Upload
Login or register

makethingsworse

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:9/26/2012
Last Login:7/27/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3583
Highest Content Rank:#8430
Highest Comment Rank:#391
Content Thumbs: 166 total,  233 ,  67
Comment Thumbs: 8155 total,  10098 ,  1943
Content Level Progress: 60% (6/10)
Level 16 Content: New Here → Level 17 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 6% (6/100)
Level 276 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 277 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Subscribers:1
Content Views:19337
Times Content Favorited:11 times
Total Comments Made:3157
FJ Points:7967
Favorite Tags: OC (2)

latest user's comments

#191 - *this persona you keep perpetuating My phone hates me. 05/29/2016 on long distance +1
#188 - Have you ever considered that perhaps because you think you wi…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/29/2016 on long distance +3
User avatar
#191 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
*this persona you keep perpetuating

My phone hates me.
#374 - How is this a discussion? The law is that underage children ar…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/29/2016 on Untitled +3
#390 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
The problem is that the idea a child from 10 to 14 years old has no ability to consent is false. If they understand the situation and accept regardless, the whole concept of ''Lawful consent'' goes out of the window. Who has the right to determine anyone who understands the concept of sex and accepts the proposition of the act without being forced to do so is crime?

The lawful consent is the prime example of something being banned for no other reason than immorality.

''Yes they could ENJOY the sex but that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be doing that.''

Again, who has the right to judge whether it should be illegal to perform something immoral that regardless hurts nobody or causes any negative short or long term effects to the parties that both consented to the act knowing the full extent of what are they agreeing to and the consequences of it?

''Go ahead. Say, out loud, "What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women?"''

What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women when both of them consented and can be ended immediately upon either of them voicing their discomfort with the situation?

''Also your vapid excuse for a discussion is perculated with your own projection of wanting to have sex with your mom and trying to justify it.''

I am 21 years old, my mother is nearing 50 years old. Apart from it being incest I do not really see how it is any relevant, considering I have no interest in her sexuality-wise. This part of your is also a personal attack.
#425 - anon (05/29/2016) [-]
#428 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Huh?
User avatar
#398 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
Of course it's person attack. I find your argument annoying. You ask me who has the right to say this or that? The only correct answer is no one. There. No one is born with the right to say someone can or cannot do something. Who am I to say that honor killings are Barbaric? The person being killed knew they were going to have to die and the person killing them knew that person had to die. That seems like conset, right? Both parties understood the situation and could have stopped at any point but chose not to... therefore not really murder. Your argument is annoying. You frivolously dismiss society and civilization. We create laws, moral or immoral, based on the culture and the people. In America, if you are under the age of 18 you are not old enough to consent. That's not just for sex that's for alcohol, drugs, and emancipation. Your argument is annoying and I find you annoying. I am 21 years old and I walk up to a 13 year old girl and I tell her that Heroin is great. I ask her if she wants to do Heroin with me. She says yes. I tell her she doesn't have to do Heroin with me. She says she knows, and still gives me consent to shoot her up with Heroin. I give her Heroin. She becomes addicted. After a few years she OD's. Have I committed a crime? Have I done something immoral? Yes. Why? Because I'm not supposed to put CHILDREN in situations they don't fully understand. It is immoral, it is a crime, it is illegal. She gave me consent- doesn't matter.
#414 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Honor killings are wrong because you directly infringe on someone else's right to live.
Holding drugs is wrong because you have the possibility of distributing addictive substances directly harmful to the physical health of someone else, ignoring the fact you did not state all the information on what heroin is, what effects does it have and what consequences can come of using it.

Sex poses neither of those two dangers. It is in our scenario harmless activity performed by two parties both able to understand the concept behind it, despite the age difference, since you wrote: ''I'm sure they understood the concept, but they could not consent by law.''

