So remember that kid I wrote about the other day who was arrested for creating child pornography but really for having the audacity to fuck his girlfriend? Well, just so that he knows that it’s not just boys who get arrested, meet Kaitlyn Hunt, an 18-year-old honor student and varsity cheerleader from Florida, who was arrested for dating a 15-year-old in her school. Because, you know, the last thing you want is for your kid to be sleeping with a role-model student with good grades. Oh yeah, she’s also gay. That probably has something to do with it too. Apparently her girlfriend’s parents had her arrested for corrupting their daughter.
Clearly this is getting out of hand. So I propose a solution. In order to protect children from their naughty, sinful hormones, we will lock them all up in internment camps upon their 11th birthdays and not release them until they’re 25 and ready to be married off to a person of their parents’ choosing for breeding. Oh, and we will have to lock them all up in solitary, because if they’re in general population there is too great a chance that they will catch “the gay.” This may seem harsh, but clearly it’s the only way to keep them safe from the dangers of their sinful genitals. Well, I mean, guess we could have them spayed and neutered, but unlike my idea, that just seems unreasonable.
With parental approval, teens can of course apply exemption if it is deemed that they’re too unattractive for any other teen to ever want to mate with them. Come on, you know who you are.
Or, you know, we could just teach them that there are consequences for their actions. Changing the age of consent to 16 wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
Vic: The only consequences to their actions in either of these cases are ones that were imposed arbitrarily.
Arbitrarily? I am pretty sure it is illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with a minor. And child pornography is also illegal last time I checked. Nothing arbitrary about how the law was applied.
That’s like saying, it is ok to drive 45mph in a 25mph zone because you can do it without an accident, thus the speed limit must have been assigned arbitrarily. You may be correct about safety, doesn’t change the fact you broke the law.
^ I thought this as well, but apparently 18 isn’t across the board? I remember someone telling me recently that 16 is the age of consent in some states.
Its different in every state, but PA is 16 and within 4 years
Yes, because clearly someone taking pictures of themselves is exactly the same as making kiddie porn and high school seniors dating high school freshmen should be rewarded with prison sentences. I’m sure that when these laws were crafted the aim was to lock up as many teenagers as possible because that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
I think in television land 18 is the age of consent for all dramas as well as all your x-rated advertisements of “barely legal” which is probably why people have that misconception.
Vic: 1) no it isn’t. Age of consent varies by state, a lot! in Florida it’s 16 (or 18) depending… more on that when I respond to Link in a second.
2) that doesn’t mean it isn’t arbitrary. For exactly the reason you said in your second comment. If the law says 25mph, and its reasonably somewhere that should be 45mph, that’s an arbitrary law. Yes, it can be enforced equally, but that isn’t at all what I’m talking about.
3) child porn you’re just wrong on. In that kids case he was under 18, so the statutory laws (even when misunderstood) don’t apply to him and child porn laws are clearly being misused in order to punish him for dating his gf (read the post). Even under the interpretation that they’re using, they’re being applied arbitrarily because otherwise BOTH kids should have been arrested.
You don’t change a law by ignoring it. And taking naked pictures of a minor is child pornography, no matter who does it. There is no logical reason for that to exist. I get the whole horny teenager thing, but in this day and age, especially in this day and age, do you think it is wise or appropriate for kids to be doing this? Texting/posting. Would you want pictures of your 15 year old circulating the web for eternity?
Link: Yeah, that was me that pointed it out. It varies by state. In Florida it’s 16 or 18, depending on circumstance, so as per Vic’s comment, since the younger girl is 15, it is technically illegal no matter what. As per Keith’s link, the specifics are:
The age of consent in Florida is 18, but close-in-age exemptions exist. The law is complicated, but it appears that it is illegal to have sex with anyone under 12; legal for a person under 18 to have consensual sex with someone 12 or older (Section 794.11), and it is legal for a person 18-23 to have consensual sex with someone 16 or older (794.05). Persons 24 or older, or who are over 18 and have a position of authority over the other person are only permitted to have sex with them if they are at least 18.
794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.– (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, “sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose Florida code, Title XLVI, Chapter 794
But moreover, those laws only apply to heterosexual relationships (in Florida) many states have differing laws for hetero and homosexual relationships and IIRC, in Florida, homosexual relationships are always unlawful and therefore have no age of consent.
Vic: the entire point of my post wasn’t “did she break the law.” I obviously know the law. The point was, should the law exist, Hence my obviously sarcastic solution of internment camps.
