590
591

Has a Crime Been Committed? (i.imgur.com)

mutantturkeySomalian Warlord / Capitalist Pig [Message Redacted] が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist -7 ポイント-6 ポイント  (44子コメント)

Neat flow chart. So I suppose if the kiddy diddler talks your 4 yr old into a blowjob, no crime has been committed?

[–]aquaknox 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (27子コメント)

That has a clear victim, the 4 year old. 4 year olds can't consent to sexual acts, so this constitutes sexual assault, which is violence, which violates the child's right to life.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (20子コメント)

4 year olds can't consent to sexual acts

Wait... where on the chart is that laid out?

[–]aquaknox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (19子コメント)

just because it's not explicit in the chart doesn't mean it doesn't fit.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Is there anywhere that it's implicit? Which right - life, liberty, or property - was violated?

That's kinda the flaw in this graph. I suspect "child sex" falls under "Other", and is therefore not a crime because ??? Profit!

[–]aquaknox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

All unjustified (i.e. not self-defense) violence falls under a violation of the right to life. Sexual assault is violence.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A right to life doesn't establish an age of consent.

[–]thejokersrs 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Which right - life, liberty, or property - was violated?

Liberty and property.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (14子コメント)

How is age of consent established via "Life" and "Property"?

[–]thejokersrs 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Liberty - A toddler cannot make an informed decision if they will regret the action in the future, thus their liberty to chose their future is violated.

Property - The body is the property of the owner of the body (ie the body of the child is owned by the child), A child cannot choose to allow this act, thus the act is a violation of the body, thus a property violation.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Liberty - A toddler cannot make an informed decision if they will regret the action in the future, thus their liberty to chose their future is violated.

If the potential for future regret inhibits liberty, then any individual lacking perfect information - from age 2 to 200 - qualifies. I don't know anyone with perfect access to information.

Property - The body is the property of the owner of the body (ie the body of the child is owned by the child), A child cannot choose to allow this act

Again, I don't think anything in this chart establishes the age at which an individual can make decisions.

[–]thejokersrs 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

If the potential for future regret inhibits liberty, then any individual lacking perfect information

Its not the potential for future regret, nor the lack of perfect information. It's that the toddlers brain isn't capable of making the decision even if it had perfect information and was given a glimpse of how their future would turn out.

Again, I don't think anything in this chart establishes the age at which an individual can make decisions.

No, and its just a fun little chart that you're taking way to seriously.

[–][削除されました]  (0子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]thejokersrs 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    child's right to life liberty and property

    [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Ok. So how does that work in the flow chart?

    4 year olds can't consent to sexual acts

    4 yr olds can consent to all sorts of crazy and dangerous shit.

    Their consent is considered insufficient for sex, by law (and morally too, as I see it). Not the same thing.

    [–]illuminutcase 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Both of you have completely valid claims. This just goes to show that law and what should and shouldn't be a crime is way the hell more nuanced than what can be fit into a single page flow chart with hand full of bubbles.

    [–]aquaknox 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Was there a victim?

    Yes, the child.

    Was the victim society?

    No.

    Which right was violated?

    Right to life.

    This is quite clear. I'm not sure why you feel that toddlers are capable of informed consent.

    [–]thejokersrs 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Right to life liberty and property.

    the child is not dead, which is what the violation of the right to life infers.

    [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Fair enough.

    "Right to life" might be modified to make that more clear.

    I'm not sure why you feel that toddlers are capable of informed consent.

    Informed consent is something different even than legal consent. Most adults I know are incapable of informed consent.

    [–]trytoinjuremeBenjamin Tucker is my homeboy -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (15子コメント)

    Probably not, unless there was some harm done. Sex is not any more inherently harmful than a hug. If I'm afraid of contact my child would have with someone else, I should probably watch after them or teach them the proper way to act.

    [–]dehemke 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    "Life" doesn't just mean murder, otherwise I'd be tempted to beat that child molesting scum within an inch of life and leave him in a coma.

    [–]legweedclassical liberal 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    So civilized.

