Texas Authorities Raid Polygamist Compound(400 kids taken from a polygamist compound)

I've already addressed the difference between legality and morality with stOx.

If the law is your defense, that is fine. You should be prepared to defend all things made illegal, and all things made legal.

If the law is not your defense, we're back to the moral argument.

Take your pick.

Rape

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Can you find me a definition of rape that is consensual please?

 

That is precisely the argument. But you won't get an answer. Just like no one will clearly answer that the ends justify the means.

People are and continue to make arguments that have no principle. Meaning that there is no consistency to the rational for the argument. You can't apply it universally, and it is highly subjective.

I imagine that is why we are being subjected to the charge of being rape defenders. It's Ad Hominem meant to attack us personally, not the validity of our positions.

 

Surprised I'm not banned.

The problem with boys like Gworld and Guerilla is precisely because they have no principles. Guerilla, for instance, whining about "state's rights" in defending segregation in the face of mean old federal government, while here, regardless of TEXAS STATE LAW prohibiting sexual contact between pre-majority girls and men over 18, these two boys will work their ass off - as Rebecca rightly pointed out, will write a long defense of the practice of old men in positions of authority "marrying" and then impregnating children, whom they turn into nothing so much as procreative chattel - in making their indefensible points.

Of course, Guerilla's usual is to say, first, fuck Federal law, then when he falls on his own idiocy respecting even state law, fuck State law, and at the end of every issue on the forum, go with a really useful "if I don't like State law, I will go by my OWN law," fold his arms and go slithering away.

By Guerilla's brilliant mind, a girl who is forced into servitude - hell, let's take the Austrian story, the father who imprisoned his own daughter for 24 years, and fathered several children with her; the girl "went along with it," with no evidence of "forced" rape - such a girl has "Consented." Presto! Yippee, fellers! Multiply that by the hundreds, and you have this issue, in spades.

Guerilla's "principles" work only in the labrynth of his tortured, fractured mind. His lackey is worse off, since he's lacking any brains whatsoever. A good ability to click letters together in reasonable English, but that's it.

 

I don't have to because children can't consent to sex, By the fact of being a child.

consent may be absent due to duress arising from the use, or threat, of overwhelming force or violence, or because the subject's capacity to give consent is negated some way: such as developmental disability, intoxication or being underage.

That definition of rape came from the link you provided by the way. If you are going to assume articles support what you are saying at least have the sense to read it first, There's a good lad.

 

I get statutory rape. It's just not consistent. For example, you could have sex with a 16 year old in the UK, and that would be legal. But it's a crime in California where Rebecca is. And I might be assuming here, but it seems she thinks 18 is an appropriate age.

Btw, in the UK you can have gay sex. In Texas where the FLDS ranch was, all gay sex is illegal, regardless of age of consent.

That's exactly what I am disputing. If the teenagers gave consent, where is the moral crime? At what age, is it immoral? 18 in California? 16 in the UK/Canada? 14 in Belgium?

Are all children immediately capable of consent at the exact same age?

 

All I did was post a link to statutory rape, and now I need to be prepared to defend all things made illegal, and all things made legal. Oh, the pressure of it all. Do I really have to pick either the law or morality? Is that your rule?LOL Anyway, statutory rape law is a combination, I think. Adults should not be trying to get kids to have sex with them, and is still punishable whether the kid agrees or not. Although, they will judge each case individually and penalties will vary. An 18 yr. old having sex with a 17 yr. old, is different than a 40 yr. old getting a 14 yr. old to have sex.

How about this?

 

Sure. It seemed you wanted to play that way. Absolutes.

If you want to argue rationally, then you'll have to find some consistency. Unless you want to argue irrationally, at which point, we're both wasting our time.

Your call.

Right, but what logic is this law constructed on? How is it legal at 14 in Belgium, and 16 in the UK, but 18 in Cali and 17 in Texas? Are kids from all of these regions maturing at different rates?

Re: 18/17, 40/14, I don't see anything in the law that talks about the "spread" between ages. I think you morally find it gross that a 40 year old would have sex with a 14 year old. As do I. But that doesn't make it any more illegal than the 18 year old and the 17 year old.

We're back to a moral argument or a legal one. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they also are not synonymous.

