I think that this is the right thing to do, though.That is a chilling thought for many Americans, including this one. They may be nutbags and stupid, but unless they are known to be doing something illegal, I would rather put up with them then such an intrusive police system.
MSimon wrote:If no one can consent to anything then the government will need to be watching to make sure we only do what is allowed. That is the trouble with liberty. Some one somewhere might make a "bad" decision. We can't have that.Diogenes wrote:The concept of "consent" is a legal artifice. 50 years ago Homosexuals couldn't legally consent either.KitemanSA wrote:All these things MAY be true, but the difference between "homophiliacs" and "pedophiliacs" is that the homo type is only legal between consenting individuals, and with the pedo type, children by definition can't consent to sexual activity. Pedophilia MAY be "normal" but statutory rape is still rape.
Besides. Think of all the jobs that will be created for minders.
We can avoid learning from our mistakes because our betters in the legislature know what is good for us. They will have consulted the best experts money can buy.
MSimon wrote:We can start with - no woman can consent to sex without prior government approval specifying the place, time, and allowed acts. With minders watching to make sure the rules are followed. The advantage is that if pregnancy should follow a responsible male will be positively identified.
OTOH I expect a sex underground would develop for those who want to be alone during the act. Who could enjoy such perversion? Or for those who want more than one watcher. Doubly (or more) perverse.
“Political tags–such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth–are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” – Robert A. Heinlein
MSimon wrote:We could have food minders to cure obesity.
If that is legally determined I'm fine with it. Depending on the requirements.The argument which you are denouncing, is regarding people determined to be non compos mentis.
MSimon wrote:If consent is an invalid idea we will need laws for everything. That could take a while to develop. But there is a ready made system that is good to go right now.
Sharia.
One thing really amusing about this is that Abraham Lincoln Ran on preventing race mixing as part of his platform. He argued that there would be much less of it if the slaves were freed, because most mixing was the result of the white master having sex with his female slaves.MSimon wrote:I forgot to mention that at one time you could not consent to have sex with a black person. Too much race mixing is a really bad idea.
We had a civil war and all of that got straightened out.Abraham Lincoln wrote:But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once — a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agreed with the Judge; and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours we shall drop ours, and adopt his. Let us see. In 1840 there were in the Untied States, 405,751, mulattoes. Very few of these are the offspring of white and free blacks; nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white masters. A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as an immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together
Don't care, as long as *I* don't have to pay to rescue them. Unfortunately, they keep picking my pocket for other people's bad decisions. What's wrong with me not having to pay for THEIR bad decisions?MSimon wrote: And the Islamics in some places don't allow non members to marry into the religion without conversion. And marry out of the religion? Don't even think about it.
Where will it all end? Badly to be sure.
Of course that brings up the opposite problem:
If you tell people what to do they will do the opposite. Otherwise they will do as they dam well please.
They aren't raping children. (far as anyone knows.) They are advocating for people to stop calling it "rape" (sodomy is now a politically incorrect term) and for making consensual sex with minors legal, Unless I misunderstood something somewhere. They are asking that the age of consent be lowered.Skipjack wrote:I think that this is the right thing to do, though.That is a chilling thought for many Americans, including this one. They may be nutbags and stupid, but unless they are known to be doing something illegal, I would rather put up with them then such an intrusive police system.
You dont want these pedophiles or whatever you want to call them run arround freely raping little children? Then you have to be watchfull.
The price of freedom is being watchfull at all times.
“Our position is that the military should re-examine the policy, the medical regulations, so as to allow open service for transgender people,” said Vincent Paolo Villano, spokesman for the 6,000-member Center for Transgender Equality.
LONDON, September 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One of Britain’s leading homosexualist activists has called again for the lowering of the age of sexual consent from 16 to 14, saying that this will reduce incidents of sexual abuse of young people. Peter Tatchell, founder of the group OutRage!, wrote on the website Big Think, “Whether we like it or not, many teenagers have their first sexual experience around the ages of 14 or 15.”
OutRage! has long lobbied for the lowering of the age of consent in Britain, which was already lowered for homosexual acts from age 21 in 1994 and again in 2000 to 16, after heavy lobbying by homosexualist activists.
Here, astonishingly, the OWS creepy, collectivist hive obediently repeated the line, “You can have sex with animals or whatever….” FF to 1:00 min in:
This.Skipjack wrote:I think that this is the right thing to do, though.That is a chilling thought for many Americans, including this one. They may be nutbags and stupid, but unless they are known to be doing something illegal, I would rather put up with them then such an intrusive police system.
You dont want these pedophiles or whatever you want to call them run arround freely raping little children? Then you have to be watchfull.
The price of freedom is being watchfull at all times.