|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| NYC_Gal wrote: |
| Your clinging to this technicality makes it all fine and dandy for someone to have sex with someone under 10. |
He's not saying it's okay. He's been trying to explain what is a pedophile is. All throughout this thread he hasn't been defending pedophiles, he's been questioning giving 30 years to someone who was close to acting on his urges. |
I've yet to get the impression that bacasper thinks pedophilia is wrong. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, in which case he should make an implicit statement about what he thinks.
Statements such as this:
| bascasper wrote: |
| Not only does acting on a sexual attraction to a 16-year-old not make one a pedophile, it is not even an issue in the many states and countries where the age of consent is 16 or below. |
make me wonder where he draws the line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NYC_Gal wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
I am not saying it, the American Psychiatric Association and the dictionary are:
| Quote: |
| recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children |
Yes, I go by the best objective information out there, not my own feelings, opinions, or anecdotes.
I am calling you out for the obvious child sex abuse witch hunter you are. You are using the classic tactic in the hopes that I will turn tail and run away because you have shamed me. Unfortunately, it is a successful tactic with many people. But not me. Sorry, try your vile tactics on another. |
Let me get this straight: you're not ashamed of your view that someone having sex with a 9-year-old girl with buds isn't a pedo. |
Why should I be ashamed of a view espoused by academics and clinicians who devote their professional lives to such things? Aren't you ashamed of the ignorance, density, and bullheadedness you are persisting in here?
| Quote: |
This isn't a witch hunt. You stated some shady views earlier, and many people would find it disturbing and never trust you around their children because of it. I truly hope that you aren't teaching young kids!
Your clinging to this technicality makes it all fine and dandy for someone to have sex with someone under 10. |
You said that, not me.
| Quote: |
| but I care about children... |
NOT. If you really cared about them, you would not persist in your support of a child sex abuse witch hunt that does much more damage to children as a whole than your mostly imaginary pedophile boogeymen.
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Regardless, if you're over 21 and you're trying to hook up with someone under 17, there's something wrong with you. |
Got a link or some kind of rationale for those numbers?
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| NYC_Gal wrote: |
| Your clinging to this technicality makes it all fine and dandy for someone to have sex with someone under 10. |
He's not saying it's okay. He's been trying to explain what is a pedophile is. All throughout this thread he hasn't been defending pedophiles, he's been questioning giving 30 years to someone who was close to acting on his urges. |
I've yet to get the impression that bacasper thinks pedophilia is wrong. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, in which case he should make an implicit statement about what he thinks.
Statements such as this:
| bascasper wrote: |
| Not only does acting on a sexual attraction to a 16-year-old not make one a pedophile, it is not even an issue in the many states and countries where the age of consent is 16 or below. |
make me wonder where he draws the line. |
Sorry, all of you, but my 15 minutes of fame as a current event are over. This thread is not about me.
Anyway, I draw the line at legality. You? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Regardless, if you're over 21 and you're trying to hook up with someone under 17, there's something wrong with you. |
Got a link or some kind of rationale for those numbers? |
Most US states have age difference exemptions for sex with minors. I just happened to choose under 17 and over 21. I don't think someone out of college should be banging high school chicks.
| bascasper wrote: |
Anyway, I draw the line at legality. You? |
So 11 is too young. Unless there's no law against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PeteJB
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 16 year olds might be physically mature, but they are far from mentally mature. For me that is enough to say no, regardless of any implications or societies views. BTW I've heard it's not uncommon to see 15-16 year old girls in the UK dating guys in their 20's - What's going on there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ah, but children enter puberty much younger than they used to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| is any man on here NOT a rapist? |
don't answer this question, it's a trap.
But yes, if you sleep with someone under the influence it's called statutory rape because they can't make decisions autonomously. Basically guys that do this are rapists according to the law.
