Nambla

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Seeker
Why the fork is this NAMBLA thread so popular?

Because the majority of people have an irrational hatred for nambla and youth rights, and want to roast the one or two people defending them on a spit.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Only if you don't know how to use them properly. If used properly, they're over 95% effective. Otherwise, how would you explain a normal couple who have been married several years and using one condoms as the sole source of contraception having only one child?

Glorious impotence.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Tom201
If yes ... When a teenager is considered mature enough to make decissions on comiting crime on his own (-> he is responsible, he exactly knew what he is doing), how is that diffrent from making decissions on his privat life.

When a teenager shoplifts then the damage he causes to others is minimal--give him a spanking, or send him to Juvie until he learns right from wrong. Give a teenager a child to take care of before the teenager is mentally and emotionally capable and then you're causing harm to the child. Unacceptable.

[Gibsie]

I wouldn't call impotence glorious if a child was fathered from it loinburger... or if I knew who on Apolyton I was describing pretty accurately

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger
When a teenager shoplifts then the damage he causes to others is minimal--give him a spanking, or send him to Juvie until he learns right from wrong. Give a teenager a child to take care of before the teenager is mentally and emotionally capable and then you're causing harm to the child. Unacceptable.

Who are you to decide who is and isn't fit to be a parent? Do you agree that there are unfit parents of any age? Shall we just sterilze these people and be done with it?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Who are you to decide who is and isn't fit to be a parent?

If somebody has not yet reached a critical level of mental, moral, and emotional maturity then they are unfit to be a parent. I'm not sure if there is a single reputable developmental psychologist who would claim that teenagers as a group have reached this level of maturity. I certainly know that Kohlberg would say that teenagers have failed to reach the critical level of moral maturity...

Do you agree that there are unfit parents of any age? Shall we just sterilze these people and be done with it?

Remember that there are government agencies (DCFS) who have it within their power to take children away from unfit parents. This is a far cry from mass sterilization, so you can put your strawman back away now.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger
Remember that there are government agencies (DCFS) who have it within their power to take children away from unfit parents. This is a far cry from mass sterilization, so you can put your strawman back away now.

Well then lets keep that system, if parents can be proven to be unfit then fine, take their children away. But you can't decide how fit a parent will be before they even have sex, that is foolish.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
But you can't decide how fit a parent will be before they even have sex, that is foolish.

You can if the intended parent lacks mental, emotional, and moral maturity, and teenagers as a group lack mental, emotional, and moral maturity.

[MrFun]

Can I just end this thread now??

First off, no child 17 or younger should be allowed to legally have sex with an adult 20 years old, or older.

Secondly, I would like to have a law that makes two kids having sex illegal as well, but that will never happen. (with this, two 15 years old having sex together would have commited a mismeandor crime in my book)

But the reality is that no law will be able to greatly reduce sex between kids --- just as no law against street drugs will ever greatly reduce the use of street drugs. So given the uselessness of such a proposed law regarding kids fuc**ng other kids, we cannot really legislate such a law.

[Tom201]

loinburger
When a teenager shoplifts then the damage he causes to others is minimal--give him a spanking, or send him to Juvie until he learns right from wrong.

So the amount a teenager is able to think is judged by the amount of damage he causes? What if its some bigger crime, like mugging?

Give a teenager a child to take care of before the teenager is mentally and emotionally capable and then you're causing harm to the child. Unacceptable.

Maybe we could agree that quite a lot of ppl. have sex for pleasure not to reproduce. I assume that applys to most of the teenagers having sex.
Than we maybe could also agree that there are a lot of effective ways to prevent pregnancy.
Or no?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Tom201
So the amount a teenager is able to think is judged by the amount of damage he causes? What if its some bigger crime, like mugging?

The amount of danger a teenager presents to those around him is judged by the amount of damage he causes (or has the potential to cause). A mugging, especially one resulting in death or severe injury, might very well get the teenager tried as an adult. Clearly, a teenager who kills for money is an order of magnitude more stupid and dangerous than a teenager who shopifts for thrills, and society takes this into account. Similarly, an abusive and/or neglectful teenaged parent is an order of magnitude more stupid and dangerous than the shoplifter.

Maybe we could agree that quite a lot of ppl. have sex for pleasure not to reproduce. I assume that applys to most of the teenagers having sex.

Sex is not the equivalent of eating a pizza or watching a movie. People who have sex for the wrong reasons ("I just want to feel loved" is the most common I've heard) usually wind up causing emotional damage to themselves and/or others, emotional damage that isn't associated with eating a pizza or watching a movie.