As for the child porn law, again READ THE POST. in that case, the older “child” was arrested and the younger one “GUILTY” OF THE SAME THING was ignored because the law wasn’t being used to protect children, but instead to punish one kid because he wasn’t technically guilty of statutory.
My point then isn’t “what is the law?” That’s easy to look up. The point is “is the law arbitrary and should it be changed?”
As for your question, honestly, no, I don’t care if a 15yo has naked pics on the net. For the reason you said initially. They’re their actions and they get to deal with the consequences. I’m ok with them having to deal with NATURAL consequences organically created by sociological interaction. I just think the arbitrary ones that are created by law are dumb. Particularly in that case because the law is obviously being used against its intended purpose.
Vic, I believe the charges brought against him aren’t because he distributed pictures of the girlfriend. The child pornography charges derive from the pictures he sent of himself to the girl. He was allegedly told to stop, which, if found true, he deserves to face the consequences for that. It is, however, completely asinine to charge this teenage boy with child pornography distribution.
Tara and Sumner: yes, you are both correct. And that is why TV simplifies it
Dane: and even worse to subject him to far more humiliating photos (and injections) in the name of proof. The investigation clearly entails actions that are not in the best interest of “the child” that the law was trying to “protect”
Chris: That is a part of this case that I actually intended to mention in my last response. How can the police and magistrate justify the charges while humiliating him by medically-inducing the exact reason for the charges! What type of police-state are we living in that could allow for such humiliation to occur – and with judicial approval!
The question isn’t whether or not I think that it’s wise and appropriate for kids to be taking naked pictures of themselves. The question is whther or not I think arresting them and imprisoning them is an appropriate consequence. I tend to think that the judicial system is not the right way to express disapproval for non-dangerous activities.
Our judicial system is already inundated with non-dangerous “offenders” for other ridiculous laws.
Keith: right, and in the case on THIS post there aren’t even pictures involved. The only thing the girl really did “wrong” was being gay.
I mean, i guess, technically, if they she were a boy, in Florida, since the age of consent is 16 and the younger girl is still 15, she’d be guilty of statutory. But 1) I have a serious problem with that too and 2) given what we know, I kind of doubt the parents would have pressed charges.
Actually, if you parse the laws, if you’re under 18, the effective age of consent is 12, but if you’re over 18, it’s 16. So, if you’re 17 and your girlfriend is 14, you can have sex. But a year later when you’re 18 and she’s 15, it’s a felony. If someone can explain to me why that’s not arbitrary and capricious, I’d appreciate it.
Keith: right. That’s why I said technically. And also why I said it was still stupid. PA’s 16 or 4 years is designed to prevent that but has loopholes too. And that is why I called them arbitrary.
You just explained why it isn’t arbitrary, right there in your post Keith. Why is the speed limit 25 in some places and 35 in others? Why are you legally drunk when your blood alcohol level is .08? The answer? Because those were the numbers agreed upon when writing the law. Regardless of if everyone agrees, these were not picked arbitrarily. Same thing goes for the age at which you are considered an adult in America, 18. The age at which you can enter the armed forces, vote, etc.
Whether or not we agree with the numbers, they are not arbitrary. So while the specifics may vary from state to state, the bottom line is that in general, “adults” are not permitted to have sex with “children”. Ambiguity is removed so that there is no question should an actual crime occur.
One would hope that the legal system would be applied in such a way as to weigh all of the evidence(sweethearts for years, mutual consent), but in the end. If a parent makes a complaint, and their child is a minor, there really isn’t much else the law can do but pursue the case, which is their job. So regardless of the motivation of the parents, regardless of our personal opinions on what should and shouldn’t be permitted, the police aren’t being fascists when simply doing their job.
I don’t think taking pictures of people without their consent in a public place for profit should be legal, doesn’t mean I condone Kanye punching a paparazzi(well actually I do, I hate the idea of paparazzi), but that doesn’t make his actions right.
Thinking society is too controlling is one thing, saying that those rules have been created arbitrarily is quite another.
Do I think these kids should be in jail? No, personally I don’t see the need to waste resources on them any more than on minor drug offenses. Do I think they should be punished at all? Honestly, not really, I think this should be a civil matter between families and not a criminal one, again, seems like a waste of resources. Does that mean I think the cops are unjustified? Nope, they have a job to do just like everyone else, some abuse the power that comes with the job, some don’t, it is just a job with a set of rules to follow in either case.
