Why Has No One Killed George Zimmerman?

UncleBuck said:

nope.

you said if a 10 year old is menstruating and willing, it's OK to have sex with her.

that is a fact, pedo.

Click to expand...

Hey now, that's not fair! He never said they have to be menstruating!

Ace Yonder said:

Actually what you specifically said, in context, was that sex with 10 years olds is only wrong because we as a society decided they can't give consent, and if we decided they could give consent then sex with a 10 year old would absolutely be okay.

Yup. That is you explaining why sex with a 10 year old could be okay. Your only qualification is that the 10 year old is willing, because in your view there is nothing inherently wrong with fucking a child, it's just a societal notion that has been forced upon us. You would fit right in at a NAMBLA meeting.

Click to expand...

My view expressed there without much distortion is, I think, spot on.

There are societies and groups of people in the past who have allowed what we call children to enter into marriage with men and the women grew up to function well in that society.

I don't know why you feel the need to insult me and call me a pedophile. It is anathema to almost everyone's sense of morality in our culture. But in other cultures it hasn't always been so.

Ace Yonder said:

Hey now, that's not fair! He never said they have to be menstruating!

Click to expand...

I did say they had to be sexually mature.

ThickStemz said:

My view expressed there without much distortion is, I think, spot on.

There are societies and groups of people in the past who have allowed what we call children to enter into marriage with men and the women grew up to function well in that society.

I don't know why you feel the need to insult me and call me a pedophile. It is anathema to almost everyone's sense of morality in our culture. But in other cultures it hasn't always been so.

Click to expand...

The reason is that I find the very idea of moral relativity to be rather repugnant. Once you give up on the idea of a god making the rules and start viewing things from a utilitarian perspective, sorting things into right and wrong is very simple, and has nothing to do with the mores of any given society. I find it upsetting that there are people who view morality in terms of what a given society allows or advocates, because it allows for the casual dismissal and ignorance of heinous crimes against humanity as simply being cultural differences. In my view, culture, and the unbelievable reverence afforded to culture, is one of the largest (perhaps second to religion) enablers of, and excuses for, evil in our world.

for the same reason, no one has killed the millions of other wastes of life, its not worth it.

Ace Yonder said:

The reason is that I find the very idea of moral relativity to be rather repugnant. Once you give up on the idea of a god making the rules and start viewing things from a utilitarian perspective, sorting things into right and wrong is very simple, and has nothing to do with the mores of any given society. I find it upsetting that there are people who view morality in terms of what a given society allows or advocates, because it allows for the casual dismissal and ignorance of heinous crimes against humanity as simply being cultural differences. In my view, culture, and the unbelievable reverence afforded to culture, is one of the largest (perhaps second to religion) enablers of, and excuses for, evil in our world.

Click to expand...

Then again, when man decides the rules and the most powerful men are evil fucks...

All they have to do is convince you something bad is good.

Flaming Pie said:

Then again, when man decides the rules and the most powerful men are evil fucks...

All they have to do is convince you something bad is good.

Click to expand...

That is precisely why you can't allow cultures and religions (which can both be dominated by powerful/evil men shaping the beliefs of the populous to their own ends by way of propaganda and institutional manipulation) to dictate what is right and wrong. You need to decide for yourself, and the utilitarian model allows for the most objective way to do that built upon a foundation of logic and compassion rather than belief and tradition.

Ace Yonder said:

The reason is that I find the very idea of moral relativity to be rather repugnant. Once you give up on the idea of a god making the rules and start viewing things from a utilitarian perspective, sorting things into right and wrong is very simple, and has nothing to do with the mores of any given society. I find it upsetting that there are people who view morality in terms of what a given society allows or advocates, because it allows for the casual dismissal and ignorance of heinous crimes against humanity as simply being cultural differences. In my view, culture, and the unbelievable reverence afforded to culture, is one of the largest (perhaps second to religion) enablers of, and excuses for, evil in our world.

Click to expand...

Well said.

I made no argument for utilitarian. I simply said moral. What is moral is only determined by societies and individuals. If, for no other reason, than that is the only thing that can determine it.

God doesn't determine it. The bible has a story where God tells the Israelites to destroy cities, kill all the men and keep the young girls. That is the Judeo-Christian foundation. A story of child sex slaves.