Than we maybe could also agree that there are a lot of effective ways to prevent pregnancy.

I think that Dr. Strangelove might have quoted the most pessimistic birth control statistics possible , but the fact remains that birth control is by no means foolproof. If you're having sex, you need to be prepared for the consequences, and teenagers almost never are.

[Tom201]

Sex is not the equivalent of eating a pizza or watching a movie. People who have sex for the wrong reasons ("I just want to feel loved" is the most common I've heard) usually wind up causing emotional damage to themselves and/or others, emotional damage that isn't associated with eating a pizza or watching a movie.

Would you agree that it is also possible to inflect the same Emotional Damage when I have a relationship with someone I dont sleep with, but betray him, say something evil, etc.?
I dont really see sex as a possible direct cause of Emotional Damage, more the other stuff in relationships.

I think that Dr. Strangelove might have quoted the most pessimistic birth control statistics possible , but the fact remains that birth control is by no means foolproof. If you're having sex, you need to be prepared for the consequences, and teenagers almost never are.

Well nothing is 100% secure. You should do your best to keep it close to it, and thats it. Just the same like about anything else. You cant prevent some risk to die in a car accident, but you can try your best by not crossing the street on red for example. Noone suggest you should stay of the street in general.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Tom201
Would you agree that it is also possible to inflect the same Emotional Damage when I have a relationship with someone I dont sleep with, but betray him, say something evil, etc.?

Absolutely, but a non-sexual relationship doesn't carry the risk of pregnancy or STD's. Furthermore, the methods of causing emotional trauma that you described are a result of wickedness, not a result of lack of maturity or ignorance.

I dont really see sex as a possible direct cause of Emotional Damage, more the other stuff in relationships.

Hmm, one person is in the relationship for love, the other is in it for sex. This was the most common type of relationship I witnessed in jr. high and high school. Teenagers don't yet have the emotional maturity to recognize the difference between "love" and "sex" and instead often equate the two, and many don't have the moral maturity to recognize the difference between "self-interest" and "reciprocal interest," i.e. between "sex for my pleasure" and "sex for our pleasure."

You cant prevent some risk to die in a car accident, but you can try your best by not crossing the street on red for example. Noone suggest you should stay of the street in general.

We do have a minimum age for driving, though. This doesn't eliminate the risks associated with being a pedestrian or motorist, but it does help to significantly reduce the risks by disallowing a high-risk group from driving. Similarly, there are still risks involved with anybody freely procreating, since it's impossible to be certain of who is and isn't going to be an abusive/neglectful parent--however, making it more difficult for members of a high-risk age group to procreate (by requiring parents' permission for marriage or a court's permission for emancipation, by having age of consent laws, etc.) will significantly reduce the risks of having children in abusive/neglectful living environments.

[Tom201]

Hm, STD's?

Hmm, one person is in the relationship for love, the other is in it for sex. This was the most common type of relationship I witnessed in jr. high and high school. Teenagers don't yet have the emotional maturity to recognize the difference between "love" and "sex" and instead often equate the two, and many don't have the moral maturity to recognize the difference between "self-interest" and "reciprocal interest," i.e. between "sex for my pleasure" and "sex for our pleasure."

The Parents as well as the Schools should teach about it. You dont solve those Problems with making Sex a tabu.

We do have a minimum age for driving, though. This doesn't eliminate the risks associated with being a pedestrian or motorist, but it does help to significantly reduce the risks by disallowing a high-risk group from driving. Similarly, there are still risks involved with anybody freely procreating, since it's impossible to be certain of who is and isn't going to be an abusive/neglectful parent--however, making it more difficult for members of a high-risk age group to procreate (by requiring parents' permission for marriage or a court's permission for emancipation, by having age of consent laws, etc.) will significantly reduce the risks of having children in abusive/neglectful living environments.

With such reasoning you could set the AOC more and more higher. Cose the new high-risk age group is always the one on the younger end with less experience. You dont suggest a AOC of 30 or 40 maybe?

Besides the Laws arent working. Teenagers have sex no matter if it is allowed or not. The diffrence is just if they tell anyone, esspecially their parents, who could than give them advice, teach them about it, etc.
Such Laws are counterproductive. You can clearly see this when comparing teenage pregnancy rates, which are in Europe in the Netherlands with the most liberal Laws the lowest.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by loinburger


Glorious impotence.

They've been my sole method of contraception for 8 years. During that time, I've conceived one child- when not wearing one. What's more, if I were to introduce you to "Bugs Jr" (AKA "Pete the Python"), your impotence theory would be blown out, baby.