“Oh yeah, she’s also gay. That probably has something to do with it too. Apparently her girlfriend’s parents had her arrested for corrupting their daughter.”
That is why I posted BTW. To me you are implying that they have no justification for their actions, because it is not congruous with their daughters choices or the things you see as reasonable. And by choices I mean potential mate, not necessarily the gender of said mate as it is politically incorrect to imply who we are attracted to develops as we grow up and that we choose our sexuality, as opposed to it being part of our DNA(I say it is a little of both BTW).
I don’t see their disapproval or complaint as an indication of a larger societal prejudice, but rather an example of parents holding on a bit too tight and making their daughter(and her girlfriend) pay the price.
Vic: that doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary. In fact, that’s exactly what arbitrary means. “they decided on those numbers when making the law.” That doesn’t make the numbers “good” or “correct” or mean that the law is a good idea. It just means it’s the law. You’re falling into your usual trap here of arguing against something that non one is arguing about. Everyone here acknowledges that she broke “the letter of the law.” Everyone acknowledges that the teen in the sexting case broke “the letter of the law.” The interesting question is whether or not these arbitrarily defined limits (and whether you like it or not, that’s what arbitrarily means… it means defined at the discretion of an arbitrator… in other words, they needed a law, so a legislature made up a number) are a good idea. We’re arguing no. In fact, you’re even arguing no.
The problem is you’re conflating your argument with irrelevant points and some things that are simply untrue. Case in point “legal adulthood is 18 in America.” NO, it’s not. This is just a common misconception based on a really simplistic generalization that is usually used for TV. Depending on what we’re taking about, the age of adulthood varies in America by both location and statute/concept from anywhere from about 2 years old to about 35 years old. This is specifically the case I use when I’m explaining definitional arguments in the class I teach. You need to be 18 to buy cigarettes. But you need to be 21 to drink alcohol (mostly). Age of sexual consent varies greatly by state and gets really complicated, as Tara and Keith pointed out earlier. You need to be 35 to run for president and 25 to rent a car (most places). You can enlist in the armed services at 17 (not 18), you can drive a car at 16 (or 14 in some cases) and you can be tried as an adult at 11 or 13 depending on jurisdiction. For purposes of nutritional value and vitamin needs, the FDA considers you an adult a age 2. When you’re reading the back of a box of cereal and it has percentages for children and adults, by children, they literally just mean infants. Everyone else is an adult.
So it gets very complicated. But we don’t like complicated, so we tend to simplify and say “you’re an adult at 18.” Which leads to trouble when the laws don’t actually simplify the way we expect them to.
In any case, it’s pretty clear that I’m not even questioning ambiguity in the law in either of these cases. I know what the laws say. I looked them up before I wrote both blogs. What I’m questioning is the logic behind them. Laws are designed to impose order and protect victims. In both of these cases, the laws are being used maliciously to victimize an innocent because a parent, uninvolved int he actual situation doesn’t want to acknowledge the subjectivity of their own daughter.
The article I read said that the younger girl was 14 when the relationship started, also follow up articles have been written on how the older girl has violated court orders to not have any contact with the young girl. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/us/florida-gay-teen-kaitlyn-hunt-case/
Joy: Now see that’s different and again, closer to the other case. Assuming the article is correct, Hunt is willfully disregarding her court order. Which is stupid.
The question is still the same as in the hetero Manassas case, though: Should it be illegal for a teen to sext naughty pics to another teen in the first place?
I would argue that this is again “arbitrary” in that the age of consent to for sexual agency, in most cases, is simply not in line with the actual maturation of the human body or mind.
When there’s no definitive answer that provides universal clarity and elected officials just choose a number based on what they think is best, I think we can safely say many laws are, indeed, arbitrary. They didn’t decide to make the speed limit 25 because some scientific study demonstrated a percentage decrease in accidents – they decided this due to thinking it is best. I think that constitutes arbitrary.
Just because the law says you’re an adult at 18 shouldn’t mandate far harsher punishments than if he or she were still 17. I don’t think that one the hour when you turn 18, you’re mystically endowed with knowledge you previously couldn’t comprehend. Is it wrong to have sex with children? Of course. Should someone who is 18 be sentenced to prison for having sex with his 15-year old girlfriend – I have very serious reservations about that.
The reality, Vic, is that there is so much ambiguity in all laws. In fact, the Constitution was written that way because those who drafted it knew that things wouldn’t be viewed the same at all times.
