some thing...government, constitution, court, etc.) The words are not synonyms. Get it?

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
When context provides the idea that you're talking about recognized, enforced rights, I think it's reasonable to use the words "right" and "guarantee" interchangeably in many cases.

Then you are an idiot. The words are not synonyms.
post #50 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Quite right. However, the application of due process in THAT case was due to the fact that they were both consenting adults. The court commented first on the fact that they were consenting adults and then gave their decision based upon due process. You can't parce legal arguments by saying that they only used due process to come to their decision -- that isn't true.

Not to be rude Hardee, but courts don't rule on matters not brought before them. The question before the court was not dealing with minors. The Texas law specifically targeted homosexuals and their sexual actions. This is also why it was a bad ruling. Commentary has also noted that at a minimum it likely (not known for sure until a legal test case is presented) made laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, and bestiality unconstitutional. In case you weren't aware of it, those all are undertaken by consenting adults often in the privacy of their homes.

This is why it is a bad ideal to use due process, and the court should have, as O'Conner suggested, and as I suggest as well use equal protection. The court especially seemed to limit the government far too much by limiting the ability to legislate morality to matters in which "harm" can be proven. Many of the acts mentioned above do not harm someone yet are legislated as moral matters.

Equal protection would hold that we can legislate morality but have to apply it equally. (You can't screw a dog, nor can I. You can't screw a twelve year old, nor can I.) Now the right is assured and the state must show proof of harm to remove or legislate on the right. (You might not want to screw a twelve year old nor would I but someone else wants to, the twelve year old consents and both declare that no harm is done.)

The court decided on the matter of adult homosexual activity because that is what the Texas law addressed and had overturned. The legal reasoning is there even if the test case has not arrived yet and to me, it doesn't look promising that the state will be able to affirm a harm basis for legislating on this matter.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Just admit you used the wrong word and move on.

I don't see that I am wrong, not for casual conversation where my meaning can be easily understood, at least by most people. I never claimed the two words were the exact same word, just that context can make the distinction a moot point.
Quote:
Then you are an idiot. The words are not synonyms.

First of all, I clearly said they aren't synonyms -- saying the words can be treated as such in certain contexts is not the same as declaring them synonyms. If you feel that no such contexts ever, ever exists, fine. I don't agree, and my failure to agree isn't making it hard for most people to understand my meaning.

Secondly, since I try to pay a little attention to posting guidelines, I'll refrain from the sort of name calling you appear to feel free to indulge in, and merely describe your behavior in this particular thread, not you as an entire person, as being ridiculously hung up over a petty quibble about word usage, in a matter which doesn't seem to have caused any problems for anyone else in extracting clear meaning from what I've said.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #52 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I don't see that I am wrong,

Well...not much I can do about that I guess.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
not for casual conversation where my meaning can be easily understood,

Casual or not...you mis-used the word..and this leads to misunderstanding by those that know the actual meanings of the words.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
just that context can make the distinction a moot point.

No. Not really. Not for these two words anyway.


Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
saying the words can be treated as such in certain contexts is not the same as declaring them synonyms.

Hmmm...sure sounds that way.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
as being ridiculously hung up over a petty quibble about word usage

Words have meanings. These two sentences are VERY different:

"They don't, however, have a right to succeed in their fight."

"They don't, however, have a guarantee of success in their fight."

Get over it.
post #53 of 184
Back to the issue at hand.

So these folks have been given the right to form a political party and platform that lobbies for the lowering of the age of sexual consent. OK.

What happens if they succeed in their effort?

Actually, I think a larger question needs to be addressed in these sort of discussions. Does responsibility come with consent? Will minor children have responsibilities for the consequences of the actions that they (are legally allowed to) consent to?
post #54 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Back to the issue at hand.

So these folks have been given the right to form a political party and platform that lobbies for the lowering of the age of sexual consent. OK.

What happens if they succeed in their effort?

1. Every worldwide pervert buys a ticket to Belgium.

2. Belgian red-light district starts recruiting 12 year olds, and high ratio of perverts to 12 year olds means high transaction prices.

