Lutheran pedophiles

[pErvinalia]

Stop trolling.

Sorry, but no, it's my job.

Adapt or die.

[Seth]

You cannot have arbitrary definitions of when an individual child becomes an adult because as it is a legal concept then it has to apply to all children
equally. They as well as adults mature at different rates but without some basic framework which stipulates when one is a child and one is an adult the
law would be ineffective. It is not a perfect system but it is as perfect as it can be given the circumstances. In an ideal world all children would mature
at the same rate but we do not live in an ideal world so have to work within those limitations

You say "you cannot have arbitrary definitions" and yet arbitrary is exactly what the current definitions are. You say "it has to apply to all children" but you're creating a circular argument and you're begging the question, which is "when does a child become an adult?"

You appear to claim that basing the change of a child into an adult based on biological and psychological analysis is "arbitrary," but it's not. What's arbitrary is to say, for example, "a girl who is 17 years 364 days 23 hours and 59 minutes old is a "child" and cannot therefore be allowed to make decisions about her body and her sexuality, whereas one minute later she turns 18 and can immediately star in a porn film where she's screwed by half a dozen men at one time.

That's arbitrary. That's the very definition of arbitrary: ar·bi·trar·y
[ áarbə trèrree ]

based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles
random: chosen or determined at random
authoritarian: with unlimited power

Also, you produce another tautological fallacy when you say "without some basic framework which stipulates when one is a child and one is an adult the
law would be ineffective."

Is your statement true? Yes, it is, but your statement presupposes without foundation that either a basic framework or a law is required.

What I'm saying is that a law regulating sexual relationships involving young persons can be partly objective (ie: the young person is sexually mature and mentally competent) and partly based on instant facts, which is to say that if the first criteria are met, and there is a complaint that either force or fraud was involved in the negotiation over sexual activity, the crime is the initiation of force or fraud, which can be determined either objectively by verifiable evidence showing force or fraud, or circumstantially by testimony and other evidence leading to a determination by a judge or jury that the other person inflicted force or fraud on the younger person, or that the younger person inflicted force or fraud on the older person, in the negotiation. The appropriate penalty is then determined by the court based on the exact circumstances and damages involved. In other words, it should be a civil matter, not a criminal one provided there is not probable cause to believe it was rape by force.

You need to explain why exactly a law that is as arbitrary as the one we have is either reasonable, necessary or just, not just state it as if it were an unassailable fact.

As far as politicians are concerned they are responsible for passing law but as they are elected by the people then they can be removed by the people too
if they are unhappy with them. Bureaucrats may be unaccountable but in democracies it is actually the politicians who have the responsibility for passing
and repealing laws. And that is another important point for not everything on the statue remains there as laws can be rejected as well. Even ones which
are not can still be revised. So nothing is ever set in stone

Yes, obviously. The point of this discussion is to examine the subject with an eye towards revision...or not.

[Seth]

Stop trolling.

Sorry, but no, it's my job.

Adapt or die.

Go stick your head back in the oven.

[pErvinalia]

[surreptitious57]

You cannot have arbitrary definitions of when an individual child becomes an adult because as it is a legal concept then it has to apply to all children
equally. They as well as adults mature at different rates but without some basic framework which stipulates when one is a child and one is an adult the
law would be ineffective. It is not a perfect system but it is as perfect as it can be given the circumstances. In an ideal world all children would mature
at the same rate but we do not live in an ideal world so have to work within those limitations

You say you cannot have arbitrary definitions and yet arbitrary is exactly what the current definitions are. You say it has to apply
to all children but you are creating a circular argument and you are begging the question which is when does a child become an adult ?

