NationStates Jolt Archive

That's it.

Had enough.

I say we declare war on all territories where the legal age of consent is less than 16. Shock and awe followed by emplacement of new regimes backed by the power of cold steel and cordite. Pillage their cities, burn their crops, annex their industries - the whole bit.


Who's with me?

I agree!

Well, I would agree if it would actually do something about pedophilia, instead of killing innocent civilians. I guess that's kinda your point with this not so subtle analogy eh?

Er... you'd hit a number of US states, Canada, Japan, and a wide range of other countries.

It may be a tall order.

Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Colorado and South Carolina all have ages of consent below 16.

Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Colorado and South Carolina all have ages of consent below 16.

You sure? I'll show you my linky (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm) if you show my yours.

Er... you'd hit a number of US states, Canada, Japan, and a wide range of other countries.

Yes, and...?

Are you letting capitalist trading policies stand in the way of sexual morality?

Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Colorado and South Carolina all have ages of consent below 16.

The word 'territories' rather than 'nations' or 'countries' was chosen carefully.

Yes, and...?

Are you letting capitalist trading policies stand in the way of sexual morality?
Just noting that your war is going to invlove a number of first world countries with big toys that go boom.

Perhaps a legislative approch to raise the ago of consent in such areas would be more appros?

That's it.

Had enough.

I say we declare war on all territories where the legal age of consent is less than 16. Shock and awe followed by emplacement of new regimes backed by the power of cold steel and cordite. Pillage their cities, burn their crops, annex their industries - the whole bit.


Who's with me?
War on Italics!

That's it.

Had enough.

I say we declare war on all territories where the legal age of consent is less than 16. Shock and awe followed by emplacement of new regimes backed by the power of cold steel and cordite. Pillage their cities, burn their crops, annex their industries - the whole bit.


Who's with me?
Personally, I'd prefer we declare war on any country or territory where sexual assault garners anything lower than a life sentence.

Of course, this will mean we declare war on every nation in the world. But hey, we're the fucking US of A, right? We're working up to that anyhow!

I'm in because it's a war, and wars equal personal profit! It doesn't matter if it's a War on Wheat, I'll be in as long as there's plenty of gold and glory.

Just noting that your war is going to invlove a number of first world countries with big toys that go boom.

Are you implying that it would be acceptable if it was just sticking it to the natives in Wagga-Waggaland?

Are you implying that it would be acceptable if it was just sticking it to the natives in Wagga-Waggaland?
No, I'm implying that you'd save the village by burning it down, which I don't think is an acceptable solution.

Not to mention it's hard to shock and awe countries that carry nuclear weapons because they shock and awe you right back (not to mention, if the US and a lot of other 1st world countries are on the list, who the hell is doing the attacking in the first place?).

In some countries (and all countries in the past) the age of consent was much lower not out of some kind of weird mental illness but a need to have lots and lots of babies fast doesn’t make it right don't get me wrong but it has to be done in some circumstances

also note that vast scores of people have sex before the age of consent

War on Italics!

War on Bold!

Not to mention it's hard to shock and awe countries that carry nuclear weapons because they shock and awe you right back (not to mention, if the US and a lot of other 1st world countries are on the list, who the hell is doing the attacking in the first place?).

Of the five widely recognised nuclear states four have ages of consent under 16. That leaves one beacon of hope burning bright in the darkness.

Of the five widely recognised nuclear states four have ages of consent under 16. That leaves one beacon of hope burning bright in the darkness.
Unfortunately it also leaves the world burning should that one decide to launch an attack.

I agree with your goals, I just question your chosen methods in this case.

Unfortunately it also leaves the world burning should that one decide to launch an attack.

Is it safe to speculate whether there is some kind of link between the lower age of consent (when viewed against a global average) and technological development? The nuclear state/age of consent less than 16 figures would seem to suggest so.

I agree with your goals, I just question your chosen methods in this case.

So, you support the imposition of an arbitrary chronological determinant for establishing when individuals of vastly different emotional and intellectual development are able to make 'adult' decisions without reference to their particular neurological states?

So, you support the imposition of an arbitrary chronological determinant for establishing when individuals of vastly different emotional and intellectual development are able to make 'adult' decisions without reference to their particular neurological states?
Not at all, I agree with the accepted lit within the field of human development that most children do not have the ability to reason the same as an adult would, rendering them incapable of deciding upon their willingness to consent to sex without undo infulance at that time as an adult can (now if said adult actually uses their reasoning facilities is another story, but I ain't in the biz of legislating stupidity). I also follow the development models that show the average age for children to start reasoning is around age 13, but by age 16 the vast majority (baring other mental retardation) of children will have devloped enough to be able to consent the way an adult can. So 16 seems to be a good age as any unless you wish to require congative testing BEFORE sex (that'd be fun).

