Go to jail for 10 years for getting head?

[Sidhe]

Over at Slashdot you'll have a crowd of pirhanas jump all over you screaming Godwyn (I know that now... why did I think Stetson?). It actually successfully weeds out the people who don't know much what they're talking about and make easy references to obvious and sketchily-related material (that wasn't an attack on you, Xanikk999, just next time do something a little more creative ).

Me neither since as I said I don't think it's apt although I don't think the comparisson is as silly as I originally thought.

IT doesn't actually it's perfectly valid for example to use the analogy when comparing something simillar, say Stalinism, where an ideology is so ingrained that it's able to corrupted by evil men. Essentially it's saying not that you shouldn't use comparissons of this nature, in fact that you should refrain because bad analogies weaken the use of the valid arguments in the future. Wikipedia has a nice concise little article on it, or you could try reserching the guy who came up with it from the links in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

(also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

“
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]

”

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[2] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki

 

[-0blivion-]

I for one do not think the age of consent should be lowered, I think that the age difference, just like in the vast majority of other US states, should be taken into consideration in Georgia.

Aye, that is my personal point of view as well.

I like the law with the age difference clause involved - isn't open to abuse, does not let criminals off leniently.

A good legal system protects the innocent accused just as much as it protects the innocent victims.

 

[TheLoneMan]

That is why the 17 year old is in hot water. He had sex with someone who could not legally give consent to such activity. Dont try to tell me he didnt know what he was doing.

Don't try to tell me she didn't know what she was doing.

She may be under the 'legal age', but if she's old enough to do it willingly, she knows damn well the consequences and implications of her actions.

 

[Masquerouge]

Aye, that is my personal point of view as well.

I like the law with the age difference clause involved - isn't open to abuse, does not let criminals off leniently.

A good legal system protects the innocent accused just as much as it protects the innocent victims.

I'm with you 100%. The age difference clause is specifically there to make sure the true, dangerous pedophiles are prosecuted, and not waste time on the teenager having consensual sex with another teenager in his/her class.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm not so sure about that, seeing as the main argument from both gentlemen seems to be "but it's the law!", nevermind that the other side is arguing that it is a law.. yes.. but a bad one.

So if the law was changed, they would likely blindly follow the new law, and would support it in a debate such as this one.

I'm not sure which would be more consistent, however if they did change to supporting the new law they would be sheep and morally inconsistent, they would also be placing themselves in an unusual position that of questioning their God or questioning the law. To be honest I generally think both Mob and Civ would disobey a law of the land much more readilly than a moral law of God. Judging by past references on this.

But anyway, their are more important issues to be adressed such as if their are grey areas in laws, ethics or not.

 

[fishjie]

Aye, that is my personal point of view as well.

I like the law with the age difference clause involved - isn't open to abuse, does not let criminals off leniently.

A good legal system protects the innocent accused just as much as it protects the innocent victims.

AMEN TO THAT

close thread

age differential HAS to be taken into consideration. and no double standards either. if a guy having sex with a younger woman is "preying", than an older woman having sex with a younger guy is "preying" as well. Both are equally ludicrous notions.

 

[MjM]

Not legally you cant.

13 sounds sick to me. Bottom line, I dont think you have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Please address the other points in my post. And, in California, we do not have the same laws as Georgia.

Also, I would I think I know more when it comes to teen sex than you. How much teen sex have you had lately MobBoss?

 

[TheLoneMan]

Me neither since as I said I don't think it's apt although I don't think the comparisson is as silly as I originally thought.

IT doesn't actually it's perfectly valid for example to use the analogy when comparing something simillar, say Stalinism, where an ideology is so ingrained that it's able to corrupted by evil men. Essentially it's saying not that you shouldn't use comparissons of this nature, in fact that you should refrain because bad analogies weaken the use of the valid arguments in the future. Wikipedia has a nice concise little article on it, or you could try reserching the guy who came up with it from the links in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

That is true. Very true.

 

[Masquerouge]

AMEN TO THAT

close thread

age differential HAS to be taken into consideration. and no double standards either. if a guy having sex with a younger woman is "preying", than an older woman having sex with a younger guy is "preying" as well. Both are equally ludicrous notions.