Which means we are talking about the scenario where they have been given all information about the scenario beforehand.
User avatar
#522 - makethingsworse (05/30/2016) [-]
This conversation doesn't even fall under "Devils Advocate" anymore. You aren't even attempting to read between the lines. Sex poses no harm to anyone? So a 14 year old boy impregnates a 35 year old woman. No harm no foul? Do you honestly believe that a 14 YEAR OLD BOY would know the first thing about being a father, you daft bastard. Have I mentioned how annoying I find you? Your argument is made of straw simply because you refuse to accept that sex itself is a risk. You aren't even making a valid argument because you're arguing something so unspecific. Where do yu draw the line? Say we are talking about an 8 year old fucking a 12 year old, is that wrong? Is that immoral? Say we are talking about a 6 year old girl fucking a 45 year old man? They can stop whenever they want to, is that wrong? Is that immoral? Who am I to say my neighbor can't fuck his six year old son? Hell the boy can't get pregnant and for all I know he enjoys. Shit why should I stop something like that. Sounds completely harmless, right?

You're a fucking moron, brother. The most important thing is knowing when to stop. I'm done.

#554 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/30/2016) [-]
Impregnation is a side effect of sex, that is easily avoidable. At least dont resort to using strawmen. Your whole argument once again goes out of the window if proper countermeasures are taken, so I ask you again, what exactly are the risks in this?

''You aren't even making a valid argument because you're arguing something so unspecific. Where do yu draw the line? Say we are talking about an 8 year old fucking a 12 year old, is that wrong? Is that immoral?''

This has been discussed above, please learn how to scroll with your middle mouse button. We have been assuming here the whole time the boys have reached puberty and have thorough understanding of sex. Pre-pubescent children were out of the question the whole time, based on these two following quotes:

''The law is that underage children are not to be having sex with adults. Those boys were 14 (maybe) and their mom likely in their late 30's early 40's'' your quote.''

''Now what about the kids? Okay, sure, if they shot the porn of their daughter who was allegedly 4 years old, that is a crime. Child of that age (especially female) has no way to find any enjoyment in sex or consent to it''

Reading comprehension is your friend.

''Have I mentioned how annoying I find you?''
You are finding me annoying because you simply cannot find any valid reason for such law as statutory rape to exist, outside the immorality of it.
#352 - Are you comparing ******* underage boys to dressing dogs up in…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/29/2016 on Untitled +2
#356 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Calm down, I am trying to discuss the difference between immorality and crime here.

I really dont get why are people suffering such outburst from a discussion on a touchy subject.

Underage or not, if there is a consent, both parties are informed of what is involved and despite all the information the consent persists?
User avatar
#374 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
How is this a discussion? The law is that underage children are not to be having sex with adults. Those boys were 14 (maybe) and their mom likely in their late 30's early 40's. By my understanding of the law one of the two parties do not have the ability to consent. I'm sure they understood the concept, but they could not consent by law.

The immorality of this issue is that a woman was putting children in a situation they could not lawfully consent to. They probably had just started puberty. Yes they could ENJOY the sex but that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be doing that.

Again, you compared having sex with children to dressing my corgi up like a lobster. If you want have a valid and gratifying discussion on the morality of law you need to understand 2 things: 1. Comparing and contrasting can make or break an argument. 2. If when you say it out loud and it sounds wrong it probably is wrong on a moral level.

Go ahead. Say, out loud, "What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women?"

Also your vapid excuse for a discussion is perculated with your own projection of wanting to have sex with your mom and trying to justify it.
#390 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
The problem is that the idea a child from 10 to 14 years old has no ability to consent is false. If they understand the situation and accept regardless, the whole concept of ''Lawful consent'' goes out of the window. Who has the right to determine anyone who understands the concept of sex and accepts the proposition of the act without being forced to do so is crime?

The lawful consent is the prime example of something being banned for no other reason than immorality.

''Yes they could ENJOY the sex but that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be doing that.''

Again, who has the right to judge whether it should be illegal to perform something immoral that regardless hurts nobody or causes any negative short or long term effects to the parties that both consented to the act knowing the full extent of what are they agreeing to and the consequences of it?

''Go ahead. Say, out loud, "What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women?"''

What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women when both of them consented and can be ended immediately upon either of them voicing their discomfort with the situation?

''Also your vapid excuse for a discussion is perculated with your own projection of wanting to have sex with your mom and trying to justify it.''