Ace Yonder said:

Hey now, that's not fair! He never said they have to be menstruating!

Click to expand...

correct, i should have said "post menarche" rather than "menstruating".

bignbushy/smokeydan/thickstemz thins it is moral to have sex with 10 year old girls as long as they are post-menarche AND willing.

but he is not a pedophile. no one is saying that thickstemz/smokeydan/bignbushy is a pedophile.

BigNBushy said:

I think, in all honesty, that sex with a 12 year old would be boring. The only redeeming virtue with sex with someone at such age would be the fact that my cock would look huge in their tiny hands.

Click to expand...

clearly not a pedophile.

Rob Roy believes if a child consents to sex with an adult it's nobodys business

But he is not a pedophile
Or a racist either

No not him

ChesusRice said:

Rob Roy believes if a child consents to sex with an adult it's nobodys business

But he is not a pedophile
Or a racist either

No not him

Click to expand...

How about this...
Man is 25 female is 13.
Man has sex with young female. No one ever knows. She grows up and enters a consenting relationship with this man.

After some years, it becomes known the the man had been fucking the child since before she gained the age of consent.

Since she is now deemed capable of consent, can she retroactively give her valid consent onto herself as a child to keep the man from being prosecuted?

ThickStemz said:

How about this...
Man is 25 female is 13.
Man has sex with young female. No one ever knows. She grows up and enters a consenting relationship with this man.

After some years, it becomes known the the man had been fucking the child since before she gained the age of consent.

Since she is now deemed capable of consent, can she retroactively give her valid consent onto herself as a child to keep the man from being prosecuted?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. That's like asking if a kidnapping victim who develops Stockholm Syndrome (not far from what would be happening in the mind of the child victim in your scenario, actually) can retroactively give consent and prevent their captors from being prosecuted for kidnapping. (Or even better, whether a child can give consent for a parent to kidnap them without legal custody)

Ace Yonder said:

Absolutely not. That's like asking if a kidnapping victim who develops Stockholm Syndrome (not far from what would be happening in the mind of the child victim in your scenario, actually) can retroactively give consent and prevent their captors from being prosecuted for kidnapping. (Or even better, whether a child can give consent for a parent to kidnap them without legal custody)

Click to expand...

So first the man victimised her. Then the state does.

Got it.

In my hypothetical I purposely left out an ongoing relationship. So if wouldnt be a form of Stockholm syndrome.

ThickStemz said:

So first the man victimised her. Then the state does.

Got it.

In my hypothetical I purposely left out an ongoing relationship. So if wouldnt be a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Click to expand...

why do you keep inventing pedophile fantasies?

UncleBuck said:

why do you keep inventing pedophile fantasies?

Click to expand...

The only way you can properly explore many of the small differences of a moral question is through a hypothetical.

If someone takes something from me, cops arrest him, if I tell them that it's fine, the person can have that thing, then the person isn't guilty of stealing. He is still a theif, but no crime has been committed. I have given consent after the fact and it is deemed valid.

If a girl drinks too much and passes out, and then while in that state has a man have his way with her, he has raped her. If, however, she then says "that was my boyfriend and it's ok" there is no crime. But he still raped her.

Why then, does a woman not have the right to post hoc consent to sex from 6 or 10 years earlier if she has the right to post hoc consent to sex from the night or week before?

ThickStemz said:

So first the man victimised her. Then the state does.

Got it.

In my hypothetical I purposely left out an ongoing relationship. So if wouldnt be a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Click to expand...

Umm, how exactly is the state victimizing her? He broke the law when he victimized her, him serving the time for the crime he committed is NOT the state's fault. If losing her boyfriend to jail is being victimized, that is him victimizing her a second time because it is the result of HIS actions. Plus, hopefully now that she is removed from the criminal who has been victimizing her, maybe she can finally come to terms with the reality of the situation and seek counseling to help with the long term damage his actions will have had on her psyche so that she can finally break free from the cycle he has trapped her into and move on with her life before he is back out on the streets and can regain control of her.

ThickStemz said:

The only way you can properly explore many of the small differences of a moral question is through a hypothetical.

If someone takes something from me, cops arrest him, if I tell them that it's fine, the person can have that thing, then the person isn't guilty of stealing. He is still a theif, but no crime has been committed. I have given consent after the fact and it is deemed valid.