Legal term. I'm going to ask again, are we discussing law or morality?

Btw, which state is right with their age of consent? Texas or California?

 

The reason that you are not banned is because people who know what they are talking about don't need to report your posts and ban since it is so easy to answer your nonsense.
You are so off base, especially with your Austrian girl story that I don't know even if I should start answering you since it might get you angry like last night when I showed how wrong you are with your emotional pleas for support.
You were so tough last night that I had nightmares all night long about you chasing me with your frying pan.

 

Of course not. But there are two issues here. One is the issue of the intricacies of the law. The law has to use definite language, The law can't say "the age of consent is 18, Unless you happen to be exceptionally mature".

These intricacies only come in to play if someone with good intentions had innocently misunderstood the law or when a boy of 18 years 1 day sleeps with his girlfriend who is 17 years 363 days old. While technically against the letter of the law nobody with any sense would consider it a "crime".

The second issue is what is suspected to have been happening at this ranch. We are talking about cases of very old men deliberately marrying, having sex with and impregnating girls who are obviously underage, More than likely specifically because they are under age.

it's not an innocent mistake, it's systematic abuse.
There are grey areas in the law, But this case doesn't fall in a grey area.

 

Just to mention how crazy somethings are and how different Grey areas exist when it comes to law, a 70 year old man can have sex with a 14 year old girl in South Carolina and it is totally legal and he is not doing anything criminal.

 

I used the same approach re: bans. It's much more entertaining watching people lose it, act silly and make a fool of themselves.

What I found odd, is that this poster thinks he has the market cornered on human suffering. I had a childhood worthy of a made for TV movie, and I don't go around using it as emotional blackmail in discussions to try to win sympathy and be handed the high ground on pity.

This might be your best post to this thread yet.

Right, because life is full of exceptions, and the law, no matter how many exceptions it incorporates, trends towards absolute definitions. We both know that life isn't full of absolutes.

I've had a similar argument with Earl re: impeachment. His theory is that impeachment is the law, but we should only enforce it when we want to, not if the President has broken a law. In other words, the law should be applied selectively.

So instead of enforcing a rigid date age, you have to enforce a rigid leeway period. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year. The exceptions are endless.

Right, but this again is law vs. morality. If you're not going to enforce the law by the letter of the law, then what authority does it have? It's all arbitrary.

Which means it's a moral argument. And I don't think morally, we have a right to interfere in the voluntary associations of others. That's a scary, scary paradigm to participate in. Interfering in the voluntary association of others is the basis for hate crime, genocide, forced segregation, forced integration, etc.

I'll agree that there may have been a perverted intent to it. There may be a perverted intent to a man who hired a hooker to have sex with his wife while he watches. You have to have a victim to have a crime. If these 14 or 15 year old girls are married to these men, if they love them and have had children with them, this isn't as quick and easy as a case of forced rape against an unwilling minor.

 

You make me feel guilty, I had a wonderful childhood, youth, middle age and I am hoping for a wonderful old age. Is there anyway, I can get some points for having it good?

You are right, using emotional pleas in a discussion is a sure sign of not having any solid arguement.

 

Not gray IMO. 14 is 14, and BTW, some of the VICTIMS in this case were 13.

No. It's illegal now, and that's what we have to go by, now what might happen in 100 years.

Well how about a 50 year old man & a 13 year old girl? Does any variation get to you?
And that's what ALL laws are about. People decide what other people can and cannot do. Are you for no laws?

What about the principle that we defend and protect the vulnerable members of our society?

I doubt you missed it. The evidence is 31 pregnant (or mothers already) girls between the ages of 14-17. Are you using a different definition of rape? It's systematic because it happens to more than one girl, from more than one family, by more than one perpetrator. It's a pattern of behavior throught the FLDS community.

This happened in Texas, and in Texas it's illegal. The moral crime is brainwashing of children to accept the practice, and then to force sex on them under the cloak of "spiritual marriage" GAK! How can you say teenagers gave consent? How do you define consent? Quiet acquiescence? Submitting sweetly? Crying but not fighting back? Submitting out of fear? Come on, what 14 year old wants sex with a 50 year old man!

In the real world, a couple of those girls would have sex with THEIR BOYFRIENDS, not with old men.

