Sexual Predator Honored With U.S. Postage Stamp

[Danke]

I think its hard to deny that 18 is better than 25 though. I mean, I guess you COULD deny it, I get that its all arbitrary, but why would you deny it?

I'm not "denying" nor advocating anything.

Just pointing out it is arbitrary.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

The point is this guy repeatedly honed in on under aged young men who were vulnerable. It's not like he fell in love with one and lived with him for decades.

Monogamy is not the only way to fall in love. Judging by the divorce rate, it might be the worst way.

Don't forget there is a minefield of assumptions & implied premises to wade through each time a subject like this comes up.

 

[Root]

Ban stamps.

 

[Origanalist]

Monogamy is not the only way to fall in love. Judging by the divorce rate, it might be the worst way.

Don't forget there is a minefield of assumptions & implied premises to wade through each time a subject like this comes up.

Let's not confuse love and commitment with lust.

 

[Origanalist]

Ban stamps.

Even the forever stamps?

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

So you have an arbitrary cut off point just like the state has now. That was my point.

Danno's suggestion is more reasoned out than our current laws though. The 16-17-18 year old AOC laws are designed to "protect" people who are physically mature enough to "have sex," which of course in current society refers completely to stuffing things in bodily orifices. A 14 yr old AOC would set the age where a normal teenager is able to have sexual intercourse w/o the immediate threat of physical harm.

You don't need an AOC law to protect 10 year olds if the standard is objective, bodily harm & not our literally insane view of sexuality as a culture. It's impossible to have either straight or queer sex (by the above definition) w/ a 10 year old w/o physically harming them, so it should be a serious/lifetime incarceration-type crime in the same way as permanently maiming a little kid in some other way should be, even if the child consented fully.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Let's not confuse love and commitment with lust.

Who are you to say what love & commitment should mean to other people? And is the concept of "lust" even something objective that is proven to exist? I personally don't grasp the concept of "lust" except as a clumsy way of describing a human social behavior. The concept of lust is based on the alleged separation of mind, spirit & body that the Christian church brought into the public consciousness & pushed at every opportunity, so it's like inventing your own false paradigm then pointing out people's acceptance of it as proof of the very concept you invented to teach them. Not everyone accepts the premises you do.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Damn, I really thought this was going to be about Ben Franklin.

Yeah, Ben Franklin is definitely more interesting than the subject of this thread. The Jefferson generation probably talked about how great it was to party with Franklin. The hooker girls must've nicknamed him Big Balls, or something like that. He could probably drink a 12 pak in half an hour.

How is that awesome? Please explain.

Well, you know, being named Bunny and all. Sort of like Lucille carwashing in front of the inmates.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Jimmy Carter had some famous line about lust. Another naïve guy who just couldn't keep his mouth shut.

 

[Origanalist]

Who are you to say what love & commitment should mean to other people? And is the concept of "lust" even something objective that is proven to exist? I personally don't grasp the concept of "lust" except as a clumsy way of describing a human social behavior. The concept of lust is based on the alleged separation of mind, spirit & body that the Christian church brought into the public consciousness & pushed at every opportunity, so it's like inventing your own false paradigm then pointing out people's acceptance of it as proof of the very concept you invented to teach them. Not everyone accepts the premises you do.

Well hell, hardly anyone here accepts the premises I do, but that's ok. There was a time when most people understood that sexual gratification came with responsibility and commitment. That reality has been attacked and mocked since the Great Society was introduced.

 

[Origanalist]

Yeah, Ben Franklin is definitely more interesting than the subject of this thread. The Jefferson generation probably talked about how great it was to party with Franklin. The hooker girls must've nicknamed him Big Balls, or something like that. He could probably drink a 12 pak in half an hour.




Well, you know, being named Bunny and all. Sort of like Lucille carwashing in front of the inmates.

Sorry, you lost me.

 

[Danke]

Danno's suggestion is more reasoned out than our current laws though. The 16-17-18 year old AOC laws are designed to "protect" people who are physically mature enough to "have sex," which of course in current society refers completely to stuffing things in bodily orifices. A 14 yr old AOC would set the age where a normal teenager is able to have sexual intercourse w/o the immediate threat of physical harm.

You don't need an AOC law to protect 10 year olds if the standard is objective, bodily harm & not our literally insane view of sexuality as a culture. It's impossible to have either straight or queer sex (by the above definition) w/ a 10 year old w/o physically harming them, so it should be a serious/lifetime incarceration-type crime in the same way as permanently maiming a little kid in some other way should be, even if the child consented fully.

What age is your cut off?

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Well hell, hardly anyone here accepts the premises I do, but that's ok. There was a time when most people understood that sexual gratification came with responsibility and commitment. That reality has been attacked and mocked since the Great Society was introduced.

Your definition of responsibility. Your definition of commitment. Your ideas & those of the organization/s that have influenced you. Not necessarily the absolute truth.

 

[dannno]

So you have an arbitrary cut off point just like the state has now. That was my point.

My limit is not nearly as arbitrary, it is based on when an individual has the capability to understand the decision they are making. The state's limit is highly arbitrary and it creates more limitations on the rights of both adults and teenagers than my limit. Mine allows parents and individuals to create greater personal limits for greater personal decision making.

 

[Origanalist]

Your definition of responsibility. Your definition of commitment. Your ideas & those of the organization/s that have influenced you. Not necessarily the absolute truth.

Not mine. Universally understood concepts for thousands of years.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

What age is your cut off?

I haven't proposed a "cut off" style law so I can't really say. If you forced me to doctrinate some such law, it would be no intercourse for those under 14 I suppose. Under the standard of objective physical harm. Of course, even kissing or holding hands with a 13 year old would still qualify as "grooming" or "molestation" under current witch-hunter doctrine, as it basically does now for kissing or holding hands with anyone a day younger than the AOC.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Not mine. Universally understood concepts for thousands of years.

What a crock, seriously.

 

[Origanalist]

What a crock, seriously.

Well, that's a really good argument.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Sorry, you lost me.

Classic Cool Hand Luke movie scene.

 

[Danke]

My limit is not nearly as arbitrary, it is based on when an individual has the capability to understand the decision they are making. The state's limit is highly arbitrary and it creates more limitations on the rights of both adults and teenagers than my limit. Mine allows parents and individuals to create greater personal limits for greater personal decision making.

Sounds good, so no state involvement. I'm with that.