    [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I'm acquitting if I'm on his jury.

    [–]trytoinjuremeBenjamin Tucker is my homeboy -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    So beating someone to near-death is more acceptable than having sex with a child? What is it about sex that you fear so much? Do you fear a God or something?

    [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    So beating someone to near-death is more acceptable than having sex with a child?

    No, of course not.

    Now, beating near-to-death a kiddy diddler...

    [–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Sex is not any more inherently harmful than a hug.

    Lulwhut?

    [–]trytoinjuremeBenjamin Tucker is my homeboy -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Not sure how I could be clearer. But I'm sure you're honestly concerned about this issue and totally aren't hoping to use dogma to troll and pat yourself on the back. For the children!

    Beyond STDs, any potential psychological harm would be social. 85% of children that experience sexual child abuse are psychologically symptomatic, sure. But 80% of people when mental illnesses are overweight/obese, does that mean that being fat is inherently psychologically traumatizing? Or could it be that fat people develop disorders because of social pressures, much like children that have sexual encounters?

    We need to focus on sexual positivism, not sexual incrimination. Just like we need to work on fat acceptance, not shaming, assuming your goal is to prevent psychological damage done to fat people (which goal I would question, but understand).

    [–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Beyond STDs, any potential psychological harm would be social.

    That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

    [–]trytoinjuremeBenjamin Tucker is my homeboy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Meaning STDs are the only thing inherently harmful about sex (assuming it's done properly and without violence). Is there some other form of inherent harm that causes you to not understand my original comment?

    [–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Meaning STDs are the only thing inherently harmful about sex

    http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-relationships/common-sex-injuries

    Is there some other form of inherent harm that causes you to not understand my original comment?

    I'm curious how "psychological" was transformed into "social". Sounds suspiciously like "this harm doesn't count, because I don't want it to count."

    [–]trytoinjuremeBenjamin Tucker is my homeboy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I'm curious how "psychological" was transformed into "social".

    I meant the psychological harm would be from social causes, not the sex. I'm not saying the harm doesn't count, that doesn't make the harm fake or negligible. But it does mean you need to adjust your approach when trying to solve it.

    [–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I meant the psychological harm would be from social causes, not the sex.

    I'm failing to see how you reached that conclusion. You cited that 85% of sexualized children experience psychological issues and then use that to refute the notion that sexualization causes psychological harm. That doesn't follow at all.

    I'm not sure how you employ sexual positivism to dismiss psychological trauma. Is that like using good sportsmanship to dismiss a mugging?

    [–]trytoinjuremeBenjamin Tucker is my homeboy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    then use that to refute the notion that sexualization causes psychological harm. That doesn't follow at all.

    No, I used the similar statistic of fat/obese people having mental illnesses. If you want specific instances of proof, look at all the studies and accounts of adults who typically report no feelings of guilt or harm following the sex, merely confusion (from sexual ignorance). Then they describe their progression toward self-doubt, depression, and isolation as the world informs them how they were abused and damaged.

    I'm not sure how you employ sexual positivism to dismiss psychological trauma.

    Easy. Same way we've started to employ homosexual tolerance to decrease psychological damage of homosexuals. The high levels of suicide, depression, and mental illness of homosexuals weren't due to homosexuality being inherently harmful to their mental well-being. It was due to social isolation, self-hatred, and guilting that society fed to them.

    If sex were considered normal and healthy (and positive, not evil or sinful), getting rid of the current stigma, then the psychological harm of sex would decrease. Even the harm of rape and other sex crimes would decrease, though obviously not entirely.

    [–]Fjordo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    As a person who was repeatedly raped when I was 6, I can assure you the mental health issues aren't "social". Most of them have to do with approach to intimacy which bucks social conditioning, almost to the point of being a pariah..

    [–]trytoinjuremeBenjamin Tucker is my homeboy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That seems to be an example of the social influences that cause damage. As an extreme hypothetical, if every 6 year old had experienced what you had, do you imagine it would have negatively affected you nearly as severely (I'm assuming it's relatively severe)? Sexual norms in society are the key player.