You appear to claim that basing the change of a child into an adult based on biological and psychological analysis is arbitrary but it is not. What
is arbitrary is to say for example a girl who is 17 years 364 days 23 hours and 59 minutes old is a child and cannot therefore be allowed to make
decisions about her body and her sexuality whereas one minute later she turns 18 and can immediately star in a porn film where she is screwed
by half a dozen men at one time

That is arbitrary. That is the very definition of arbitrary :

based on whim : based solely on personal wishes feelings or perceptions rather than on objective facts
reasons or principles. random : chosen or determined at random. authoritarian : with unlimited power

Also you produce another tautological fallacy when you say without some basic framework
which stipulates when one is a child and one is an adult the law would be ineffective

Is your statement true ? Yes it is but your statement presupposes with
out foundation that either a basic framework or a law is required

What I am saying is that a law regulating sexual relationships involving young persons can be partly objective ( i e : the young person is sexually mature and
mentally competent ) and partly based on instant facts which is to say that if the first criteria are met and there is a complaint that either force or fraud was
involved in the negotiation over sexual activity the crime is the initiation of force or fraud which can be determined either objectively by verifiable evidence
showing force or fraudor circumstantially by testimony and other evidence leading to a determination by a judge or jury that the other person inflicted force
or fraud on the younger person or that the younger person inflicted force or fraud on the older person in the negotiation. The appropriate penalty is then
determined by the court based on the exact circumstances and damages involved. In other words it should be a civil matter not a criminal one provided there
is not probable cause to believe it was rape by force

You need to explain why exactly a law that is as arbitrary as the one we have is either reasonable necessary or just not just state it as if it were an unassailable fact

You cannot have a law that only applies to some and not others since it has to be universal by definition. Now there may very well be girls that a minute from
the age of eighteen are mature enough to make decisions of a sexual nature but the law is there to protect those girls who are not so mature more than those
who are. For those that are mature enough it is nothing more than an inconvenience but for others it is more fundamental than that. Now the age itself is not
the issue for it varies from country to country. But whatever it is it has to apply to all irrespective of other factors. It is not a perfect system but as perfect as
can be given the circumstances. In this particular case not having a law would be significantly worse than having one as it would allow children to be exploited
by paedophiles even more than now because they know they would have a better chance of not being prosecuted. So for that reason alone an age of consent is
both legally and morally justifiable regardless of what it actually is

All law is based on subjective interpretation so by definition is arbitrary in part anyway. For no matter how much evidence a politician references and no matter
how open minded they may be any decision shall ultimately be an opinion. And given how all human beings think as such to a greater or lesser extent then there
is no way round this less one advocates a society with no laws whatsoever and that is completely impractical. And the best one can hope for is to have politicians
who are as objective and open minded as possible when it comes to passing laws. All systems are imperfect since human beings are imperfect and so perfection is
an impossible ideal but what is not is a system that is as less imperfect as possible and that therefore should be the standard to aim for

[pErvinalia]

He didn't answer my earlier question as to why have set speed limits. Why not treat each situation on a case by case basis?

[Hermit]

Speed limits are generally based on objective scientific facts and evidence including the capabilities of modern vehicles

They are arbitrary for many reasons. Driving a Datsun on a road with a posted speed limit of 60 kilometres an hour to the shopping centre along the road on a rainy night with three children fighting among themselves in the back seats is not safe. A Porsche driven along the same stretch by a lone professional driver at 120 clicks is probably safer.

I agree with you that age of consent legislation is just as arbitrary, but blanket rules are implemented for two reasons. One is that not having them at all makes judicial determinations prohibitively expensive and erratic. The other one is that when it comes to court, relevant circumstances are routinely taken into account and reflected not only in the severity of sentences, but also whether the accused is found guilty in the first place. Speaking from personal experience, I don't mind revealing that I was once arrested and charged with obscene exposure. On the advice of my lawyer I plead guilty. Result? Offence proven, case dismissed. No record entered.

[pErvinalia]

Speed limits are generally based on objective scientific facts and evidence including the capabilities of modern vehicles

They are arbitrary for many reasons. Driving a Datsun on a road with a posted speed limit of 60 kilometres an hour to the shopping centre along the road on a rainy night with three children fighting among themselves in the back seats is not safe. A Porsche driven along the same stretch by a lone professional driver at 120 clicks is probably safer.