Finally! And to think that Cuivenen posted that on page 2!

 

[Bill3000]

You would only be a pedophile if the victim still sees a pediatrician. Then you move up to adlophile in the age range after that its just sex.

It's not even that.

Pedophilia is a medical condition - a paraphilia - defined as the psychological sexual attraction of an adult to prepubesecent and peripubescent children. (NOT postpubsecent children - developed late teens, basically) One does not have to be a pedophile in order to have sex with children. Plenty of the child sexual offenders are situational offenders, rather than having actual sexual attraction towards children.

 

[Sidhe]

Actually, as I pointed earlier, 40 states have an age-difference requirement for a sexual act to be considered statutory rape:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

So basically CG, MobBoss and RMSharpe are saying the vast majority of the US states have immoral laws.

So their agianst this punishment, that's not the impression I got could you clarify here?

 

[Masquerouge]

So their agianst this punishment, that's not the impression I got could you clarify here?

What this means is that in the vast majority of US states, the age difference is taken into consideration when evaluating if a sexual act is statury rape. Georgia is one of the few exceptions. Had the story in the OP happened to another state, nobody would have been prosecuted.

Since RMSharpe, MobBoss and CivGeneral are saying they think the law in Georgia is perfectly fine as is, and support it as is, it's fair to assume they do not agree with the more common version of the law that requires the age difference to be considered.

 

[Sidhe]

How does reading the law and acting accordingly label you as a fascist judge?

Not that I agree with the law, but it's not the judge's fault. If anything, all he could do was give the minimum sentence, which I don't know if he did or not.

Thayt is not all he could do, he could try and use his legal knowledge to wangle a fairer decision. Judges do this occassionally. If it was contested this was wrong then at the worst their would probably be another trial.

 

[GenMarshall]

but that's the thing. THEY DONT. that's why i say you're sheltered.

Reported once again. I already stated numerous times that I do acknowlage that teenagers do have sex. Now, I would appreciate it if you quit labeling me as sheltered because I am not sheltered.

take a poll, on any forum, and i will put money up that the vast majority of non christians (90%+) will say this case is bogus and stupid, while the vast majority of christians (99% +) will say these laws are justified.

Ever stopped to think that forum polls are not the most reliable and not creditable sources? Sorry, but I rely mainly on trusted media sources, not from some gaming forum.

its just like the gay marriage. anyone whose not a christian doesnt care. they dont see what the big deal and have NO problem with gays getting married. only christians care.

Sorry, but youre wrong on this case. As well as generalizing on people who is not a christian does not care about Gay Marriages. There are some Christians that do care and some that dont. Plus Christianity is not the only religion that has a problem with homosexual marriages. Ever stopped to think that Islam and Judaism are against gay marriages. Plus on top of that there are also non religious people who are oppossed to homosexual marriages for non religious reasons, and that includes (ZMOG!!!!) atheists and agnostics!

In turn, I would call you sheltered. But I wont because it is wrong to label people and judgeing them.

If I may interject again has anyone thought that should this decision be deemed unethical or an abuse of the law, and the law is changed then MB and CG would have no other choice but to condem the new system as being immoral

I still feel that there needs a law inplace to protect minors from sexual predators and other people that would harm minors sexualy.

 

[GenMarshall]

Since RMSharpe, MobBoss and CivGeneral are saying they think the law in Georgia is perfectly fine as is, and support it as is, it's fair to assume they do not agree with the more common version of the law that requires the age difference to be considered.

Incorrect and quite illogical. I do agree with the laws in regards to this issue in my own home state. Dont assume that I dont agree with the common version of the law that is within my own state.

I only agree with the laws that protect miniors from sexual predators and other people who would harm minors sexualy.

 

[warpus]

I still feel that there needs a law inplace to protect minors from sexual predators and other people that would harm minors sexualy.

Yes, and nobody is disputing that.

There need to be laws in place protecting minors from sexual predators. Is the 17 year old kid that we're talking about a sexual predator ???

 

[Sidhe]

What this means is that in the vast majority of US states, the age difference is taken into consideration when evaluating if a sexual act is statury rape. Georgia is one of the few exceptions. Had the story in the OP happened to another state, nobody would have been prosecuted.