I am 21 years old, my mother is nearing 50 years old. Apart from it being incest I do not really see how it is any relevant, considering I have no interest in her sexuality-wise. This part of your is also a personal attack.
#425 - anon (05/29/2016) [-]
#428 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Huh?
User avatar
#398 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
Of course it's person attack. I find your argument annoying. You ask me who has the right to say this or that? The only correct answer is no one. There. No one is born with the right to say someone can or cannot do something. Who am I to say that honor killings are Barbaric? The person being killed knew they were going to have to die and the person killing them knew that person had to die. That seems like conset, right? Both parties understood the situation and could have stopped at any point but chose not to... therefore not really murder. Your argument is annoying. You frivolously dismiss society and civilization. We create laws, moral or immoral, based on the culture and the people. In America, if you are under the age of 18 you are not old enough to consent. That's not just for sex that's for alcohol, drugs, and emancipation. Your argument is annoying and I find you annoying. I am 21 years old and I walk up to a 13 year old girl and I tell her that Heroin is great. I ask her if she wants to do Heroin with me. She says yes. I tell her she doesn't have to do Heroin with me. She says she knows, and still gives me consent to shoot her up with Heroin. I give her Heroin. She becomes addicted. After a few years she OD's. Have I committed a crime? Have I done something immoral? Yes. Why? Because I'm not supposed to put CHILDREN in situations they don't fully understand. It is immoral, it is a crime, it is illegal. She gave me consent- doesn't matter.
#414 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Honor killings are wrong because you directly infringe on someone else's right to live.
Holding drugs is wrong because you have the possibility of distributing addictive substances directly harmful to the physical health of someone else, ignoring the fact you did not state all the information on what heroin is, what effects does it have and what consequences can come of using it.

Sex poses neither of those two dangers. It is in our scenario harmless activity performed by two parties both able to understand the concept behind it, despite the age difference, since you wrote: ''I'm sure they understood the concept, but they could not consent by law.''

Which means we are talking about the scenario where they have been given all information about the scenario beforehand.
User avatar
#522 - makethingsworse (05/30/2016) [-]
This conversation doesn't even fall under "Devils Advocate" anymore. You aren't even attempting to read between the lines. Sex poses no harm to anyone? So a 14 year old boy impregnates a 35 year old woman. No harm no foul? Do you honestly believe that a 14 YEAR OLD BOY would know the first thing about being a father, you daft bastard. Have I mentioned how annoying I find you? Your argument is made of straw simply because you refuse to accept that sex itself is a risk. You aren't even making a valid argument because you're arguing something so unspecific. Where do yu draw the line? Say we are talking about an 8 year old fucking a 12 year old, is that wrong? Is that immoral? Say we are talking about a 6 year old girl fucking a 45 year old man? They can stop whenever they want to, is that wrong? Is that immoral? Who am I to say my neighbor can't fuck his six year old son? Hell the boy can't get pregnant and for all I know he enjoys. Shit why should I stop something like that. Sounds completely harmless, right?

You're a fucking moron, brother. The most important thing is knowing when to stop. I'm done.

#554 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/30/2016) [-]
Impregnation is a side effect of sex, that is easily avoidable. At least dont resort to using strawmen. Your whole argument once again goes out of the window if proper countermeasures are taken, so I ask you again, what exactly are the risks in this?

''You aren't even making a valid argument because you're arguing something so unspecific. Where do yu draw the line? Say we are talking about an 8 year old fucking a 12 year old, is that wrong? Is that immoral?''

This has been discussed above, please learn how to scroll with your middle mouse button. We have been assuming here the whole time the boys have reached puberty and have thorough understanding of sex. Pre-pubescent children were out of the question the whole time, based on these two following quotes:

''The law is that underage children are not to be having sex with adults. Those boys were 14 (maybe) and their mom likely in their late 30's early 40's'' your quote.''

''Now what about the kids? Okay, sure, if they shot the porn of their daughter who was allegedly 4 years old, that is a crime. Child of that age (especially female) has no way to find any enjoyment in sex or consent to it''

Reading comprehension is your friend.

''Have I mentioned how annoying I find you?''
You are finding me annoying because you simply cannot find any valid reason for such law as statutory rape to exist, outside the immorality of it.
#346 - Okay... so you aren't seeing the crime in a mother having sex …  [+] (18 new replies) 05/29/2016 on Untitled +1
#350 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
In the extremely unlikely scenario where they have consented to this (including the recording), I see it as extremely deranged and immoral, but honestly though, who has the right to call it a crime?

What if I suddenly got an idea that everyone who dresses their dogs in fancy clothes is a criminal because they have no way to consent and somehow managed to convince the public you are a criminal, and you got promptly arrested for pet molestation?
User avatar
#367 - aulubear (05/29/2016) [-]
The punisher has the right to call it a crime.