I agree with you that age of consent legislation is just as arbitrary, but blanket rules are implemented for two reasons. One is that not having them at all makes judicial determinations prohibitively expensive and erratic.

Yep.

It seems I did miss his speed limit reply.

[Seth]

[
You cannot have a law that only applies to some and not others since it has to be universal by definition.

Really? You think so? So how come food processing laws only apply to food processors and aviation laws only apply to pilots?

Now there may very well be girls that a minute from
the age of eighteen are mature enough to make decisions of a sexual nature but the law is there to protect those girls who are not so mature more than those
who are.

Exactly.

For those that are mature enough it is nothing more than an inconvenience but for others it is more fundamental than that.

Inconvenience? It's a violation of their personal right to make decisions about their own bodies. They can decide to have an abortion without informing their parents, which presumably means they can consent to having sex with an age-peer and yet they are not competent to make the same decision about having sex with an older person? There's nothing rational in that notion at all, just the "ick factor."

Now the age itself is not
the issue for it varies from country to country.

So, if the age itself is not the issue, for it varies from country to country, does that not make age as the metric entirely and wholly arbitrary?

But whatever it is it has to apply to all irrespective of other factors.

Why? "Children" under the age of 18 can be legally emancipated by a court if the court determines that they are competent and mature enough to handle their own affairs. Why should this metric (competence) be the metric for everyone?

It is not a perfect system but as perfect as
can be given the circumstances.

Nonsense. It's an imperfect system that exists because of the "ick factor" and literally nothing else, and it needs to be changed.

In this particular case not having a law would be significantly worse than having one as it would allow children to be exploited
by paedophiles even more than now because they know they would have a better chance of not being prosecuted.

If a child is found to be competent to make knowing choices about having sex by a judge how is that child being "exploited" by anyone?

So for that reason alone an age of consent is
both legally and morally justifiable regardless of what it actually is

Circular reasoning: Because pedophiles might exploit children we must prohibit children from making competent and knowing choices about having sex and we must prosecute older persons who comply with the competent and knowing choices of a young person because pedophiles might exploit children.

If the young person is competent to make such decisions, that person is not, by definition, a child.

All law is based on subjective interpretation so by definition is arbitrary in part anyway. For no matter how much evidence a politician references and no matter
how open minded they may be any decision shall ultimately be an opinion. And given how all human beings think as such to a greater or lesser extent then there
is no way round this less one advocates a society with no laws whatsoever and that is completely impractical.

Nonsense. Black and white thinking. I've suggested a perfectly rational method of determining when a sexual act between two people is consensual or criminal. It involves looking at both parties, their capacity to make competent decisions about their own bodies, and the circumstances surrounding any disputed sex act. Absent a dispute or complaint, there is no crime.

And the best one can hope for is to have politicians
who are as objective and open minded as possible when it comes to passing laws. All systems are imperfect since human beings are imperfect and so perfection is
an impossible ideal but what is not is a system that is as less imperfect as possible and that therefore should be the standard to aim for

[/quote]

Of course all systems are imperfect, but statutory rape laws are too imperfect to be tolerated when other avenues are available to prevent child exploitation. You see, if it's consensual and the decision is made by a competent young person, there is no "child" present and there is no "exploitation" taking place.

Competence, you see, is what determines adulthood. Or should.

[Seth]

Speed limits are generally based on objective scientific facts and evidence including the capabilities of modern vehicles

They are arbitrary for many reasons. Driving a Datsun on a road with a posted speed limit of 60 kilometres an hour to the shopping centre along the road on a rainy night with three children fighting among themselves in the back seats is not safe. A Porsche driven along the same stretch by a lone professional driver at 120 clicks is probably safer.

Exactly. Which is why you can't drive some vehicles on the Autobahn or the Interstate. But the real problem with speed differentials is not the skill of the driver or the capability of the vehicle, it's the speed differential itself. Forty NASCAR drivers going around the track at Daytona at 170mph is way safer than two cars on the same track one of which is going 170 and the other which is going 40.

