Chris_Sleeps Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 He claimed 14 year olds need protecting from themselves [...]. I was more than capable of making my own decisions [...] My guess is you wasn't which is why you assume all 14 years olds are as incapable as you was. Your view is equally based on assumption. So how would the law protect your daughter from the consequences of catching syphilis from the snotty 14 year old The law is quite useless from stopping the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Condoms work much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Your view is equally based on assumption.What view and what Assumption? The law is quite useless from stopping the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Condoms work much better. So you agree then, the law is useless at protecting children but giving our children knowledge does go some way to protect them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 He claimed 14 year olds need protecting from themselves, I disagree, I used to be 14 and from that prospective think he was talking crap. This view and this assumption. The one I already quoted. ---------- Post added 13-08-2013 at 08:20 ---------- So you agree then, the law is useless at protecting children but giving our children knowledge does go some way to protect them. You twist the statement. In regards of STDs, the law is useless to protect them. As regards the age of consent, I consider the law adaquate. It could be raised or lowered, but the same problems would still exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 This view and this assumption. The one I already quoted. It isn't an assumption, he did claim 14 year olds need protecting from themselves, I did used to be 14 years old and I did disagree with him. You twist the statement. In regards of STDs, the law is useless to protect them. As regards the age of consent, I consider the law adaquate. It could be raised or lowered, but the same problems would still exist. I haven't twisted anything, you are just wriggling because you know full well that the law doesn't protect children, it is just a means to punish people that break the law whilst protecting no one. The law doesn't stop children having sex and it doesn't protect them from the consequences of having sex. Knowledge is a much better tool for the protection of our children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 It isn't an assumption It is. You assume that because you didn't need protecting at 14, the entire law is useless. I haven't twisted anything, you are just wriggling because you know full well that the law doesn't protect children You changed context. I understand your games perfectly. The law doesn't protect them from sexually transmitted disease, no. They are passed irrelevant of the law. Biology wins there. It does however serve a purpose in regards of their ability to consent. Would you have no age of consent laws? Or lower them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 It is. You assume that because you didn't need protecting at 14, the entire law is useless. its not an assumption, its a fact, unless you would care to explain how the law protects children from the consequences of having sex. You changed context. I understand your games perfectly. No I haven't. The law doesn't protect them from sexually transmitted disease, no. They are passed irrelevant of the law. Biology wins there. It does however serve a purpose in regards of their ability to consent. Would you have no age of consent laws? Or lower them? So you agree again that the law doesn't protect children, if you don't agree please explain how the law does protects children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 its a fact, unless you would care to explain how the law protects children from the consequences of having sex The law doesn't stop me from the consequences of being burgled, but theft is a crime. Your questions are a little odd. So you agree again that the law doesn't protect children Why avoid my question? What would you do to consent laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glennis Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 There's a difference between statutary rape and rape. A girl of 15 who chooses to have sex with a popstar hasn't been abused or raped. I don't understand his point really. She has if the pop start knows she is only 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 She has if the pop start knows she is only 15. You think sex under the age of consent is abuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 The law doesn't stop me from the consequences of being burgled, but theft is a crime.So after all your bluster you agree that the law doesn't protect you, which is why I disagreed with the statement that the law protects children when it clearly doesn't. Your questions are a little odd. Why avoid my question? What would you do to consent laws? Are you avoiding the question because you can't answer it without agreeing with me, you appear to be just arguing for the sake of arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.