3. The huge profits encourage slavers to bring in 12 year olds from other countries, and it helps convince local orphans to get into prosititution.

4. As more perverts go there, the pervert voting block gets stronger, and the age of consent is pushed back to a younger age. Also, as the abused kids age out, they become preditors also.

5. Go back to step 1.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #55 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
1. Every worldwide pervert buys a ticket to Belgium.

2. Belgian red-light district starts recruiting 12 year olds, and high ratio of perverts to 12 year olds means high transaction prices.

3. The huge profits encourage slavers to bring in 12 year olds from other countries, and it helps convince local orphans to get into prosititution.

4. As more perverts go there, the pervert voting block gets stronger, and the age of consent is pushed back to a younger age. Also, as the abused kids age out, they become preditors also.

5. Go back to step 1.

Doesn't seem like a huge stretch at all.
post #56 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Get over it.

Feeling a desperate urge to consider yourself victorious over something, just about anything you think you can find?

Oh, yes, Chris. You sure laid the smack down on me, boy oh boy, I'll just be off in the corner now, licking my wounds after such an ignominious defeat. Of course, I still think I'm right, but we all know that can't be anything but my stubborn refusal to acknowledge your grand and glorious victory.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #57 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Feeling a desperate urge to consider yourself victorious over something, just about anything you think you can find?

Oh, yes, Chris. You sure laid the smack down on me, boy oh boy, I'll just be off in the corner now, licking my wounds after such an ignominious defeat. Of course, I still think I'm right, but we all know that can't be anything but my stubborn refusal to acknowledge your grand and glorious victory.

Your pride won't allow you to admit you were wrong huh? I understand. No worries.
post #58 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What happens if they succeed in their effort?

Sorry, but imo, this is the huge stretch.
"Gawd, even white trash feel sorry for me."
"That's true, that's very very true."
Reply
"Gawd, even white trash feel sorry for me."
"That's true, that's very very true."
Reply
post #59 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by dac0nvu
Sorry, but imo, this is the huge stretch.

OK. Probability is low (but, of course, non-zero).

But we have comments like this:

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Personally I have no problem with 12 as an age of consent as such - depending on the individuals. And that is the issue, not all 12 year olds are the same in terms of development.

And court decisions like this.

Just play along. What if it does happen?

( keep in mind that some things that many people thought would be a "huge stretch" generations ago are commonplace today...so it is worth the hypothetical mental exercise )
post #60 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
1. Every worldwide pervert buys a ticket to Belgium...

I thought we were talking about Holland, not Belgium. At any rate...

Something like the conditions you describe already exist in some parts of the world, such as, oh, I don't know, that place where Rush and his bottle of blue pills just took a little vacation, the Dominican Republic. (Just a random example, of course. )

The main factor supporting underage prostitution doesn't seem to have very much to do with any "slippery slopes", with some sort of self-reinforcing cycle of permissive attitudes, but much more to do with local economic conditions. Show me a poor country, I'll show you a place where it's very likely you can buy kids for sex. Show me an affluent country, and I'll show you a place where children are better protected from such things.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #61 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Your pride won't allow you to admit you were wrong huh? I understand. No worries.

I already admitted that it's probably just my pride, didn't I? Are you feeling insufficiently impressed with my sincerity for your satisfaction?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #62 of 184
Another (somewhat ironic) factor that could play into such things like this is that, in some places (kind of a state by state thing here in the U.S.), convicted felons (assuming that the paedophiles in this article were actually convicted of paedophilia at some point, thus the label) lose their right to vote. So...the party could get formed...even propose a ballot issue...but not be (legally) allowed to vote on it.

Of course this might not be the case in Holland.
post #63 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I already admitted that it's probably just my pride, didn't I?

Guess I missed that.
post #64 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Show me an affluent country, and I'll show you a place where children are better protected from such things.