It's called a comic book. Look it up. Something some people enjoy reading becuase of the story. You know, a fictional one.
#373 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
You cannot call something a crime just because you feel it is wrong, or immoral. If that was the case I would call every asshole a criminal in a heartbeat.

Remember now that we are talking strictly of consensual sexual relationship here between the boys and unnamed third party of undefined gender, with both parties having all information of what is involved, and that both parties stop whenever either party displays discontent with the situation.

I wonder how is it anyone's business to judge whether something is a crime based on just the morality of it.

Simply, the discussion is about whether statutory rape is actually legally justified or not apart from the simple question of morality.

User avatar
#406 - aulubear (05/29/2016) [-]
You sure are having a hard time accepting fiction. Do you also have a hard time taking it in the ass?
#410 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
You sure have a hard time accepting a discussion about potential flaws in the legal system. Do you also have a hard time answering questions in honest discussion with anything else but personal attacks?
User avatar
#470 - aulubear (05/29/2016) [-]
I dunno man, there's problems with a lot of legal systems. Is complaining about a comic book going to fix those?
#473 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
No, but then again, is discussing those issues going to cause any harm?
User avatar
#520 - aulubear (05/30/2016) [-]
No, but it sure does make you look like a butthurt asshole.
User avatar
#352 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
Are you comparing fucking underage boys to dressing dogs up in Iron Man costumes? You must be high.

2/10 Troll.
#356 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Calm down, I am trying to discuss the difference between immorality and crime here.

I really dont get why are people suffering such outburst from a discussion on a touchy subject.

Underage or not, if there is a consent, both parties are informed of what is involved and despite all the information the consent persists?
User avatar
#374 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
How is this a discussion? The law is that underage children are not to be having sex with adults. Those boys were 14 (maybe) and their mom likely in their late 30's early 40's. By my understanding of the law one of the two parties do not have the ability to consent. I'm sure they understood the concept, but they could not consent by law.

The immorality of this issue is that a woman was putting children in a situation they could not lawfully consent to. They probably had just started puberty. Yes they could ENJOY the sex but that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be doing that.

Again, you compared having sex with children to dressing my corgi up like a lobster. If you want have a valid and gratifying discussion on the morality of law you need to understand 2 things: 1. Comparing and contrasting can make or break an argument. 2. If when you say it out loud and it sounds wrong it probably is wrong on a moral level.

Go ahead. Say, out loud, "What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women?"

Also your vapid excuse for a discussion is perculated with your own projection of wanting to have sex with your mom and trying to justify it.
#390 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
The problem is that the idea a child from 10 to 14 years old has no ability to consent is false. If they understand the situation and accept regardless, the whole concept of ''Lawful consent'' goes out of the window. Who has the right to determine anyone who understands the concept of sex and accepts the proposition of the act without being forced to do so is crime?

The lawful consent is the prime example of something being banned for no other reason than immorality.

''Yes they could ENJOY the sex but that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be doing that.''

Again, who has the right to judge whether it should be illegal to perform something immoral that regardless hurts nobody or causes any negative short or long term effects to the parties that both consented to the act knowing the full extent of what are they agreeing to and the consequences of it?

''Go ahead. Say, out loud, "What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women?"''

What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women when both of them consented and can be ended immediately upon either of them voicing their discomfort with the situation?

''Also your vapid excuse for a discussion is perculated with your own projection of wanting to have sex with your mom and trying to justify it.''