The problem with this group was Warren Jeffs. He lowered the age within their sect for marriage. If they would have stuck with the legal age for sex, this would not have happened.

 

Ridiculous argument.

You're missing it. I think this is wrong. But I don't necessarily agree that it is criminal. Understand the difference.

And that is what I argue against. By what moral authority?

Who is the more moral and authoritative law maker? The Californians or the Texans? In Texas, gay sex and heterosexual relations under 17 are illegal. In California, gay sex is ok and the age of consent is 18. Which is right? Which is wrong?

How can both be right? And if a law is wrong, then how can it be "just"?

Or are you saying unjust law is acceptable?

That's a personal principle. Not a societal one. You're confusing positive rights with negative rights.

When you're born, you don't have a right to protection. Society doesn't follow you around, keeping you from crossing the street without looking, or eating your food too fast. Now by all means, it's in our best interest to look out for one another, but that doesn't mean society can be a control system for it's citizens. That's the antithesis of freedom.

I did miss it. I've been busy dealing with accusations of supporting rape.

Yes, apparently we are using different definitions. You can't claim I was raped if I won't claim it myself. My consent removes the charge of rape.

Have any of these girls accused anyone of rape? Has anyone from this ranch pleaded rape? You're taking your supposed authority to rule mankind a little too far when you start mind reading.

You're embellishing for effect. Do you actually know if these girls are all married? If they went through a marriage ceremony, or if marriage was arranged?

Brainwash what practice? Something you consider unacceptable? Throughout history, women have had children this young. This isn't exactly new or radical. Personally, I don't agree with it, but I don't agree with everything in other religions either.

So your argument is not that young kids were having sex, it's who they were having sex with. So now you're discriminating against old people. At what age is it ok?

This is what I mean, your positions aren't consistent. They are either too young for sex with ANYONE or not. Does it matter if the man is 40, 30 or 20?

Yeah, it seems he was a real sick puppy.

I'm curious to know if you feel that religions should have the right to determine their own ages of consent and marriage, considering that marriage has it's roots in western culture as a religious ceremony.

 

Talking from dad's office again, I see. I don't doubt a frying pan brings you to pee your diapers. God forbid you deal with reality, some very, very sad day.





I've been impolite. I promise, were I to ever need to introduce your pinhead to the street, I'd make a proper introduction of your face to the pavement first.

Don't stress, bud - no boogie man but your own mind to haunt your dreams. I've dishonored myself long enough by allowing a meaningless punk like yourself to play with yourself on an issue that matters to all of us.

 

That's correct. Any law that the boy don't dig, he believes he shouldn't have to be subject to. He read it in a book somewhere, that this was "Liberty," and that he is a "Patriot" for writing about it from the comfort of his hermitage. He especially loathes democracy, from what he has said.

To hell with that, what are you, a socialist MSM statist plant? The two boys of this thread read a book that said this doesn't matter when the liberty of a 50-something pedophile is at stake, and, uh, 'nuff said. Damn.

I don't doubt that's true. Some people come from this to develop compassion, and unfortunately others turn into tragically acerbic little pricks, glom on to a perverted philosophy of contemptible self-centeredness, and work really, really hard to make inane arguments for abusers' rights as a matter of baseless course.

 

Too tired to address it all, just a few points.

Remember, Jeffs is in jail right now for accomplice to rape.
NO, religions shouldn't be able to make separate laws.
No, unjust law is not acceptable.
So you ARE saying we should have no laws then?

 

Like gureilla said, you have a monopoly on human suffering, it must be nice to always relay on that.

How long did take you to find those pictures, from victim of sexual abuse to master chef to karate kid.

I was an officer in Canadian military and I am still certified instructor for fire arm course and I can promise you if an a*shole, karate kid or not, try anything, it will be one less a*shole in the world.

 

Yeah, well, unlike a child playing brave in daddy's office, I have lived many lives, enriched by them all.

Yep, firearms. I teach weapons retention and weapons disarmament to police and military personnel. The first thing I teach would-be Wyatt Earps is that in the hands of a wimpering simp, as you so clearly seem to be, a weapon is a certified liability, not a protective tool. God help Canada.

 

I just came back from a night of fun, how about instead of all these BS, you fix me a breakfast?

P.S I like scrambled eggs, bacon and some toast.