Why aren’t the parents being punished for poor parenting? Shouldn’t they be more closely monitoring their daughter’s activities? Is this negligence? … If we’re going to punish the boy, there are laws about negligent parenting, so let’s pursue that, as well. In fact, let us go after every parent whose child makes a mistake while we’re at it. I mean, this 18-year old kid made a mistake and will suffer for it; why not 40-year old parents?
Police aren’t being fascists? They forced him down to take pictures of his genitals. The cops weren’t in the wrong by doing their jobs; however, I think making threats to a teenager and forcing his pants off is wrongdoing. If they didn’t have their badges on, it would be battery and attempted rape.
I already dealt with my feelings on the “arbitrariness” of the laws when responding to Vic, but Dane makes an excellent point here. Yes, of course the police have to “do their jobs.” And honestly, given the letter of the law and the specifics of these cases, what they did to Hunt is kind of reasonable. In order to keep the peace, when a complaint is lodged, you arrest the suspect. Fine.
However, in the case of the VA teen, the police/DA went beyond acceptable behavior to keep the peace and are clearly using their discretion in order to “gather evidence” for a conviction. DAs neglect to prosecute violent rape cases every day. They used their discretion in NOT arresting girlfriend for child pornography. Chemically compelling an erection in order to prosecute the male teen under the theory that he is victimizing himself *IS* arbitrarily deciding when to apply the law and when not to and it’s doing so in a manner that is far more victimizing than the original crime and clearly not in the sprit the law was written in.
Where would you put the age limit then? Surely you agree that there needs to be one for legal purposes.
Joy: I do and I don’t. Honestly, I have a problem with the concept of “statutory” rape. Either there is rape or there isn’t. I do think Romeo and Juliet laws like Pennsylvania or Texas’s (and I shudder to use TX as an example of reasonableness) make it “better” in a sense. But I still have a problem with them. Dane hinted at why. I simply do not believe that a 15 year old girl is capable of consenting to a 17 years and 364 days old boy, but a 14 year and 364 days old girl can’t. Nor do I believe that the 15 year old can’t make that judgment two days later when he turns 18.
To me, it should have to do with coercion.
Rape is rape. Either a person has subjectivity to make decisions regarding the sexual disposition of their body or they don’t. I am perfectly ok with saying that say, a 2 year old is not of sound mind and body to reasonably consent. I am perfectly ok with saying that most 40 year olds are (though honestly, there are some cases where I question this). Between these two levels, I think there’s a lot of gray area. I don’t think most 7 year olds are reasonably mature enough to give consent, but honestly, I think most 17 year olds are. And I think a lot of 13 year olds probably are, but no one likes to talk about it because we like to pretend that 13 year olds are “children” and therefore don’t have sexuality. They do.
So in this case, Hunt’s girlfriend was 14 or 15 (depending on which news article you read, which probably means where they were in the relationship) and if you want my honest opinion, I think it’s completely normal for a 14 year old girl to want to experiment sexually. Honestly, if she chooses to do so with a 80 year old, I personally feel like “Well, that’s her choice, even if it’s icky” (see Harold and Maude). But I don’t think their ages automatically should make it considered coercion.
On the other hand if they were both 19 and Hunt forced herself on the gf, or even manipulated her somehow (say, as in the case with workplace sexual harassment) that would be different. THAT isn’t consenting. But I don’t think anyone can make an honest case that in either of these two cases the sex (or sexting) wasn’t consensual. Maybe they’ll regret it down the line. But people regret stuff. It happens when you’re 15. It happens when you’re 55.
To look at the other extreme. Even though I said it’s reasonable to assume 2 year olds can’t consent, if you find a 2 year old and a 3 year old “playing doctor” or even going further and attempting to (consensually) mimic some sexual act they might have seen their parents do, do you prosecute either of them?
And once again Dmitri’s “invisibility” to my blog means that he said something basically like I did (when responding to Joy) and I didn’t see it til I checked FB directly.
But then where do you you draw the age limit between two young children? Like the two and three year old or the seven year old?
I don’t have a good answer for that. Which is why I think it’s far more complicated than you can reasonably do with an age law. I think an 11yo who touches a 2yo is probably molesting them and something should be done. Same with an 18yo and the 11yo. But I don’t think you can just assume that for two 2yos or two 11yos. On the other hand, if there’s no consent, a 40yo who touches another 40yo is doing something wrong.