So speed limits are set according to the objective scientific criteria I mention, which includes both human perception and reaction timing as well as the physics of moving masses and they are intended to keep vehicles going roughly the same speed precisely to avoid high speed differentials. This is why US interstates have a LOWER speed limit of (generally) 40 mph.

I agree with you that age of consent legislation is just as arbitrary, but blanket rules are implemented for two reasons. One is that not having them at all makes judicial determinations prohibitively expensive and erratic.

Ah, the "judicial convenience" argument. I wondered when that canard was going to come into play.

The other one is that when it comes to court, relevant circumstances are routinely taken into account and reflected not only in the severity of sentences, but also whether the accused is found guilty in the first place. Speaking from personal experience, I don't mind revealing that I was once arrested and charged with obscene exposure. On the advice of my lawyer I plead guilty. Result? Offence proven, case dismissed. No record entered.

Lucky you. That's what I call "arbitrary justice through coercive prosecution."

Either you did it or you didn't do it. If you didn't do it, you plead not guilty and go to trial. If you plead guilty to it, then you did it and should have a record.

In some places here you could just as easily have ended up with a 25 to life sentence and permanent placement on a sex offender registry that requires you to register with police every time you move, among other things.

[pErvinalia]

[
You cannot have a law that only applies to some and not others since it has to be universal by definition.

Really? You think so? So how come food processing laws only apply to food processors and aviation laws only apply to pilots?

Because they do different things. The point under discussion is ONE thing. That is, fucking. So of course you can have one law.

But whatever it is it has to apply to all irrespective of other factors.

Why? "Children" under the age of 18 can be legally emancipated by a court if the court determines that they are competent and mature enough to handle their own affairs. Why should this metric (competence) be the metric for everyone?

We've already explained this to you about ten fucking times. How many more times should be keep bashing our heads against the wall?

Nonsense. It's an imperfect system that exists because of the "ick factor" and literally nothing else, and it needs to be changed.

Absolute rubbish, as already explained to you. It's about protecting vulnerable people. Societies broader views on sex might very well be based on the "ick" factor, but in terms of practicalities, young people suffer horrible trauma from being sexually taken advantage of by older people. We need to protect young people.

In this particular case not having a law would be significantly worse than having one as it would allow children to be exploited
by paedophiles even more than now because they know they would have a better chance of not being prosecuted.

If a child is found to be competent to make knowing choices about having sex by a judge how is that child being "exploited" by anyone?

It's too late after the fact. We need laws to protect the innocent first and foremost. So a couple of older sleaze bags can't get any action with kids any more. Big fucking deal. I'd much prefer to know that young people are safe than have them potentially taken advantage of and only be able to ascertain the damage in a court afterwards. Hell, why don't we just decriminalise killing? You can kill anyone you like, but we'll let the courts decide after if it was a just killing or not, and only after someone complains. Good idea, huh?

[Hermit]

In some places here you could just as easily have ended up with a 25 to life sentence and permanent placement on a sex offender registry that requires you to register with police every time you move, among other things.

Thanks for reminding me of one of many reasons I'll never set foot on your fucked up country.

For your information, in case you missed it the first time, I was hauled up in front of a judge. Has it occurred to you that the judge has listened to the particular circumstances pertaining to my case, and that he has decided that although the cops were technically correct, there was nothing about what happened worth regarding as a breach of the law or to record it as such? I mentioned this event as an instance of flexibility within the law. You seem quite happy to argue against such a thing. Thank fuck Australians are more intelligent.

[surreptitious57]

If a child is found to be competent to make knowing choices about having sex by a judge how is that child being exploited by anyone

How does one objectively determine the competence of a child ? You cannot just take their word for it because of conflict of interest as one who wants to have
sex is going to be convinced that they are mature enough to have it but that is not automatically true. So where then is the dividing line between those who are
and those who are not ? But even if a child is mature enough to make such decisions they could still be exploited. For just because a child wants to have sex with
an adult does not mean that adult is not a paedophile. And on the balance of probabilities it is better that children are protected from such exploitation even if it
means a restriction on their own freedom. All laws by definition are restrictive but are there for the good of society. None more so than those that protect children

[Seth]

[
You cannot have a law that only applies to some and not others since it has to be universal by definition.