That whole lying to the woman thing being considered rape is very suspect though, it's very likely just plain racism enacted into a court system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PeteJB wrote: |
| BTW I've heard it's not uncommon to see 15-16 year old girls in the UK dating guys in their 20's - What's going on there? |
I've wondered that too. 16 is the age of consent in the UK. Although it doesn't explain why in Canada it's kind of taboo if you're over 20. I think a lot of kids leave school at 16, so I guess in the UK it's more socially acceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Regardless, if you're over 21 and you're trying to hook up with someone under 17, there's something wrong with you. |
Got a link or some kind of rationale for those numbers? |
Most US states have age difference exemptions for sex with minors. I just happened to choose under 17 and over 21. I don't think someone out of college should be banging high school chicks.
| bascasper wrote: |
Anyway, I draw the line at legality. You? |
|
OK, so thanks for giving your opinion and letting us know that it is not based on anything other than your own bias.
Now will you answer the question?
| PeteJB wrote: |
| 16 year olds might be physically mature, but they are far from mentally mature. For me that is enough to say no, regardless of any implications or societies views. |
Then it is really good that no one wants to fondle their brains.
| NYC_Gal wrote: |
| Ah, but children enter puberty much younger than they used to. |
So? Is there a point you wante4d to make, or do you just enjoy seeing your own words up on the screen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Regardless, if you're over 21 and you're trying to hook up with someone under 17, there's something wrong with you. |
Got a link or some kind of rationale for those numbers? |
Most US states have age difference exemptions for sex with minors. I just happened to choose under 17 and over 21. I don't think someone out of college should be banging high school chicks.
| bascasper wrote: |
Anyway, I draw the line at legality. You? |
|
OK, so thanks for giving your opinion and letting us know that it is not based on anything other than your own bias. |
It's not just my bias. It's a standard recognized by many states and nations.
| Quote: |
| Now will you answer the question? |
I did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Regardless, if you're over 21 and you're trying to hook up with someone under 17, there's something wrong with you. |
Got a link or some kind of rationale for those numbers? |
Most US states have age difference exemptions for sex with minors. I just happened to choose under 17 and over 21. I don't think someone out of college should be banging high school chicks.
| bascasper wrote: |
Anyway, I draw the line at legality. You? |
|
OK, so thanks for giving your opinion and letting us know that it is not based on anything other than your own bias. |
It's not just my bias. It's a standard recognized by many states and nations. |
And others recognize 16, 18, 21, 15, 14, and even (like in Korea) 13. I believe most jurisdictions do not have "Romeo-and-Juliet" or close-in-age exemptions. In any event, your "standard" is pretty arbitrary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
And others recognize 16, 18, 21, 15, 14, and even (like in Korea) 13. I believe most jurisdictions do not have "Romeo-and-Juliet" or close-in-age exemptions. In any event, your "standard" is pretty arbitrary. |
Meh. Any standard is going to be arbitrary. Mine is as good as any other. I think a couple of 15 or 16 year olds should be able to screw around without being charged with a crime. But I don't think men should be allowed to prey on girls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
And others recognize 16, 18, 21, 15, 14, and even (like in Korea) 13. I believe most jurisdictions do not have "Romeo-and-Juliet" or close-in-age exemptions. In any event, your "standard" is pretty arbitrary. |
Meh. Any standard is going to be arbitrary. Mine is as good as any other. I think a couple of 15 or 16 year olds should be able to screw around without being charged with a crime. But I don't think men should be allowed to prey on girls. |
Glad to see we can agree on some things.
But I'd say your standard is as bad as any other. Instead of imperfect, arbitrary legal standards that are just going to lead to injustices, why not just examine each case on its merits? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
But I'd say your standard is as bad as any other. Instead of imperfect, arbitrary legal standards that are just going to lead to injustices, why not just examine each case on its merits? |
It's the law. You need a black and white standard, arbitrary as it may be. I'm all for some judicial wiggle room, but there needs to be an established no-go zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My point is that as children enter puberty at younger ages, it doesn't make it okay to start fiddling with them. Puberty used to start at 12, 13, and 14. I'm not saying that it was okay to fiddle, but now, with kids being exposed to hormones and starting much earlier, it doesn't make it suddenly okay if they bud early to start messing around. It is a sickness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
