No principle would be when you make decisions based solely on what benefits you, personally. You assumed I did it for that reason, which implies you don't know much about principle.Prove it. Also, prove that everyone over 18 can.So can someone over 18.If it's a death threat, that is already illegal. I think allowing retarded republicans to vote for Bush is wrong. Only a retarded republican would think otherwise. Should we ban them, too?Okay, I assume republicans who have voted for Bush are too fucking stupid to be allowed to vote. Ban them, too, Mrs. M?I think it's up to me to protect stupid Bush supporters from themselves. I say we give me unlimited rights to sentence them to jail time on the spot. What do you say?Some do, some rely on the state.More unproven assumptions, generalizations and more assumptions that people magically are imbued with mental potency once they turn 18.So you want to ban sex with consent just because you want to nail the so-called "predator," regardless of whether or not the girl really wanted it?I'd probably teach them not to have sex with old men, as opposed to relying on the state to teach them for me.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Partly, but mainly because it is an act to which both involved parties consent. Just like when a willing seller sells gum to a willing buyer. Should I jail the buyer because his advertising campaign tricked the poor, little children into making the purchase?No, they don't, because all of those are acts against a person WITHOUT CONSENT.I think society has a lot of stupid prejudices and assumptions. In fact, I would go as far as to say that our society is mostly completely fucking stupid.It's nice to see you explaining how laws get passed, but "what the majority support" does not equal "what is right."

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Also, Mrs. M, just because someone supports a law, doesn't mean they want to directly benefit from it. Furthermore, not everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a pervert. For instance, I support the right to bear arms, but don't personally own any. I support the right to use drugs such as methamphetamines, but have not used them and do not want to use them. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you enter a debate like that calling everyone who opposes the war on drugs to be a crack head.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Slon, you're picking nits, yet not really addressing the issue. The fact is that the State has to determine a guideline by which most individuals can be determined to be able to make good decisions for themselves. No, there is no "magical" change that occurs on the 18th birthday. However, most individuals who hit 18 are able to make good decisions for themselves. 16? Not as many. 21? Probably more, but the difference isn't that significant compared to 18.

As far as 10 year olds being able to make decisions about sexuality; that's clear if you actually examine child development.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

The nit-picking is exactly why I'm not bothering to answer Slon. It's obvious that he knows nothing about children and I hope he never has any of his own until he understands them better.
BTW, I knew I shouldn't have bothered responding to him in the first place because the only way he argues is with nit-picking and twisting words! That's why I generally ignore him but his stance on this subject disturbed me greatly.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

You don't seem to understand the purpose of the laws, Slon.

The state is not trying to teach your young child not to have sex with adults. The child is not punished by the state if they are molested.

The state is trying to prevent adults from having sex with little kids.

Your argument is therefore fatally flawed from the word go.

As to the idea that a 10 year old can give informed consent for sex, well, that's just silly.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

You can restate an incorrect theory as many times as you want, but this will not change the fact that it is incorrect.

Childhood development is well understood by medical science. There are no "ageist" assumptions involved.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

alright I think i am done with this discussion. It's not really going anywhere and i am just more and more confused by slon's position.

i never did answer the original question though so I would say first offense should 7-10 years and second offense is life. I am willing to give them a second chance, but if they mess up again their done.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Let me slip in before I'm too late...

I'm assuming the person actually sexually molested the child and actually acted on their impulses.

Depending on the severity/grossness of the crime, I'd say that a long jail term and psychiatric treatment could be appropriate for the most minor offenses. For more disgusting offenses... this may sound "cruel and unusual" and it probably is, but I think one of the best ways to deal with this is not necessarily to remove the urges, but to remove the means... you know... dismemberment where it hurts. In addition to jail time. Most child molesters are men... as a guy I know how awful such a punishment would be, but I'd say they certainly earned it. Same thing should happen with most rapists.

If what they did was really completely and indescribably nasty, then I'd say dismemberment then death.

__________________

Advertisements often rely on people making bad decisions and buying something inferior just because the advertising campaign makes it look good. So the thing is, many people can't make good decisions, anyway. My point is that it's not the government's job to make any personal decisions for us, even if you can prove that everyone is a shitty decision maker.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I'd say the reason is you can't come up with a rational argument.So understanding children is equivalent to make generalizations about them and passing totalitarian laws based on those assumptions?Nah, just with a rational argument and by blowing holes in your line of reasoning. But keep fooling yourself.So maybe you should try to come up with a good argument.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

The law acts as something that prevents sex between them, and assuming consent from both sides (which is what we are discussing), it in effect prevents both from getting what each wants in the transaction.Why does consent have to be informed? Lots of people buy something they see on a TV ad without researching it or stop at McDonald's after a split decision without thinking of the consequences, and yet we don't see laws banning these "bad" decisions.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

So everyone under 18 is incapable of making good decisions, but everyone over 18 is capable of making good decisions?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Please look up and learn the legal definition of consent. "Why does consent have to be informed" is nonsensical in this setting.

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Well, the legal definition of "consent" is more or less defined as "a child can't make it," so I don't see how that is relevant, as we are discussing said law.

3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.
4. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.

consent - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Sounds about right. "Uninformed" consent might as well be permission, approval or agreement without extensive knowledge of the consequences. Sort of like eating at McDonald's without researching the contents of the food.

Unless you mean by "informed consent" to be "consenting without knowing that you consented," which I think even a child can't understand, since one can't physically answer "yes" to something unless they know a request has been made.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.