I think the female equivalent to castration is female “circumcision”, not a hysterectomy. Removing her womb would only take away her ability to have children, not enjoy sex.
They were doing the same thing you were, IMO: saying that everyone in this thread who didn’t agree with you was in favor of baby-raping. So I read it as applying to you, as well. And, I note, you haven’t made any more of those statements since the moderator intervention.
tell me you don’t ever guess wrong.
I never said that. I said I thought some people in the thread were being disingenuous in their scenarios, and that it looked to me like some people were looking to find weasel room to bang underaged girls without consequences.
That’s a good reason not to bang them. I would not have assumed that any of them were over 13. At least, I would not have bet my freedom on it.
Cropped still photographs are not the same as talking to and interacting with people, by the way.
Yeah, we got you, Dio. Don’t have sex with someone unless they’re a cougar, it’s the only way to be sure. We read you loud and clear.
No, cougars aren’t safe, either. Because they could be seventeen year old girls posing as cougars. You just don’t know.
I’m just saying don’t guess. Actually, I’m not even saying that. I’m saying if you do guess, and you guess wrong, you need to pay the piper and I don’t feel sorry for you. My advice is not to guess.
Right. You’re saying if we guess we should pay the price.
Too bad everything is guessing. If you’re 18 and she looks 21, has ID and is in a bar, you’re still guessing. You just don’t know.
That’s right, so guess at your own risk.
And yet, you still maintain that you have no problem with random stranger hookups. You just want grossly inflated penalties that remove the actual possibility of them happening.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about stranger hookups, nor do I want inflated penalties. I’m just saying I want the current penalties enforced and have no problem with strict liability. It’s more important to protect children than it is to prevent adults from having to pay the piper if they accidentally fuck them.
People shouldn’t have guns in the house, either. Protecting children is more important than our right to arms. Porn should be illegal, too. Protecting children is more important. Violent film and video games? Children are more important. In fact, we have no way of knowing if Dio is actually a ten year old girl so we should probably stop having this conversation in order to protect him/her.
Won’t somebody think of the children!
The analogy here would be that that you are liable for gun accidents that happen in your home. If you shoot into a room without looking, and blow away your mother-in-law, it’s not an excuse that you thought she was a burglar.
If you’re going to have a gun in the house, you’re going to assume liability for the risks. That is correct.
Protecting them from what? Porn is no threat to children (unless it’s kiddy porn).
**Dio’s **thinking about the children enough for any three or four dozen of us.
If I’m in a bar and there’s a woman who looks older than 21 it’s no longer guessing. I’m making a reasonable, informed decision based on evidence. Getting thrown in the slammer because she was 17 with a fake ID is bullshit.
Juries deliberating on whether the man acted reasonably in thinking that she was older than 18 = Good.
Catch-all laws that defy reason = Bad.
George Carlin summed it up best: “Fuck the children.”
And I don’t mean fuck them, if you catch my drift.
No, the analogy here is that a teenager snuck into a gun range and hid inside a target, which I then shot. If I shoot the target, thinking it’s a normal target, but it turns out to have a kid inside, am I exactly as liable as if I’d walked up to the kid on the street and shot them in the face?
It’s guessing. Don’t kid yourself. An in the kind of situations you’re talking about, jail time is a very unlikely scenario. Even proscution is unlikely. Proscutors and judges do have discretion, and they aren’t going to waste time chasing down 20 year olds for banging 17 year olds (seriously, how often do you ever see that prosecuted? Even whne the guys knock the girls up, they don’t get prosecuted).
A 40 year old who says he got fooled by an 11 year old (as some in this thread have ludicrously tried to posit as something that could ever legitmately happen) is another story. The discretion to prosecute needs to be there, and forcing the state to prove what the assailant was thinking while he committed the assult would just make it open season on children.
No, the analogy is that you shot without knowing what you were shooting at.
Just because it doesn’t happen doesn’t mean they don’t have the power to make it happen. It should be left up to a jury to decide if it was reasonable, not to a prosecutor to decide if he should prosecute at all.
And a jury would see what a fucking creep he is and lock his ass away.