I am 21 years old, my mother is nearing 50 years old. Apart from it being incest I do not really see how it is any relevant, considering I have no interest in her sexuality-wise. This part of your is also a personal attack.
#425 - anon (05/29/2016) [-]
#428 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Huh?
User avatar
#398 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
Of course it's person attack. I find your argument annoying. You ask me who has the right to say this or that? The only correct answer is no one. There. No one is born with the right to say someone can or cannot do something. Who am I to say that honor killings are Barbaric? The person being killed knew they were going to have to die and the person killing them knew that person had to die. That seems like conset, right? Both parties understood the situation and could have stopped at any point but chose not to... therefore not really murder. Your argument is annoying. You frivolously dismiss society and civilization. We create laws, moral or immoral, based on the culture and the people. In America, if you are under the age of 18 you are not old enough to consent. That's not just for sex that's for alcohol, drugs, and emancipation. Your argument is annoying and I find you annoying. I am 21 years old and I walk up to a 13 year old girl and I tell her that Heroin is great. I ask her if she wants to do Heroin with me. She says yes. I tell her she doesn't have to do Heroin with me. She says she knows, and still gives me consent to shoot her up with Heroin. I give her Heroin. She becomes addicted. After a few years she OD's. Have I committed a crime? Have I done something immoral? Yes. Why? Because I'm not supposed to put CHILDREN in situations they don't fully understand. It is immoral, it is a crime, it is illegal. She gave me consent- doesn't matter.
#414 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Honor killings are wrong because you directly infringe on someone else's right to live.
Holding drugs is wrong because you have the possibility of distributing addictive substances directly harmful to the physical health of someone else, ignoring the fact you did not state all the information on what heroin is, what effects does it have and what consequences can come of using it.

Sex poses neither of those two dangers. It is in our scenario harmless activity performed by two parties both able to understand the concept behind it, despite the age difference, since you wrote: ''I'm sure they understood the concept, but they could not consent by law.''

Which means we are talking about the scenario where they have been given all information about the scenario beforehand.
User avatar
#522 - makethingsworse (05/30/2016) [-]
This conversation doesn't even fall under "Devils Advocate" anymore. You aren't even attempting to read between the lines. Sex poses no harm to anyone? So a 14 year old boy impregnates a 35 year old woman. No harm no foul? Do you honestly believe that a 14 YEAR OLD BOY would know the first thing about being a father, you daft bastard. Have I mentioned how annoying I find you? Your argument is made of straw simply because you refuse to accept that sex itself is a risk. You aren't even making a valid argument because you're arguing something so unspecific. Where do yu draw the line? Say we are talking about an 8 year old fucking a 12 year old, is that wrong? Is that immoral? Say we are talking about a 6 year old girl fucking a 45 year old man? They can stop whenever they want to, is that wrong? Is that immoral? Who am I to say my neighbor can't fuck his six year old son? Hell the boy can't get pregnant and for all I know he enjoys. Shit why should I stop something like that. Sounds completely harmless, right?

You're a fucking moron, brother. The most important thing is knowing when to stop. I'm done.

#554 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/30/2016) [-]
Impregnation is a side effect of sex, that is easily avoidable. At least dont resort to using strawmen. Your whole argument once again goes out of the window if proper countermeasures are taken, so I ask you again, what exactly are the risks in this?

''You aren't even making a valid argument because you're arguing something so unspecific. Where do yu draw the line? Say we are talking about an 8 year old fucking a 12 year old, is that wrong? Is that immoral?''

This has been discussed above, please learn how to scroll with your middle mouse button. We have been assuming here the whole time the boys have reached puberty and have thorough understanding of sex. Pre-pubescent children were out of the question the whole time, based on these two following quotes:

''The law is that underage children are not to be having sex with adults. Those boys were 14 (maybe) and their mom likely in their late 30's early 40's'' your quote.''

''Now what about the kids? Okay, sure, if they shot the porn of their daughter who was allegedly 4 years old, that is a crime. Child of that age (especially female) has no way to find any enjoyment in sex or consent to it''

Reading comprehension is your friend.

''Have I mentioned how annoying I find you?''
You are finding me annoying because you simply cannot find any valid reason for such law as statutory rape to exist, outside the immorality of it.
#341 - Wait, wait, wait... are you not actually seeing the crime in p…  [+] (20 new replies) 05/29/2016 on Untitled +4
#344 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Where was it stated that it was according to this scenario? And I didn't say I see it as okay. If it was according to what you have said then no doubt this is a crime.

What if it was the mother having sex with her sons? He said: ''I know you are shooting pornographic films with your children'', not ''I know your children are forced the have sex witch each other while you record it.''

Granted I understand this is FUBAR I know, we are talking strictly about whether the girl was involved and whether it was mother or someone else (man or woman) having sex with the boys and whether it was consensual or not.

I am speculating here.
User avatar
#346 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
Okay... so you aren't seeing the crime in a mother having sex with her sons?
#350 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
In the extremely unlikely scenario where they have consented to this (including the recording), I see it as extremely deranged and immoral, but honestly though, who has the right to call it a crime?