If a girl drinks too much and passes out, and then while in that state has a man have his way with her, he has raped her. If, however, she then says "that was my boyfriend and it's ok" there is no crime. But he still raped her.

Why then, does a woman not have the right to post hoc consent to sex from 6 or 10 years earlier if she has the right to post hoc consent to sex from the night or week before?

Click to expand...

Most of your examples are erroneous because that is not actually how it works in the real world. Not all crimes require consent of the victim to prosecute so long as ample evidence of a crime exists, specifically for scenarios where consent can not be given or where coercion may cause someone to falsely claim a non-consensual act was consensual. A child can never consent to sex with an adult, no matter how much they think they are willing, because we know that they are not mature enough to give informed consent. It doesn't matter how they feel as adults, because when the act happened they were unable to consent and thus a crime occurred regardless of their future feelings about it.

Ace Yonder said:

Umm, how exactly is the state victimizing her? He broke the law when he victimized her, him serving the time for the crime he committed is NOT the state's fault. If losing her boyfriend to jail is being victimized, that is him victimizing her a second time because it is the result of HIS actions. Plus, hopefully now that she is removed from the criminal who has been victimizing her, maybe she can finally come to terms with the reality of the situation and seek counseling to help with the long term damage his actions will have had on her psyche so that she can finally break free from the cycle he has trapped her into and move on with her life before he is back out on the streets and can regain control of her.

Click to expand...

Did I say at any time it was a continuing hostage situation?
Maybe you implied that but it wasn't stated. In the relevant scenario the previously underage girl is free to choose to be with the man as an adult.

The state would be victimizing her by not allowing her control of her own body. If I can decide to permit something to me now, theoretically I'm competent enough to allow it post hoc to myself at an earlier date.

ThickStemz said:

Did I say at any time it was a continuing hostage situation?
Maybe you implied that but it wasn't stated. In the relevant scenario the previously underage girl is free to choose to be with the man as an adult.

The state would be victimizing her by not allowing her control of her own body. If I can decide to permit something to me now, theoretically I'm competent enough to allow it post hoc to myself at an earlier date.

Click to expand...

No, she is allowed to control her own body, the state is not preventing her as an adult from making her own choices, they are punishing her boyfriend(Not her) for the crime he actually committed. And you keep saying there was no continuous relationship but...

ThickStemz said:

After some years, it becomes known the the man had been fucking the child since before she gained the age of consent.

Click to expand...

that STRONGLY implies a continued relationship. Either way, he committed a crime, him getting punished for that crime is in no way a re-victimization of his victim, that's fucking preposterous.

And finally no, BEING COMPETENT TO GIVE CONSENT NOW IS JUST THAT, COMPETENCY TO GIVE CONSENT NOW. It does NOT mean that you WERE competent THEN. Got it? Competence is NOT retroactive. Otherwise every child would always be competent because one day they will be. That's dumb logic.

Ace Yonder said:

No, she is allowed to control her own body, the state is not preventing her as an adult from making her own choices, they are punishing her boyfriend(Not her) for the crime he actually committed. And you keep saying there was no continuous relationship but...

that STRONGLY implies a continued relationship. Either way, he committed a crime, him getting punished for that crime is in no way a re-victimization of his victim, that's fucking preposterous.

And finally no, BEING COMPETENT TO GIVE CONSENT NOW IS JUST THAT, COMPETENCY TO GIVE CONSENT NOW. It does NOT mean that you WERE competent THEN. Got it? Competence is NOT retroactive. Otherwise every child would always be competent because one day they will be. That's dumb logic.

Click to expand...

Well so what? Perhaps I realized stockholm syndrome was a fatal flaw so I changed the scenario in my head. lol Truly I had envisioned random acts of sex, leading to a relationship later in life.

So, to refine the point, since as iron sharpens iron, argument sharpens positions, good catch on your end...

If stockhold syndrome or the like is the pathway to prosecution in the continuous relationship scenario, what about a scenario where...

Girl meets boy, they fuck. She is 15 he is 23. Some years later they reunite and eventually marry.

She decided to take pictures of the first instance of sex. So there is hard proof it happened. Suppose no statute of limitations issues.

Does the man deserve prosecution?

Can she not, at present, retroactively give consent as an adult to his use of her body at that earlier time?