Lutheran pedophiles

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...But you can't tell me that some teenager in hot pants and a cut-off tee with no bra who teases and fondles an older man and asks him to fuck her isn't giving informed consent to that act. It just wouldn't meet the basic test for rationality or logic....

Careful, your Lolita complex is showing, you might need to wipe the drool from your chin...

Obviously you've never actually read Lolita. If you had, you would have known that in the Nabokov novel, Lolita is the one who initiates sex with Humbert.

There's a reason pretty young girls flaunt their sexuality. It's because they have power over men and boys when they do, which they find exciting and alluring. It's all part of a biologically-determined evolutionary quest towards Darwinian success. It's also perfectly natural and predictable.

Biologically speaking, older men are proven providers and survivors while younger women are more fertile and have a longer childbearing capacity, both of which maximize the mutual attraction at the genetic level.

[pErvinalia]

Yay for naturalistic fallacy!

[Seth]

It seems to me that biology has provided an excellent indicator of the change between a protected child and a presumptively sexually mature young person: for girls it's menarche

I vote for the good old days when [...] you were a woman when you became capable of having babies.

I would say that there are a lot of girls who have reached puberty before they ought to give consent

Your latest post doesn’t seem consistent with some of your earlier ones, but never mind, we now agree that menarche is not sufficient to declare a girl to be fuckable.

I didn't say that. I merely said that while they may be fuckable and biologically sexually mature, it may not be a good idea for them to engage in sex with anyone.

there is no "age of consent" in biology

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I can’t recall anyone other than you saying it is.

I know. I'm pointing out the distinction between law and biology.

Anyway, I suppose we now agree that puberty may be a necessary precondition for fucking, but it is not a sufficient one.

Wrong. It's necessary and sufficient unless it isn't. It's a very personalized issue.

What we could do next, is to either quibble over the age of consent or if one across the board age can even be defined, and here I agree with you. The fact that the age of consent in various jurisdictions is pegged at anywhere between 12 and 21 years is pretty strong indication that at least some of them are just wrong, and there are reasonable grounds to argue that all of them are. The most obvious weakness, as has been pointed out previously, is that a teenager is incapable of consenting to having sex one day before reaching the age of 16, but 24 hours later that is no longer the case. To my knowledge nobody has ever been able to explain how the stroke of midnight marking the day a person turns 16 suddenly causes an ability to consent to sex.

It's a legal fiction, so it doesn't have to make sense. It's like drinking laws, we'll hand an M-4 and a bunch of hand grenades to an 18 year old, or let him light off the main gun of an Abrams tank, and we'll allow (or even REQUIRE that he die for his country, but we won't let him have a beer.

That is rather my point. Statutory rape laws are exceedingly arbitrary and are not based on anything objective at all, just the "ick factor."

Looking at the relevant laws in more detail, at least here in Australia, it turns out that nobody even pretends that age of consent laws are a hard and fast rule based on hard and fast facts. The judgements in court cases prove that. Individual circumstances pertaining to any and every case of alleged underage sex are always taken into account in order to come to an appropriate verdict. The verdicts range from a crime not even being recorded despite the fact that the accused has (or have) entered a guilty plea to charges of having had sex with a ten year old girl to the handing down of the maximum possible period of incarceration of someone who has plead not guilty to having had sex with someone under the age of consent.

So, why have them at all? The laws are guidelines, the aim of which is to minimise cases of child abuse much the same way our blanket definitions of what is a safe speed in a vehicle on a public road. Everybody knows that it is not necessarily unsafe to travel at, say, 75 km/h on a road signposted with 60 k speed limit, and the smarter drivers are fully aware that under particular conditions it is not safe to drive along the same stretch 10 km/h below the speed limit. We have these unreasonable and arbitrary speed limits because without them there'd be a lot more accidents, injuries and deaths

Speed limits are generally based on objective scientific facts and evidence including the capabilities of modern vehicles (the speed limit was once 10 mph and you had to have a person waving a red flag walk in front of you through town) and the design of highways. Usually, a speed limit is set to the speed that 80 percent or more people actually drive, as this represents a "safe" speed. Biologically, there are studies that show that humans have a "natural" speed limit of about 78 mph. Under unconstrained conditions research shows that drivers are quite adept at picking a safe speed for the conditions and roadway, and that only a small number of drivers consistently drive more than 78 mph when allowed to do so.

Statutory rape laws (insofar as sexually mature girls are concerned) are not based on any sort of objective scientific evidence at all, they are based on the bleatings of prudes who come up with all sorts of specious reasons why they need to be in place. If there were "guidelines" the law would say something similar to what I suggest, which is that absent a complaint of force or fraud, and given sexual maturity, parental consent for minors, and lack of coercion, sexual relationships between any persons are not criminal in nature. Then the judge looks for evidence of the above and judges the incident on it's individual merits.

[Seth]

Yay for naturalistic fallacy!

Nothing to do with it I'm afraid. I'm not saying that fucking a teenager who is sexually mature and consenting is a moral good or a moral evil, I'm merely saying that it's perfectly natural behavior.

The core of the issue is assigning moral value to a natural act, which is it's own sort of fallacy.

[Hermit]

It seems to me that biology has provided an excellent indicator of the change between a protected child and a presumptively sexually mature young person: for girls it's menarche

I vote for the good old days when [...] you were a woman when you became capable of having babies.