What if I suddenly got an idea that everyone who dresses their dogs in fancy clothes is a criminal because they have no way to consent and somehow managed to convince the public you are a criminal, and you got promptly arrested for pet molestation?
User avatar
#367 - aulubear (05/29/2016) [-]
The punisher has the right to call it a crime.

It's called a comic book. Look it up. Something some people enjoy reading becuase of the story. You know, a fictional one.
#373 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
You cannot call something a crime just because you feel it is wrong, or immoral. If that was the case I would call every asshole a criminal in a heartbeat.

Remember now that we are talking strictly of consensual sexual relationship here between the boys and unnamed third party of undefined gender, with both parties having all information of what is involved, and that both parties stop whenever either party displays discontent with the situation.

I wonder how is it anyone's business to judge whether something is a crime based on just the morality of it.

Simply, the discussion is about whether statutory rape is actually legally justified or not apart from the simple question of morality.

User avatar
#406 - aulubear (05/29/2016) [-]
You sure are having a hard time accepting fiction. Do you also have a hard time taking it in the ass?
#410 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
You sure have a hard time accepting a discussion about potential flaws in the legal system. Do you also have a hard time answering questions in honest discussion with anything else but personal attacks?
User avatar
#470 - aulubear (05/29/2016) [-]
I dunno man, there's problems with a lot of legal systems. Is complaining about a comic book going to fix those?
#473 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
No, but then again, is discussing those issues going to cause any harm?
User avatar
#520 - aulubear (05/30/2016) [-]
No, but it sure does make you look like a butthurt asshole.
User avatar
#352 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
Are you comparing fucking underage boys to dressing dogs up in Iron Man costumes? You must be high.

2/10 Troll.
#356 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Calm down, I am trying to discuss the difference between immorality and crime here.

I really dont get why are people suffering such outburst from a discussion on a touchy subject.

Underage or not, if there is a consent, both parties are informed of what is involved and despite all the information the consent persists?
User avatar
#374 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
How is this a discussion? The law is that underage children are not to be having sex with adults. Those boys were 14 (maybe) and their mom likely in their late 30's early 40's. By my understanding of the law one of the two parties do not have the ability to consent. I'm sure they understood the concept, but they could not consent by law.

The immorality of this issue is that a woman was putting children in a situation they could not lawfully consent to. They probably had just started puberty. Yes they could ENJOY the sex but that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be doing that.

Again, you compared having sex with children to dressing my corgi up like a lobster. If you want have a valid and gratifying discussion on the morality of law you need to understand 2 things: 1. Comparing and contrasting can make or break an argument. 2. If when you say it out loud and it sounds wrong it probably is wrong on a moral level.

Go ahead. Say, out loud, "What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women?"

Also your vapid excuse for a discussion is perculated with your own projection of wanting to have sex with your mom and trying to justify it.
#390 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
The problem is that the idea a child from 10 to 14 years old has no ability to consent is false. If they understand the situation and accept regardless, the whole concept of ''Lawful consent'' goes out of the window. Who has the right to determine anyone who understands the concept of sex and accepts the proposition of the act without being forced to do so is crime?

The lawful consent is the prime example of something being banned for no other reason than immorality.

''Yes they could ENJOY the sex but that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be doing that.''

Again, who has the right to judge whether it should be illegal to perform something immoral that regardless hurts nobody or causes any negative short or long term effects to the parties that both consented to the act knowing the full extent of what are they agreeing to and the consequences of it?

''Go ahead. Say, out loud, "What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women?"''

What is wrong with young prepubescent boys having sex with adult women when both of them consented and can be ended immediately upon either of them voicing their discomfort with the situation?

''Also your vapid excuse for a discussion is perculated with your own projection of wanting to have sex with your mom and trying to justify it.''