I just object to the notion of going to war to force other countries to do so.

That's it.

Had enough.

I say we declare war on all territories where the legal age of consent is less than 16. Shock and awe followed by emplacement of new regimes backed by the power of cold steel and cordite. Pillage their cities, burn their crops, annex their industries - the whole bit.


Who's with me?
Ah, moral superiority. How exactly did you come up with that number? *Goes off mumbling incoherent curses*

Is it safe to speculate whether there is some kind of link between the lower age of consent (when viewed against a global average) and technological development? The nuclear state/age of consent less than 16 figures would seem to suggest so.
Not at all, the lower age comes from a historical time when getting girls to pop out babies and using marriage as a way to keep girls out of trouble (i.e. children out of weddlock) was the social norm. It is more that legislatures are lazy and unlikely to revisit a statue written a number of year ago without someone pressing them to do so or some sense of moral outrage (See Canada at the moment).

Ah, moral superiority. How exactly did you come up with that number? *Goes off mumbling incoherent curses*

Global average on a nation by nation basis.


Hey, when I pull arbitrary numbers out of my ass I do at least check to see what's stuck to them. It's a bit like looking at the paper after you wipe.

So 16 seems to be a good age as any unless you wish to require congative testing BEFORE sex (that'd be fun).

We could just use some of the cognitive development tests they used at Ellis Island. What could be a more romantic prelude than checking to see if a potential partner has the wits and wherewithall to realize that the circular peg goes into the circular hole?

Heh. I love satire. And the people who don't get it.

We could just use some of the cognitive development tests they used at Ellis Island. What could be a more romantic prelude than checking to see if a potential partner has the wits and wherewithall to realize that the circular peg goes into the circular hole?
Wrong test.

Cute, but wrong test. We need to measure congative ability, not anatomical knowledge.

Global average on a nation by nation basis.


Hey, when I pull arbitrary numbers out of my ass I do at least check to see what's stuck to them. It's a bit like looking at the paper after you wipe.
You'll forgive me if I still have the after taste of tyranny from a bunch of old idiots who havn't seen a computer in their life legaslating the internet. Who cares about a world average? That vast majority of the world (Including the U.S. if you think I'm playing favorites) is populated by idiots. Give the parents guns and then give them the right to hunt down anyone who does harm to their kid without legal repurcussions. As for orphans, emancipate 'em and hand them an AK.

Wrong test.

Cute, but wrong test. We need to measure congative ability, not anatomical knowledge.

Nope, it was one of the tests for mental retardation utilised at Ellis Island (thus the reference in the post) - boards with punched holes of various different geometrical shapes and similarly shaped pegs. Any innuendo in the previous post was purely intentional.

That vast majority of the world (Including the U.S. if you think I'm playing favorites) is populated by idiots. Give the parents guns and then give them the right to hunt down anyone who does harm to their kid without legal repurcussions. As for orphans, emancipate 'em and hand them an AK.

Yes, on this evidence I would say the USA does seem to be populated by idiots.

Nope, it was one of the tests for mental retardation utilised at Ellis Island (thus the reference in the post) - boards with punched holes of various different geometrical shapes and similarly shaped pegs. Any innuendo in the previous post was purely intentional.
Riiiiiight.

Any case, the test is not a shape test, it a reasoning abilties test. And there isn't one, there is a wide ranges used by researchers to determine congative ability depending upon which school of throught you subscribe to.

Waiting till 16 sounds easier for all concerned.

Yes, on this evidence I would say the USA does seem to be populated by idiots.
Hey, just because I'm not unusing this post to push my Liberaterian agenda doesn't mean you have to call me names. :p

You'll forgive me if I still have the after taste of tyranny from a bunch of old idiots who havn't seen a computer in their life legaslating the internet. Who cares about a world average? That vast majority of the world (Including the U.S. if you think I'm playing favorites) is populated by idiots. Give the parents guns and then give them the right to hunt down anyone who does harm to their kid without legal repurcussions. As for orphans, emancipate 'em and hand them an AK.

Hell, I'd go for an AK on my birthday.

How about this then, we wait 10 or so years, and psychologically evaluate ten kids from ten countries with different ages of consent, then we see which ones are damaged the lowest percent of the time. the winner is the new age. :)

congative ability


Look, I find it hard to keep a straight face when you keep repeatedly talking about 'congative ability' - the faculty of dancing in long lines?

Give the parents guns and then give them the right to hunt down anyone who does harm to their kid without legal repurcussions.

What if it is the now heavily armed parents who have been harming their kid?

Or how about we *Gasp* respect national sovereignty and allow them to set their own AOCs? What a concept.

What if it is the now heavily armed parents who have been harming their kid?
... Ok scratch my idea. Back to the doing nothing and allowing nations to live their lives bit.

Or how about we *Gasp* respect national sovereignty and allow them to set their own AOCs? What a concept.