Before we go too far afield on the prostitution thing...it seems that this particular thing is about (so I guess) "liberating" 12 year olds from "oppression"...opening them to the world of consensual sex with adults (effectively making them adults BTW). So, I suspect, that the argument in favor here is that there isn't a need to "protect" the 12 years at all.
post #65 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As for other laws, I'm not aware of any other procedure a minor can consent to without adult permission. This is why permission slips are required on all the field trips we undertake for example. The child can't even consent to stitches.

Nick

Check this out.

Quote:
While 31 states have laws requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, no state explicitly requires parental consent for contraceptive services; testing or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases including HIV; counseling and medical care for drug and alcohol abuse; or outpatient mental health services. In at least half the states, minors have the explicit authority to consent to contraceptive services and to prenatal care and delivery services. Moreover, 34 states and the District of Columbia explicitly permit a minor mother to place her child for adoption without her own parents' permission or knowledge.

I don't think those rules about schools getting parental consent are laws, I think they're just school policies.
post #66 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So, I suspect, that the argument in favor here is that there isn't a need to "protect" the 12 years at all.

That might be the argument, but how many people are going to buy that argument? Not many. It's tough economic conditions that lead people to lower their standards about just how much protection children are going to get, not advocacy groups like NAMBLA gaining converts in some sort of self-perpetuating cycle of permissiveness.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #67 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
That might be the argument, but how many people are going to buy that argument? Not many.

Possibly...but recall that "They also want to break the "negative" stigma surrounding paedophilia". That is step number one.

EDIT: Besides...I think we might all be quite surprised at how many people "buy" arguments that some of us consider "wrong" even "morally reprehensible".

Second, as Tulkas pointed out:

Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
As a mental disorder, this can also be redefined by matter of a vote or decision by a professional body. Again, this has happened with other sexual behaviors which were once considered deviant.

That's step number two.

Lowering the age of consent is, perhaps, the third or fourth step.

( Actually, step one is probably arguing that paedophiles are "born that way" and thus laws that prevent sexual acts between an older and a younger person are simply discriminatory and intolerant. )

So, the basic recipe is:

1. Declare X to be an inborn trait over which the person has no (reasonable) control

2. Use #1 to declare anyone that opposes X to be intolerant, and generally remove the "stigma" associated with X

3. Make X a legal, even specially protected, right
post #68 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Check this out.



I don't think those rules about schools getting parental consent are laws, I think they're just school policies.

I think they still relate to reproductive rights, specifically women's reproductive rights where we have a massive societal blind spot.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #69 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Possibly...but recall that "They also want to break the "negative" stigma surrounding paedophilia". That is step number one.

It's one hell of a big step.
Quote:
EDIT: Besides...I think we might all be quite surprised at how many people "buy" arguments that some of us consider "wrong" even "morally reprehensible".

Not that you'd be trying to draw parallels to more and more people being accepting of homosexuality or anything like that.

The terrible, terrible consequence of people being accepting of homosexuality, for those who consider it a terrible consequence, is kind of circular... that their might be (gasp!) more homosexuality and acceptance of it. Horrors! Oh, and then there's some sort of threat to "the family" which never quite gets spelled out.

The consequences of acceptance of pedophilia go beyond there just being more pedophilia. There's the entire notion of consent and at what age one could or should be able to consent to what. Children can't participate in informed consent, children are more subject to exploitation, children are less likely to make responsible decisions regarding birth control and disease prevention, etc.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #70 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Children can't participate in informed consent, children are more subject to exploitation, children are less likely to make responsible decisions regarding birth control and disease prevention, etc.

But that's the trick now isn't it...simply redefine what adulthood is...that's all this proposal is doing. We're doing it all the time (usually lower chronological age). In the U.S. a girl, aged 14 (maybe it is 15) is capable (legally) of making a variety of consensual, adult-like decisions that years ago they couldn't have (NOTE: These primarily relate to sexual matters and "reproductive rights").

The definition of (or at least the line between) "adulthood" and "childhood" is basically changing...moving lower. We continually give children more and more rights...more and more authority to make more and more decisions...but I see little in the way of giving them responsibilities that go along with those rights. There is a fundamental disconnect here.