I am 21 years old, my mother is nearing 50 years old. Apart from it being incest I do not really see how it is any relevant, considering I have no interest in her sexuality-wise. This part of your is also a personal attack.
#425 - anon (05/29/2016) [-]
#428 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Huh?
User avatar
#398 - makethingsworse (05/29/2016) [-]
Of course it's person attack. I find your argument annoying. You ask me who has the right to say this or that? The only correct answer is no one. There. No one is born with the right to say someone can or cannot do something. Who am I to say that honor killings are Barbaric? The person being killed knew they were going to have to die and the person killing them knew that person had to die. That seems like conset, right? Both parties understood the situation and could have stopped at any point but chose not to... therefore not really murder. Your argument is annoying. You frivolously dismiss society and civilization. We create laws, moral or immoral, based on the culture and the people. In America, if you are under the age of 18 you are not old enough to consent. That's not just for sex that's for alcohol, drugs, and emancipation. Your argument is annoying and I find you annoying. I am 21 years old and I walk up to a 13 year old girl and I tell her that Heroin is great. I ask her if she wants to do Heroin with me. She says yes. I tell her she doesn't have to do Heroin with me. She says she knows, and still gives me consent to shoot her up with Heroin. I give her Heroin. She becomes addicted. After a few years she OD's. Have I committed a crime? Have I done something immoral? Yes. Why? Because I'm not supposed to put CHILDREN in situations they don't fully understand. It is immoral, it is a crime, it is illegal. She gave me consent- doesn't matter.
#414 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/29/2016) [-]
Honor killings are wrong because you directly infringe on someone else's right to live.
Holding drugs is wrong because you have the possibility of distributing addictive substances directly harmful to the physical health of someone else, ignoring the fact you did not state all the information on what heroin is, what effects does it have and what consequences can come of using it.

Sex poses neither of those two dangers. It is in our scenario harmless activity performed by two parties both able to understand the concept behind it, despite the age difference, since you wrote: ''I'm sure they understood the concept, but they could not consent by law.''

Which means we are talking about the scenario where they have been given all information about the scenario beforehand.
User avatar
#522 - makethingsworse (05/30/2016) [-]
This conversation doesn't even fall under "Devils Advocate" anymore. You aren't even attempting to read between the lines. Sex poses no harm to anyone? So a 14 year old boy impregnates a 35 year old woman. No harm no foul? Do you honestly believe that a 14 YEAR OLD BOY would know the first thing about being a father, you daft bastard. Have I mentioned how annoying I find you? Your argument is made of straw simply because you refuse to accept that sex itself is a risk. You aren't even making a valid argument because you're arguing something so unspecific. Where do yu draw the line? Say we are talking about an 8 year old fucking a 12 year old, is that wrong? Is that immoral? Say we are talking about a 6 year old girl fucking a 45 year old man? They can stop whenever they want to, is that wrong? Is that immoral? Who am I to say my neighbor can't fuck his six year old son? Hell the boy can't get pregnant and for all I know he enjoys. Shit why should I stop something like that. Sounds completely harmless, right?

You're a fucking moron, brother. The most important thing is knowing when to stop. I'm done.

#554 - nightmarexnxnxnxnx (05/30/2016) [-]
Impregnation is a side effect of sex, that is easily avoidable. At least dont resort to using strawmen. Your whole argument once again goes out of the window if proper countermeasures are taken, so I ask you again, what exactly are the risks in this?

''You aren't even making a valid argument because you're arguing something so unspecific. Where do yu draw the line? Say we are talking about an 8 year old fucking a 12 year old, is that wrong? Is that immoral?''

This has been discussed above, please learn how to scroll with your middle mouse button. We have been assuming here the whole time the boys have reached puberty and have thorough understanding of sex. Pre-pubescent children were out of the question the whole time, based on these two following quotes:

''The law is that underage children are not to be having sex with adults. Those boys were 14 (maybe) and their mom likely in their late 30's early 40's'' your quote.''

''Now what about the kids? Okay, sure, if they shot the porn of their daughter who was allegedly 4 years old, that is a crime. Child of that age (especially female) has no way to find any enjoyment in sex or consent to it''

Reading comprehension is your friend.

''Have I mentioned how annoying I find you?''
You are finding me annoying because you simply cannot find any valid reason for such law as statutory rape to exist, outside the immorality of it.
#11 - They are trying her on multiple charges. She was acquitted of … 05/28/2016 on SJW hilary +5
#10 - >Trump supporters are homophobes >literally carry a … 05/28/2016 on ALL HAIL THE QUEEN +3
#15 - >American police are meanie weenies! >travel to Russ… 05/28/2016 on /pol/itition asks why cops... +4
#47 - ^ck 05/28/2016 on National Spelling Bee 0