So it doesn't matter what happens over there, just so long as it doesn't happen over here?

Would you apply this same logic to your neighbouring state in the US, or for that matter city, burough, or even next door neighbour's house?

So it doesn't matter what happens over there, just so long as it doesn't happen over here?

Would you apply this same logic to your neighbouring state in the US, or for that matter city, burough, or even next door neighbour's house?
No... But I'm assuming the other nations would enforce their own laws. Who am I to tell another nation/culture what's right/wrong?

Er... you'd hit a number of US states, Canada, Japan, and a wide range of other countries.

It may be a tall order.
Goodbye France and Spain. THEY GONE!!!!!

Goodbye France and Spain. THEY GONE!!!!!
Isn't the AOC in germany 14?

No... But I'm assuming the other nations would enforce their own laws. Who am I to tell another nation/culture what's right/wrong?

Arming individuals within one nation to (ahem) 'tell' other individuals in that nation what is right and wrong is a good thing, but telling another nation what is right and wrong is a bad thng?

Arming individuals within one nation to (ahem) 'tell' other individuals in that nation what is right and wrong is a good thing, but telling another nation what is right and wrong is a bad thng?
Yes.

Yes.

Why?

Look, I find it hard to keep a straight face when you keep repeatedly talking about 'congative ability' - the faculty of dancing in long lines?
Cognitive, there, you happy? Got any other spelling mistakes you wish to point out?

And do you actually have a point with this thread?

Why?
Nations have soveignty, people unfortunatly don't... yet.

Cognitive, there, you happy? Got any other spelling mistakes you wish to point out?

And do you actually have a point with this thread?

Satire is my guess. As I pointed out in my first post.

Yeah...I don't get the point of this thread. Is it supposed to be implying that people are too hard on pedophiles? I'd say that it's only justified that people have such an aversion to their behavior, and I'd also say that it's right that such people are put away after acting on their urges.

I don't like that the issues of age of consent and pedophilia are mixed. People under the age of consent having sex with one another is not pedophelia. Sexually mature adults having sex with sexually immature children is.

That's it.

Had enough.

I say we declare war on all territories where the legal age of consent is less than 16. Shock and awe followed by emplacement of new regimes backed by the power of cold steel and cordite. Pillage their cities, burn their crops, annex their industries - the whole bit.


Who's with me?
Sooooo... you'll pillage and burn Canada too?

Because the legal age of consent here is 14.

And what about Japan? The legal age of consent there is 12. And Spain? I believe it's 13 or something.

And do you actually have a point with this thread?

That I don't see violence as a proper solution or response to paedophilia, even if that violence is carried out by the state, also that there seems to be a constant blurring going on whereby even paedophiliac desires, even if never acted upon and fought against internally, are also seen to be sufficient to prompt punishment.

Yeah...I don't get the point of this thread. Is it supposed to be implying that people are too hard on pedophiles?

I think it's trying to make a comment on the War on Terror and it's idiocy - that is, we kill innocent civilians in order to kill terrorists. Kinda like blowing up Kansas to get rid of the pedophiles.

Either that, or it's a comment regarding the anti-pedophilia arguers on this board, suggesting that people who oppose pedophilia are Busheviks whose tactics would be just as stupid as those in the War on Terror.

I'm not sure. But if it's the latter, I would never advocate Bush tactics to eliminate pedophilia. More like Hitler tactics. ;)

What do you see as a proper response then?

What do you see as a proper response then?

That I don't know.

I think it's trying to make a comment on the War on Terror and it's idiocy - that is, we kill innocent civilians in order to kill terrorists. Kinda like blowing up Kansas to get rid of the pedophiles.


Well, yeah that and also the attitude of some of the more gung-ho Generalites.

That I don't know.
Pfffft pffft pfft?

Well then!

*exits thread*

Pfffft pffft pfft?

Well then!

*exits thread*

Well, at least he's honest. :D

I'm not sure. But if it's the latter, I would never advocate Bush tactics to eliminate pedophilia. More like Hitler tactics. ;)

Suicidal Failed Artists Against Paedophilia

When's the first meeting?

Suicidal Failed Artists Against Paedophilia

When's the first meeting?

I dunno if I should tell you. I mean do you even own a pair of lederhosen?

I dunno if I should tell you. I mean do you even own a pair of lederhosen?
Come on now...who doesn't?

Come on now...who doesn't?

Well, I don't. You know I don't believe in pants.

Well, I don't. You know I don't believe in pants.

:D ;)

That I don't see violence as a proper solution or response to paedophilia, even if that violence is carried out by the state, also that there seems to be a constant blurring going on whereby even paedophiliac desires, even if never acted upon and fought against internally, are also seen to be sufficient to prompt punishment.
And I happen to agree with you.

But why not just say that in the first place?