Really? You think so? So how come food processing laws only apply to food processors and aviation laws only apply to pilots?

Because they do different things. The point under discussion is ONE thing. That is, fucking. So of course you can have one law.

Er, the point is that sex between a young person and an old person is not one thing, it can be one or more of several things including a mature and rational decision about one's sexuality made by a young person who is mentally and physically qualified to make such decisions.

But whatever it is it has to apply to all irrespective of other factors.

Why? "Children" under the age of 18 can be legally emancipated by a court if the court determines that they are competent and mature enough to handle their own affairs. Why should this metric (competence) be the metric for everyone?

We've already explained this to you about ten fucking times. How many more times should be keep bashing our heads against the wall?

Until you figure it out and come up with the right answer of course. Or until you drop dead.

Nonsense. It's an imperfect system that exists because of the "ick factor" and literally nothing else, and it needs to be changed.

Absolute rubbish, as already explained to you. It's about protecting vulnerable people.

But what if the person is not "vulnerable" and has made a rational decision about his or her sexual activity? "Protecting" such a person is actually harming them by infringing on their liberties and freedoms.

Societies broader views on sex might very well be based on the "ick" factor, but in terms of practicalities, young people suffer horrible trauma from being sexually taken advantage of by older people. We need to protect young people.

Sure we do, so long as they need to be protected. The point is that some young people don't need that protection, and therefore they shouldn't be lumped in with those who do and saddled with inhibitions on their personal freedoms merely because you think it's too inconvenient to make an individualized assessment of the rationality and maturity of the young person.

In this particular case not having a law would be significantly worse than having one as it would allow children to be exploited
by paedophiles even more than now because they know they would have a better chance of not being prosecuted.

If a child is found to be competent to make knowing choices about having sex by a judge how is that child being "exploited" by anyone?

It's too late after the fact.

Is it?

We need laws to protect the innocent first and foremost.

"If you use force or fraud to coerce sex with anyone, of any age, you will be punished." Sounds like a law that would protect everyone to me.

So a couple of older sleaze bags can't get any action with kids any more. Big fucking deal.

That's not the point. The point is that the mature and responsible young person who makes a rational decision to have sex with someone much older has a right to make that decision without being inhibited from doing so by a blanket one-size-fits-all puritanical statute based on the ick factor.

I'd much prefer to know that young people are safe than have them potentially taken advantage of and only be able to ascertain the damage in a court afterwards.

Young people are protected by the above law. Like the law against murder, it deters the actor from doing something violative of the rights of the purported victim. By placing the burden on the actor to ensure that the consent is knowing and rational and that the partner is sexually mature and emotionally and physically ready the law prevents the application of force or fraud to exactly the same extent as a statutory rape law does. Violate the law, go to jail. The only difference is that the young person who is physically and mentally mature enough to make rational decisions about his or her sexuality is free to exercise those rights consensually without having their partner get arrested and put in jail for 25 years.

Hell, why don't we just decriminalise killing? You can kill anyone you like, but we'll let the courts decide after if it was a just killing or not, and only after someone complains. Good idea, huh?

Hyperbolic amphigory.

[Seth]

If a child is found to be competent to make knowing choices about having sex by a judge how is that child being exploited by anyone

How does one objectively determine the competence of a child ?

The same way a court determines the competence of any persons brought before it, by examining the evidence.

You cannot just take their word for it because of conflict of interest as one who wants to have
sex is going to be convinced that they are mature enough to have it but that is not automatically true.

Isn't it? Why isn't it? If the person has reached biological sexual maturity and has made a non-coerced voluntary and consensual decision to have sex, why is that not sufficient evidence?

So where then is the dividing line between those who are
and those who are not ?

That's what the court determines.

But even if a child is mature enough to make such decisions they could still be exploited.

