SCENARIO 1: A 14-year-old throws rocks off a bridge overpassing a highway. One hits through a windshield, killing someon
-
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 03:45 AM)
Do you still shake a bag of leaves on voice call to make it look like you are outside?
LOOK A TRAIN GUYS!
BEEP! BEEP!
HEAR THE TRAIN?
IT'S SO DARK GUYS, I CAN'T SEE.
I HAVE BEEN WALKING FOR 2909 DAYS.
I'M ALMOST HOME. ANOTHER 446 MILES.
I'M IN A CAVE NOW.
HOLD ON GUYS, I HAVE SWIM ACROSS THE RIVER.
THE CURRENT MAY TAKE ME.
I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CAVE, COME OUT AT THE CEMETERY, THEN RUN ACROSS THE RICKETY SUSPENSION BRIDGE, HIJACK THE F-14 TOMCAT FIGHTER JET, BEFORE I CAN RESUME THIS CALL - LET ME MUTE SO I DON'T DISTRACT YOU WITH JET AND RIVER NOISES. GIVE ME 5 MINUTES GUYS TO DO THESE TASKS.
Never lose your desire. -
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 03:37 AM)
Ad hominem. Ok you can't answer because you misunderstood. That's OKAY.
Next time just say, "I'm sorry. I made a mistake in judgment." That's all you have to know. There's no reason to be a narcissist. It serves no points in respect. It was only cool on message boards in the 90s. Now, the alpha male thing to do is tell others they're beautiful, not stupid.
Never lose your desire. -
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 05:50 AM)
Scenario 1 objective: minor kills someone.
Scenario 1 legal: minor murders someone.
This rests on the reasoning that minors are intelligent enough and adult enough to formulate intent, consent, and awareness in acts of taking a life.
Scenario 2 objective: minor has sexual intercourse with someone.
Scenario 2 legal: minor is victim of sexual abuse.
This rests on the reasoning that minors are not intelligent enough nor adult enough to formulate intent, consent, and awareness in physical sex acts.
Conclusion: The law (inconsistently) states that a 14-year-old is adult enough to commit a murder, and recognize it as such by the State, but the same 14-year-old is not adult enough to commit a sex.
I do not believe there's any way to say the legal position on this makes sense.
If you have sex with a teacher, and only the teacher is arrested, and you're exempt from any crime because the law says you're too incompetent, then you're not mature enough to be tried as an adult for murder. LOL.
Never lose your desire. -
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 06:31 AM)
That part doesn't matter.
What I'm saying is, a court which strives on an objective standard cannot in good judgement charge a teen as an adult for a murder, which is the same as stating she had the competence and motive of an adult when committing the killing, but in the same breath, say they are defenceless when they commit a sex.
I think teens are plenty adult enough to eat breakfast on their own. And go to the potty.
But, murder and sex? We're at equal wavelengths there. Certainly, a person old enough to murder, is old enough to have sex.
Never lose your desire. -
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 08:29 AM)
Let me word it a different way for you, buddy. Answer each question directly.
Do you believe, if an armed 14-year-old held up you and your wife and demanded money while you were enjoying a night out on the town, then shot your wife dead, that he was completely aware of his actions and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, as an adult.
Do you believe that when a 14-year-old initiates a romantic proposal to his teacher and engages in sexual intercourse with her during a subsequent date, he is entirely unaware of his actions, as though in a vegetative state or stupor - with any decision he makes being entirely the result of coercion or grooming by the adult participant?
Never lose your desire. -
P.Error — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 08:47 AM)
The law does not recognise a 14-year-old "having sex" with an adult at all. Legally, it's not possible for them to have sex with an adult. It's not called that. You can't say "the 14-year-old had sex." That would be incorrect legally and journalistically. you'd say, "the 14-year-old was sexually abused."
So, 14-year-olds cannot have sex. Even if they had sex, they cannot have sex, because 14-year-olds cannot legally have sex.
The same is not true for murder.
14-year-olds can commit a murder.
Why isn't a 14-year-old who kills someone a victim of murder abuse? What if the law said it's impossible for a 14-year-old to murder, so every time a 14-year-old kills someone, the law charges their parents instead.
It is not rational to fully recognize a 14-year-old can
take a knife and hold it up to a throat
, but it is impossible to put their penis in a vagina.
If 14-year-old murderers were smart, they'd have sex with their victim BEFORE they murdered them. Then, they can only be charged with the murder, and not the sex! Even better, since they're a victim on the sex part, it'd just look like they killed their groomer.
Every 14-year-old would be off the hook if they had sex with their murder victim first! Great defence.
Never lose your desire.
️ — 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 03:08 AM)
— 9 months ago(June 19, 2025 01:21 PM)