This proposal just inches the line a littler further down.
post #71 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Not that you'd be trying to draw parallels to more and more people being accepting of homosexuality or anything like that.

Was I? How so?
post #72 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
It's one hell of a big step.

Hmmm...maybe. We'll see.
post #73 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But that's the trick now isn't it...simply redefine what adulthood is...that's all this proposal is doing. We're doing it all the time (usually lower chronological age). In the U.S. a girl, aged 14 (maybe it is 15) is capable (legally) of making a variety of consensual, adult-like decisions that years ago they couldn't have. The definition of (or at least the line between) "adulthood" and "childhood" is basically changing...moving lower.

I seem some bouncing around here, but no general trend in any one direction. Look at what's happened with the drinking age in the US: 21 is universal now (details vary from state to state), the oldest drinking age on the planet. I understand the motivation for upping the age to 21, and the move may be responsible for saving lives (without good stats in hand, I'm not sure), but it seems very odd to me to be old enough that you can be drafted into the army, that your country can demand you put your life on the line fighting for it, but that at the same time you can't choose to drink if you like.

Just go back about 150 years in time, and girls getting married at 13 and boys at 15 was hardly unheard of. I'd say the major overall trend has been to postpone adulthood, and by force of law to extend childhood.

I don't think there's any fundamental moral issue involved here, it's a practical matter of dealing with the complex world we've created. When human life was short and brutish with an average life expectancy of 18-20 years, teen sex was a necessity for the survival of the species. When tilling the same plot of land you'd been tilling since childhood was your most likely career choice in adulthood, when pregnancy wasn't an obstacle to your very limited plans for life, and when the downside of bad teenage decision making was seldom going to be as bas as dying from AIDS or dying in a drunken car crash, putting off recognition of the rights of adulthood was hardly required.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #74 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Was I? How so?

Now don't be coy with me. I might be forced to use sarcasm or irony which you won't detect.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #75 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I seem some bouncing around here, but no general trend in any one direction. Look at what's happened with the drinking age in the US: 21 is universal now (details vary from state to state), the oldest drinking age on the planet. I understand the motivation for upping the age to 21, and the move may be responsible for saving lives (without good stats in hand, I'm not sure), but it seems very odd to me to be old enough that you can be drafted into the army, that your country can demand you put your life on the line fighting for it, but that at the same time you can't choose to drink if you like.

One example.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Just go back about 150 years in time, and girls getting married at 13 and boys at 15 was hardly unheard of.

You might need to go back a little further than that. BTW...we aren't necessarily talking about kids getting married to one another here.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I'd say the major overall trend has been to postpone adulthood, and by force of law to extend childhood.

Not sure I see it quite this way.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I don't think there's any fundamental moral issue involved here, it's a practical matter of dealing with the complex world we've created.

What's not a "fundamental moral issue"? Age of sexual consent?

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
When human life was short and brutish with an average life expectancy of 18-20 years, teen sex was a necessity for the survival of the species.

When was this?
post #76 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Now don't be coy with me. I might be forced to use sarcasm or irony which you won't detect.

Really? Do you see some parallels?
post #77 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Your pride won't allow you to admit you were wrong huh? I understand. No worries.

Get over yourself. People routinely use the word "right" interchangeably with "guarantee" in colloquial language. His comment was clearly a play on words. If you're too uptight to let folks pun in your presence, then you really need to find some way to loosen up.

Maybe you should move to Holland.
post #78 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Fireball1244
Maybe you should move to Holland.

His head would explode before he got out of the airport.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #79 of 184
Would that be due to 'spontaneous combustion'? or would he need some of R. Reid's matches?

Paz
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
post #80 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Fireball1244
People routinely use the word "right" interchangeably with "guarantee" in colloquial language.

Not people that know the meanings of those words.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireball1244
His comment was clearly a play on words. If you're too uptight to let folks pun in your presence...

Priceless! That isn't even how he explained what he meant!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dutch perverts go too far....