Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

This is disgusting, it is deserving something far worse than jail.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That a government can behave like this, that is.
Not that I'm surprised

I suppose it's just part of a rigid set of laws that don't make case by case allowances.  For instance, is the rape of a two year old by a 40 year old man really equivalent to a 16 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend?

[Luke_Prowler]

well, your examples are two different crimes to begin with, so of course they are not equivalent.

(<= completely missing the point)

[Leafsnail]

well, your examples are two different crimes to begin with, so of course they are not equivalent.

(<= completely missing the point)

So why do they have equal, or very similar sentences in the UK?

[bjlong]

The problem with laws is that they have to make absolute judgement calls. For example. When I turned 18, I was not suddenly granted a hefty dose of political-historical knowledge. But when I was 14, I was not even remotely trustworthy to make any sort of decisions about politics. Congress gets together and says "Ok, we know kids are dumb, and adults are less dumb. Usually. So how can we make a distinction between the two? 18? Ok, that sounds like it's in the ballpark." It's hard to come up with an accurate, intuitive, enforceable scheme to determine these kind of things.

So, even though laws seem sometimes arbitrary, understand that they try to make a compromise between these three things, and then hope that the jury is just and merciful. There's little more you can do.

Incidentally, I doubt that the jury will want this girl to have more than a slap on the wrist. The fact that she's been taken to trial will undoubtedly be punishment enough--they might mandate therapy, or counseling instead, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't underage laws make a 2 year exception? So a 15 yr. old can date a 17 year old, or a 19 year old can date a 17 year old. Which is kinda lenient in terms of weird age combinations, IMO.

[Broose]

Just saying, he might see the words "child pornography" and just lock it out of principle, without reading the article.

He clearly never looked through the bloody thing.

He read the whole thing.  Perhaps he read it more closely than you did.  I read it too.  You know, that article which advocated allowing forty year olds to have "affairs" with their eleven year old neighbors as long as they don't use violent force outright.

I warned Armok originally for link spamming, as he was posting it everywhere, but I hadn't actually read the thing.  Then Threetoe read it and locked the thread.  I am in agreement with his decision.  The thread wasn't about the gray areas of the law, Armok just said "hey, I agree with this article".  "This article" being the article advocating child rape.  Then the next guy in the thread was like "yeah, I agree too, as long as there's consent" -- but the article defined consent as "kids can consent once they reach puberty", and so it's not clear where we were at, but we shouldn't have started there to begin with.  There were some decent replies, but the OP itself was completely unacceptable.

I wouldn't have a problem with ein posting his current article, as it concerns one of the gray areas that is often discussed even in the mainstream media, but since he was the poster that made the ambiguous first reply to Armok's thread, and given some of the subsequent replies, I'm not very enthusiastic about this thread.  Some people have already managed to make other forum-goers question the integrity of this forum and its nonchalant attitude toward the previous article.  The reputation passes beyond individual posters and has a direct effect on my livelihood.  I'm not in a position to stand by and watch this forum get pegged with a reputation as a NAMBLA outpost just because some of you lack critical reading skills.

Still, he was locking the thread because most of the posts disagreed with his opinion. I understand how it could have been offensive, but he seemed to be the only one acting like that.

[Strife26]

I've got to stand by Toady and ThreeToe right now (although I do think that ThreeToe may have been slightly hasty in locking other threads). If they feel that it isn't appropriate for the board, and definitely if their livelihood is threatened, they have the right to lock the thread (and we have the responsibility to not argue overmuch). It's just like pirating stuff. We all have our opinions, but sense Toady said 'no links' we don't post links. There isn't much of a difference from a broad standpoint between pro-CP and pro-Pirating discussions.

[Toady One]

Still, he was locking the thread because most of the posts disagreed with his opinion. I understand how it could have been offensive, but he seemed to be the only one acting like that.

This is nonsense.  He locked the thread because the OP advocated child rape.  Whether the OP intended to or not, he should have been more careful.  The OP has permission to guide the discussion on this forum, so the character of the replies doesn't need to be considered for a thread lock, though they can contribute to it.  In fact, contrary to your statement, many of the replies addressing that portion of the OP disagreed in some fashion.  Something like a thread split could have been possible if the OP weren't tainted.  Anybody who'd like to talk about rights for the great apes or even cannibalism, for example, is welcome to do so.  Advocating cannibalism would most likely be taken as spam unless it's one of the gray areas (placentas and what have you).

Just as there doesn't need to be a thread where the OP spouts racial epithets or a thread where the OP posts detailed instructions on pirating video games or a thread where the OP calls out another forum member or a thread spamming WoW gold farming, there doesn't need to be a "child rape is okay" thread, even if most of the replies disagree with the premise.

Before somebody makes the specious argument, I am comfortable restricting free speech here.  Absolutely enthusiastic about it, in fact, exactly to the extent that it aligns with the forum guidelines.  Various nonsense was turning into a gutter if it wasn't there already, and the same thing won't happen in general discussion.  I have this right and obligation to myself.  People should show respect to each other, not post links to illegal material, and first and foremost, not make the forum a crappy place for people to be.  This is right at the top of the forum guidelines.

The thread in question contributed mightily to the forum's crappiness, and it is also my opinion that this was as obvious as any of the other examples I gave.  You might have a different opinion, but I find it highly unlikely that it's going to change my mind, to the extent that it really isn't open for discussion.  By that I mean if somebody starts an "it should be okay to advocate child rape on this forum" thread, that thread will be deleted, and given recent events, that user will be banned permanently.

