Ok...
the fact that you resort to the slippery slope type of argument only demonstrates that you don't understand the issues legally, morally and ethically -
What?
First, what slippery slope did I present?
The 'law of the land' thing, or the gf/bf thing...? Those are both things that actually happen now, due to the letters of the law.
there is a difference between someone who is similar in age (+/- 1 year) and several years/decades difference.
But legally there isnt. Thats why I asked if you were talking in legal definitions.
In your last post you implied that the difference is not important.
So we agree on that now?
As for an adult preying on a minor there is no excuse for it, whether the minor is 5 or 17, if they are not able to legally engage in a contract then they cannot legally be considered to be capable of consenting to any act with an adult - get real and understand that it is not about small or large age differences
Ok, so now the age difference is not important, again!? These quotes are all from one post man. What are you saying?
Age of the minor does not matter, but the older the adult, the worse the crime?
What is the logic that says that is right? The opposite makes more sense to me;
Youths are continuously growing towards adulthood. There is a BIG difference between a human that is five, and a human that is ten, or fifteen, or eighteen. Huge, fundamental differences. But, once someone is an adult, thats it. Adult til death.
If anyones progress through birthdays is pertinent to the crime, its the childs.
it is about informed consent: I know that there is the argument that at age 17 and 364 days they are not capable of giving informed consent but one day later, at age 18 they are; it is not the point of the discussion.
In some ways it kind of
is the point.
Afaik, all of these accusers are around seventeen, and were in 'relationships' with this guy of some kind.
If we do/do not buy the '364 days' argument, that is a big deal, especially considering someones life is getting destroyed.
A 16 year old is not in the same position as an all but 18 year old and does not have the life or educational or emotional experience with which to make an informed decision about participating in a sexual act with an adult of any age......
Well we just disagree there I guess.
I dont see a lot of difference between a seventeen year old and an eighteen year old, generally. One or the other may be more or less mature or able to handle themselves in the world, regardless of who is a year older.
But, a seventeen year old and say, a ten year old are different in every single way, as human beings. Drastic differences that have a huge bearing on, well everything. And conversely, a seventeen year old is sometimes not too dissimilar to say, a twenty year old- an adult. Like, you could possibly confuse them, but you would not likely confuse a seventeen year old with a ten year old, in any way.
please also don't think that you can impress me with the length of your tenure here or anything else
Believe it or not, Im not trying to impress you.
Come on man- Stating my tenure was (obviously) only in an attempt to show you that perhaps you are speaking to an adult, since you instantly threw up the parent flag.
what you have written shows that you seriously have no real idea as to the issues involved in this sad, sad story which is destroying a man (y his own actions, but still destroying him), his reputation, the reputation of the company he worked for and the character he was the voice....
Id say the same about you.
What you are writing shows that you dont actually know a lot of details about these cases.
I think you saw the headline, have kids, and went kneejerk.
Its much grayer than a simple pedo case, although I guess many people see this as a legal black/white issue.