Since RMSharpe, MobBoss and CivGeneral are saying they think the law in Georgia is perfectly fine as is, and support it as is, it's fair to assume they do not agree with the more common version of the law that requires the age difference to be considered.

Got ya, K thanks. It all came in a bit of a blur for a while and I may have missed the detail. Besides I'm kinda involved in two threads at once

Ever stopped to think that forum polls are not the most reliable and not creditable sources? Sorry, but I rely mainly on trusted media sources, not from some gaming forum.

So do I, but it's interesting to see where opinion lies and who's buying which argument if nothing else.

I still feel that there needs a law inplace to protect minors from sexual predators and other people that would harm minors sexualy.

Who on Earth would believe otherwise? You'll get no argument there the only thing I would argue about is whether a law can be open to abuse if it is overzealously persued, IMO as has been aptly demsotrated by this case and Masquerogues link, it can and it has.

 

[GenMarshall]

There need to be laws in place protecting minors from sexual predators. Is the 17 year old kid that we're talking about a sexual predator ???

In the eyes of Georgia law, then yes, the 17 year old kid is a sexual predator.

 

[Masquerouge]

Incorrect and quite illogical. I do agree with the laws in regards to this issue in my own home state. Dont assume that I dont agree with the common version of the law that is within my own state.

That's not what you said. You specifically stated you thought Georgia was right to consider age of consent only, disregarding the age difference:

Again, the vast majority of US states require a minimal age difference for statutory rape.
So: are you with Georgia, meaning do you agree that 16 years and one day can get 10 years for sex with 16 years tomorrow?
Or are you with the rest of the states that explicitly require the offender to be at least 2 years older than the "victim"?

I only worry about the laws in my own home state and yes I am with Georgia in having a absolute age set at the age of consent. However less strict on the sentance that any offender under 21 would have to go to juvinile detention for a few months or however the state congressmen hammers it out in working these laws.

If you think that the age difference should be taken into consideration, then obviously you do not agree with the law in Georgia.

So which is it?

 

[fishjie]

Reported once again. I already stated numerous times that I do acknowlage that teenagers do have sex. Now, I would appreciate it if you quit labeling me as sheltered because I am not sheltered.


Ever stopped to think that forum polls are not the most reliable and not creditable sources? Sorry, but I rely mainly on trusted media sources, not from some gaming forum.


Sorry, but youre wrong on this case. As well as generalizing on people who is not a christian does not care about Gay Marriages. There are some Christians that do care and some that dont. Plus Christianity is not the only religion that has a problem with homosexual marriages. Ever stopped to think that Islam and Judaism are against gay marriages. Plus on top of that there are also non religious people who are oppossed to homosexual marriages for non religious reasons, and that includes (ZMOG!!!!) atheists and agnostics!

In turn, I would call you sheltered. But I wont because it is wrong to label people and judgeing them.


I still feel that there needs a law inplace to protect minors from sexual predators and other people that would harm minors sexualy.

i mentioned in an edit to include judaism and islam, who all worship the judeo-christian God.

Not trying to make this off topic, but please show me agnostics or atheists opposed to gay sex marriage. they would be a TINY MINORITY, just like the MAJORITY of agnostics and atheists have premarital sex. america as a nation has these false puritan values and morals, yet even CHRISTIANS have pre marital sex. Do you even KNOW any agnostics or atheists? I can tell you right now that i've known christians AND non christians, and its pretty easy to see that when it comes to issues such as this one, only a christian could think that georgias laws are justified.

the reason i say you are sheltered, and you seem to take offense at this, is that most christians i know (and back when i was younger, i was involved in FOUR churches, so i knew quite a few), hang out with ONLY christians and dont have nonchristian friends, and develop really naive worldviews, which are hammered in by their church leaders.

to think that a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old is a sex offender is something which makes NO SENSE, except only to a christian who believes in keeping themselves pure until marriage. yes the LETTER of the law says he is a sex offender, but it is WRONG to ruin a young man's life by imprisoning him for TEN YEARS because a slutty girl wanted to go down on a bunch of guys is just RIDICULOUS. and then say the GIRL is the victim? NO!