If that's the hill you want to die on, go right ahead and make that post.  I do respect your inclination toward freedom of expression, but it is also true that keeping an internet forum from turning into a steaming pile of spam and worse is impossible without restrictions.  There are enforced guidelines here.

[Tormy]

Well said Toady, I absolutely agree with you. This forum is excellent, we must try to keep it like that. If some of you fellas don't like these "rules" [actually what rules? you are not allowed to post about warez/child pornography and stuff like that?...you SHOULD know yourself, that perhaps this forum is not the appropriate place to talk about things like that?], 4chan is --> that way. 

[Psyringe]

I stumbled across these threads by accident and I wonder why there's even a discussion about it. If these were my forums, I simply would have locked the threads and banned people who very obviously crossed the lines. I probably wouldn't even take the time to discuss the matter, simply because I'd regard it as a waste of time that could be spend much, much better.

Forcing the programmer of DF to deal with forum discussions that have obvious unacceptable content, instead of spending the same time programming, is bad enough in itself. *Complaining* about it and trying to discuss the decisions, thereby wasting even more of his time, is even worse. Imho, the people who crossed the lines should either accept the decisions if they see that they were necessary, or simply find themselves another place to discuss these topics and leave in peace. With *anything* that else that makes it necessary for Toady or Threetoe to spend even more time on the issue, you're just making things worse.

Keep in mind that we are guests here.

[Muz]

Can you really label a teenage camwhore the same way you label a greasy +35 year old kiddie fondler?
Using a literal interpretation of a generic law thats supposed to cover an offense and be interpretated to assimilate particular cases? Yes. Using equity to adapt the generic law to the particular fact? No.

You're labeling her the same as you label someone who pisses on your lawn when drunk. Or a 18-year old who has sex with her 17-year old boyfriend. The "sexual crime" thing is a bit broad. And I'm really not fond of how America has a sex crime database that's available to people online. You are tossing them in the same group as a 35+ year old kiddie fondler, which is ridiculous.

[Footkerchief]

Kids now-a-days are just plain stupid. When you're 14, you don't need to be gettin' busy in that sense. You need to be busy with doing good on freshmensophmore year of high school so that you actually know what you need to know to make it as a junior and senior, so you can get into a good college. And then, if you get into a decent college and keep your grades up, you can have time to focus on getting 'busy'. Before then, it really just doesn't matter for anything.

May I ask how old you are and what sort of setting you grew up in?  I'm curious about what era you're contrasting to "now-a-days," and what understanding of teenager-ness would imply that they think about sex in terms of "need" or "doesn't matter."

[sonerohi]

I'm still growing up in this generation at the ripe young age of 14. I can tell you that at my highschool of who-knows-how-many people, I've met near 300 other teenagers. I'd say that 100 are freshmen, maybe 80 sophmores, and 60 juniors & seniors. Guess what all of them have in common? At the best highschool in the city, they're never concerned about grades. These are the kids that I'm in honors classes with. These are kids that are & were pulling C's in honors classes because they're more concerned about the "who is going to the mall later, who hooked up with who, what Britney Spears did now, how many girlfriends I can juggle at one time" sort of crap. I understand the need for a social life, but should trivial things like that matter so much that you completely disregard education, civility, and common sense for it? A kid who was literally .5% away from failing out of sophmore year, that I was tutoring (I was a goddamned freshman!) called me a retard because I didn't have a girlfriend then, when I was pulling A's in classes he was failing. These kids have been conditioned to be the perfect consumers the media wants them to be, and it's fucking asinine! These are children that grew up in the worst possible time period, with parents horrible at child-raising and media that has a voice where it shouldn't.

TLDR; RAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEG

[Strife26]

parents horrible at child-raising and media that has a voice where it shouldn't.

TLDR; RAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEG

I know, fucking self esteem generation.

[sonerohi]

Thank you! Parents are too focused on kissing boo-boo's and making kids feel good to actually raise them. They grow up without ever being given a good foundation, and so the media steps right in and raises them to be another low-aspiration, brand-consuming, kiddy-pool-shallow, pathetic excuse for a proper human being.

[Footkerchief]

I'm still growing up in this generation at the ripe young age of 14. I can tell you that at my highschool of who-knows-how-many people, I've met near 300 other teenagers. I'd say that 100 are freshmen, maybe 80 sophmores, and 60 juniors & seniors. Guess what all of them have in common? At the best highschool in the city, they're never concerned about grades. These are the kids that I'm in honors classes with. These are kids that are & were pulling C's in honors classes because they're more concerned about the "who is going to the mall later, who hooked up with who, what Britney Spears did now, how many girlfriends I can juggle at one time" sort of crap. I understand the need for a social life, but should trivial things like that matter so much that you completely disregard education, civility, and common sense for it? A kid who was literally .5% away from failing out of sophmore year, that I was tutoring (I was a goddamned freshman!) called me a retard because I didn't have a girlfriend then, when I was pulling A's in classes he was failing. These kids have been conditioned to be the perfect consumers the media wants them to be, and it's fucking asinine! These are children that grew up in the worst possible time period, with parents horrible at child-raising and media that has a voice where it shouldn't.

You're touching on some more authentically modern problems now, but I'm not seeing a strong connection to teenage sex, which, again, is kind of a human constant and not preclusive of getting good grades.  It sounds like you're lumping sex and consumerism together because they're done by the Other from which you're alienated.  The Other is not monolithic, and you shouldn't assume that you understand each of its individual members.  In particular, I'm not sure you understand sex as a motivator at all.