IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: 13 year old boy charged with murder
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
JK2006 wrote:
I don't think anyone on here would consider it OK Honey. But I do think 10 year olds are capable of crime and that it's up to us, society, education, parents to inform and guide the young on why they should not behave in certain ways. Killing another human being is wrong. Even pulling wings off flies is wrong. It is a vital lesson they must learn as soon as they learn how to walk and talk. Which is why the government announcement about teaching 11 year olds makes good sense to me.
I am baffled by the announcement about teaching children about rape at eleven, because children are already taught about consent at school from around four. It is called the "pants" campaign (or something) and they are taught that their body belongs to them and nobody is allowed to touch it unless they say it ok, and that pants areas are off limits.
I suppose it will just be a slightly more detailed version at eleven? They are hardly likely to show them Charles Bronson's "death wish" films!  |
|
JK2006 |
I don't think anyone on here would consider it OK Honey. But I do think 10 year olds are capable of crime and that it's up to us, society, education, parents to inform and guide the young on why they should not behave in certain ways. Killing another human being is wrong. Even pulling wings off flies is wrong. It is a vital lesson they must learn as soon as they learn how to walk and talk. Which is why the government announcement about teaching 11 year olds makes good sense to me. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
JK2006 wrote:
You're right about the "vile paedophile" Honey but this is the problem; in today's society, a 15 year old falling in love with another 15 year old means technically, legally, they are both Vile Paedophiles. By simplifying and blurring the lines, by talking in extremes, we are worryingly close to causing or provoking terrible problems to innocent people. And by treating confused 16 year olds as sick adults, we help nobody and solve no problems.
Yes, I agree with this, and I have often spoken about how I feel it is unhelpful to demonize criminals of all types but in particular sexual crimes where it will prevent people from seeking help, and make people think they are loopy for being attracted to physically mature teenagers (or same sex attraction, depending on the culture)
Also, we often punish people who have a severe mental illness that they cant help. I believe it is barbaric!
However, we were talking about ten year olds "willingly enjoying" sex with a sixteen year old. Ten year olds might have fun together waving their bits or playing doctors, but if a sixteen year old is involved it is abusive, and children can not "willingly" consent. (or be responsible for a crime in my opinion)
You could call the sixteen year old a vile paedophile or any other extreme term (i would rather we didn't) or offer help and support. It does not change the crime.
The daft laws and over-reactions about age of consent is one thing, and abusing small children is another.
Lets not give the impression we think it is ok.  |
|
JK2006 |
You're right about the "vile paedophile" Honey but this is the problem; in today's society, a 15 year old falling in love with another 15 year old means technically, legally, they are both Vile Paedophiles. By simplifying and blurring the lines, by talking in extremes, we are worryingly close to causing or provoking terrible problems to innocent people. And by treating confused 16 year olds as sick adults, we help nobody and solve no problems. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
SuchGooodPoints wrote:
So sad, after all these years of JK enlightenment.
Honey is STILL in the dark of a fake-mainstream cliche, 'VILE Paedophile'?
So sad.
Oh I am well aware of the cliche and the misuse of the word but I find the suggestion of ten year old children "willfully sharing sexual pleasure with a 16 yr old" revolting! |
|
|
|
|