I would say that there are a lot of girls who have reached puberty before they ought to give consent

Your latest post doesn’t seem consistent with some of your earlier ones, but never mind, we now agree that menarche is not sufficient to declare a girl to be fuckable.

I didn't say that.

You didn't say what? The stuff I copypasted from your previous posts, or the stuff from your later one?

[Seth]

It seems to me that biology has provided an excellent indicator of the change between a protected child and a presumptively sexually mature young person: for girls it's menarche

I vote for the good old days when [...] you were a woman when you became capable of having babies.

I would say that there are a lot of girls who have reached puberty before they ought to give consent

Your latest post doesn’t seem consistent with some of your earlier ones, but never mind, we now agree that menarche is not sufficient to declare a girl to be fuckable.

I didn't say that.

You didn't say what? The stuff I copypasted from your previous posts, or the stuff from your later one?

No.

[pErvinalia]

Yay for naturalistic fallacy!

Nothing to do with it I'm afraid. I'm not saying that fucking a teenager who is sexually mature and consenting is a moral good or a moral evil, I'm merely saying that it's perfectly natural behavior.

The core of the issue is assigning moral value to a natural act, which is it's own sort of fallacy.

The core of the issue isn't morality (although, obviously it is to religious infected idiots). It's about protecting people who objectively do need some protection.

[Seth]

Yay for naturalistic fallacy!

Nothing to do with it I'm afraid. I'm not saying that fucking a teenager who is sexually mature and consenting is a moral good or a moral evil, I'm merely saying that it's perfectly natural behavior.

The core of the issue is assigning moral value to a natural act, which is it's own sort of fallacy.

The core of the issue isn't morality (although, obviously it is to religious infected idiots). It's about protecting people who objectively do need some protection.

What is your objective evidence that sexually mature and consenting girls need protection...other than a condom?

I'm betting your objective argument is firmly based in Judeo-Christian morality.

[Hermit]

It seems to me that biology has provided an excellent indicator of the change between a protected child and a presumptively sexually mature young person: for girls it's menarche

I vote for the good old days when [...] you were a woman when you became capable of having babies.

I would say that there are a lot of girls who have reached puberty before they ought to give consent

Your latest post doesn’t seem consistent with some of your earlier ones, but never mind, we now agree that menarche is not sufficient to declare a girl to be fuckable.

I didn't say that.

You didn't say what? The stuff I copypasted from your previous posts, or the stuff from your later one?

No.

Please clarify. No, as in you didn't say that biology has provided an excellent indicator of the change between a protected child and a presumptively sexually mature young person: for girls it's menarche? No, as in you didn't say that you'd vote for the good old days when you were a woman when you became capable of having babies? No, as in you didn't say that there are a lot of girls who have reached puberty before they ought to give consent?

[Seth]

Please clarify. No, as in you didn't say that biology has provided an excellent indicator of the change between a protected child and a presumptively sexually mature young person: for girls it's menarche? No, as in you didn't say that you'd vote for the good old days when you were a woman when you became capable of having babies? No, as in you didn't say that there are a lot of girls who have reached puberty before they ought to give consent?

No.

[pErvinalia]

Yay for naturalistic fallacy!

Nothing to do with it I'm afraid. I'm not saying that fucking a teenager who is sexually mature and consenting is a moral good or a moral evil, I'm merely saying that it's perfectly natural behavior.

The core of the issue is assigning moral value to a natural act, which is it's own sort of fallacy.

The core of the issue isn't morality (although, obviously it is to religious infected idiots). It's about protecting people who objectively do need some protection.

What is your objective evidence that sexually mature and consenting girls need protection...other than a condom?

I'm betting your objective argument is firmly based in Judeo-Christian morality.

The reality that they are at a higher risk of committing suicide due to horrendous peer pressure (which didn't exist when we were younger in anything like the way it does now with social media).

You really don't fucking get it, do you? You still are thinking in terms of physical damage.

[pErvinalia]

Please clarify. No, as in you didn't say that biology has provided an excellent indicator of the change between a protected child and a presumptively sexually mature young person: for girls it's menarche? No, as in you didn't say that you'd vote for the good old days when you were a woman when you became capable of having babies? No, as in you didn't say that there are a lot of girls who have reached puberty before they ought to give consent?

No.

Troll.

[Hermit]

Please clarify. No, as in you didn't say that biology has provided an excellent indicator of the change between a protected child and a presumptively sexually mature young person: for girls it's menarche? No, as in you didn't say that you'd vote for the good old days when you were a woman when you became capable of having babies? No, as in you didn't say that there are a lot of girls who have reached puberty before they ought to give consent?

No.

Clearly yet another example of you being a "much better debator (sic) than anyone". How can anybody ever rebut your assertion that the copypaste of what you said in your posts is stuff you never said? In conjunction with your superior intelligence, articulation and education any such attempt would be doomed right from the outset. Oh, and I'm quoting your self-assessment, but it will not surprise me to see you denying that you ever said anything of the sort.

[pErvinalia]

He's an accomplished back flipper. He's been doing it for years.

[Hermit]

He's an accomplished back flipper. He's been doing it for years.

In this instance it's not a case of backflipping. It is an outright denial of an obvious and manifest fact. I quoted his very words, and he brazenly denied having said them. Unfortunately for him he can't delete the words he posted. They remain plain for everybody to see. That makes his denial worthy of all the ridicule it gets.