By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nem on 02 March 2017
Edit Thread
JWeinCom said:
Nem said:

A five year old. Seriously? Are you trying to be dramatic or what? To me, the reason why they had a second child is extremely relevent. But no one can tell me why that would happen. You just shove it aside without questioning what it means. I am interested in the whole story. I can't judge Mahr when what he is saying makes sense, but none of you very self-righteous people can come with an answer for.

No.  What I'm trying to do is illustrate that whether or not they were in love has nothing to do with the morality.  Because the issue is not how much they love eachother, the issue is consent.  I don't find planned sex any more or less moral than unplanned sex.  I don't find sex to be any more or less moral inside or outside of a long term relationship.  I have no idea why you think this would make it any more or less ok.  I have tried to explain this several times and it's baffling that you keep bringing it up.   So, I decided to show it by isoating the variable.

You object when it's a five year old, but not a 12 year old.  When it's a five year old, you don't seem to care whether it's love or casual sex.  You recognize in all cases that it is an immoral act.  So then, whether they are in love or not is not the determining factor.  The age of the child 100% overrides it.

Same thing with why they had second kids.  If you have a child with a five year old, and two years later when they're seven you do it again, that doesn't change it's morality does it?  Again age is enough to determine whether it is moral or not with no other data.

To speed things up, we'll just construct a logical syllogism.  If the premises are true and the conclusion follows them, then the argument is valid and correct.  For the sake of this argument, we are going to make the assumption that the adult we're speaking of is mentally competent enough to make decisions.

Premise 1:  If a child is incapable of giving informed consent, an adult having sex with them is immoral, regardless of any other factor.

Premise 2:  When a child is below a certain age, for example when they are 5,  we can ALWAYS conclude that a child is unable to give informed consent.

Conclusion: When a child is below a certain age, we can conclude it is immoral for an adult to have sex with them based solely on age and regardless of any other factor.

That's my argument.  You either can show me which premise is flawed or why the conclusion is not justified the premises.  If you can't do either of those things, then the argument is valid.  Logic ftw.

Once we agree to that point, we can set aside any bullshit about whether they were in love or how often they had sex. Because those things have nothing to do with whether or not the child is capable of giving consent which I've tried to explain 8 different ways. The only thing that we have to consider is whether or not the child reached is above that "certain age" where consent is possible.  There is definitely a gray area.  You think that twelve years old is in this gray area.  I do not.

There is a crucial difference between us here though.  That difference is that I actually know shit about child development and you are ignorant on the matter.  So instead of acting like you're being persecuted why don't you try learning something about child development so you can have an informed and hopefully not horrid opinion on the matter.  Once you do, maybe I'll take what you say seriously.

Can you stop blurping the same shit over and over again and tell us why they had a second child? And stop talking about 5 year olds. If you ask me, you are the one beeing out of line for even bringing that kind of talk in here. We are talking about a boy, not a child.

So, you say they had a child, she got sent to jail after a hefty trial and they had another child like... nothing happened? See, i just can't see eye to eye with you. You blurp all this stuff wich you know has exceptions and you are unable to even sugest that the boy might have been fully aware of what he was doing. Wich is why they did it again after she got sent to jail! Why else would that happen?! Or are you going to sugest that 14yo after the struggles of a trial and his case beeing public still isn't aware of the impact of his decisions?

Is it so difficult to believe they might actually love each other and want to spend their life together? Have they separated or are still together?! They are freaking living proof that you are wrong and there are exceptions.

Was her behaviour innapropriate? Sure, i think it was. But i don't know the particular life situations and while i think they should have waited, i am not so close minded as to think it is disgusting when two consenting people feel that strongly for each other should be separated by law. My concerns would be more on biological terms, but since the younger one was a boy, i don't think that there was any big concerns.