Do they not have a right to volunteer for exploitation? And what do you mean by "exploited?"

For just because a child wants to have sex with
an adult does not mean that adult is not a paedophile.

302.2 Pedophilia

The paraphilic focus of Pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger).

The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account.

Individuals with Pedophilia generally report an attraction to children of a particular age range. Some individuals prefer males, others females, and some are aroused by both males and females. Those attracted to females usually prefer 8- to 10-year-olds, whereas those attracted to males usually prefer slightly older children. Pedophilia involving female victims is reported more often than Pedophilia involving male victims.

Some individuals with Pedophilia are sexually attracted only to children (Exclusive Type), whereas others are sometimes attracted to adults (Nonexclusive Type.

Individuals with Pedophilia who act on their urges with children may limit their activity to undressing the child and looking, exposing themselves, masturbating in the presence of the child, or gentle touching and fondling of the child.

Others, however, perform fellatio or cunnilingus on the child or penetrate the child's vagina, mouth, or anus with their fingers, foreign objects, or penis and use varying degrees of force to do so.

These activities are commonly explained with excuses or rationalizations that they have "educational value" for the child, that the child derives "sexual pleasure" from them, or that the child was "sexually provocative" – themes that are also common in pedophilic pornography.

Because of the ego-syntonic nature of Pedophilia, many individuals with pedophilic fantasies, urges or behaviors do not experience significant distress. It is important to understand that experiencing distress about having the fantasies, urges or behaviors is not necessary for a diagnosis of Pedophilia. Individuals who have a pedophilic arousal pattern and act on these fantasies or urges with a child qualify for the diagnosis of Pedophilia.

Individuals may limit their activities to their own children, stepchildren, or relatives or may victimize children from outside their families. Some individuals with Pedophilia threaten the child to prevent disclosure. Others, particularly those who frequently victimize children, develop complicated techniques for obtaining access to children, which may include winning the trust of a child's mother, marrying a woman with an attractive child, trading children with other individuals with Pedophilia, or, in rare instances, taking in foster children from nonindustrialized countries or abducting children from strangers.

Except in cases in which the disorder is associated with Sexual Sadism, the person may be attentive to the child's needs in order to gain the child's affection, interest and loyalty and to prevent the child from reporting the sexual activity.

The disorder usually begins in adolescence, although some individuals with Pedophilia report that they did not become aroused by children until middle age. The frequency of pedophilic behavior often fluctuates with psychosocial stress. The course is usually chronic, especially in those attracted to males. The recidivism rate for individuals with Pedophilia involving a preference for males is roughly twice that for those who prefer females.
Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia


Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).


[And:] The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.


[And:] The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

Specify if:


Sexually Attracted to Males


Sexually Attracted to Females


Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:


Limited to Incest


Specify type:


Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)


Nonexclusive Type

The key element of paedophilia is sexual attraction to pre pubescent children.

You might want to note that I have in all cases referred to post pubescent, which is to say biologically sexually mature young persons.

A sexual attraction to a post pubescent sexually mature young person is biologically appropriate and driven by our genetic makeup.

And on the balance of probabilities it is better that children are protected from such exploitation even if it
means a restriction on their own freedom.

That sounds conveniently moralistic and exploitative to me. Who are you to tell a sexually mature young person how to express his or her sexuality? Again, what is the difference between the 17 year old and the 18 year old that makes one's 18th birthday a rational and appropriate demarcation for sexual activity with a person generally 4 or more years older?

And why is sex between sexually mature young persons of approximately equal age not a crime? Why is the age difference itself an appropriate or logical metric upon which to base not only interference with the personal rights of the young person, but the liberty of the older person?

Again, is a 50 year old cock fundamentally different from a 15 year old cock to the extent that one should be legal to accept and the other should not?

If not, what is your rebuttal rationale? If we agree arguendo that a law regulating such relationships would subject the older person to judicial assessment in the event the young person files a complaint about the activities, how are young persons not being protected?

All laws by definition are restrictive but are there for the good of society. None more so than those that protect children

Protecting them from what, exactly?