It’s much more complicated than an age law… but without a reliable and easy test to determine if someone has reached cognitive maturity, an age law is the next best thing. We choose 18 because at the age of 18 the solid majority of people *should* have reached a cognitive maturity. A few will not have… and a few will have reached it by the age of 12-14 or so… but by 18 most should understand right and wrong and that their actions have consequences. Should a *cognitively mature* 16 year old who hooks up with a 19 year old cause a big fuss? Probably not… Should a conitivly mature 15 year old who hooks up with a not cognitively mature 9-year-old cause a big fuss? Probably so!!! ***BUT*** there’s no easy way to determine if the 16 or 15-year-old has reached cognitive maturity. The only time I can think of where we spend time trying to figure this sort of thing out is during murder trials when the murderer is under-age. So we say “18” and are done with it, not because we don’t understand that life is much more grey area than a hard number, but out of the need for the stability of a social constant. Is it unjust in some situations, all things considered? Sure. Is it an *EASY* concept that even the dumbest members of society can understand? YES… And because of that I support the later until there’s an easy and clear way to support the more accurate grey scale model.
Bill: more or less I agree except, as had been pointed out elsewhere here, it’s actually 16 in the majority of the country. The 18 thing is a common misconception.
Ah, so it is – shame on me for not reading the whole thread. 🙂
Statutory rape a case such as this is actually considered a misdemeanor under California law.
Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
If the laws were made based on reasoning, if there was a criteria used to determine the ages and speed limits and such. By definition it can’t be considered arbitrary. The laws are applied to all citizens equally, and as a general practice, not randomly enforced, and certainly not enforced with the intent of special treatment for some and not others. Does this happen? Of course. Was that the INTENT when the laws were passed, unlikely, since that would mean there was some national speed limit, and voting age conspiracy at play.
Just because someone may not agree with the numbers, that does not make those numbers “arbitrary”.
I agree that the laws as they stand are flawed, but that does not make them without reason.
The real question is when do children become adults and since there is no real way to determine this, I know 40 year olds less mature than teenagers(and there is nothing wrong with that), there has to be an age set from which point the law and society treats them as such. 18. Why? Well seeing as 18 is old enough in pretty much all cases to have completed the standard level of schooling, it makes sense that it becomes the point, regardless of emotional maturity, that society recognizes an individual as capable of making their of decisions and being held responsible for their actions.
A minor is under the jurisdiction of their parents. And you don’t have to like how they raise that child, but it IS their prerogative to do so. So in both cases, the older participants are understood, even in the case where the boy is technically still a minor, to have more experience, and are expected to have more control over their actions. In both cases, when told to stop, they ignored that request. THAT is when their relationships with the minors became a problem. The moment they ignored the directives of the parents. Someone HAS to be accountable, our society and our laws generally favor the idea that the older someone is, the more responsible they are supposed to be. It is not and arbitrary determination in this case or in any other.
When you are a minor, you are under the protection and CONTROL of your parents. They are responsible for you, and they are liable for what happens to you. So they get to determine what you can and can’t consent to, it is really as simple as that. None of this was an issue, age was irrelevant, until the parents told them to stop.
Catching up: the thing about Hunt is weird, and I…kind of feel like her parents made it worse by deliberately starting a campaign of misinformation (they said the younger girl was 15 and that the younger girls parents maliciously waited til Kaitlyn was 18 to have her arrested. In fact, Kaitlyn was already 18 when they met, and she was arrested when the younger girl was still 14). To me, 14-18 is very different from 15-17, though I’m not saying it should be always criminal always. There’s also the repeated violations of court orders, rejections of plea deals thwt would have made Kaitlyn not have a felony conviction, and the fact that Kaitlyn and her parents attempted to pressure the younger girl into lying about the violations of court orders. Soooo yeah, that case in particular I feel like is not a great one to base any kind of argument about the sanity of age of consent laws on, since Kaitlyn seems to be an unbalanced predatory asshole with enabling parents and not just a kid in love,
Shelby: And that’s probably a lot smarter.
Vic: You’re once again arguing semantics, and wrongly. That’s what arbitrary means to you. It is not what it means in popular parlance and everyone else understands that. Since your argument is based on that, premise everything else just sort of falls apart.
Your claims to 18 as a standard have similarly already been refuted elsewhere in the thread, so I see no reason to revisit it.
I’m trying to understand your point (points?) in the last two paragraphs, because it seems like it’s interesting, but it’s kind of convoluted. Are you claiming that in the boy’s case he was prosecuted and the girl wasn’t because he should have known better? I so, no… that’s simply not true, and the cops have since dropped the case because they know that they’re in wrong on the double standard and the implementation of their investigation. So you’re literally on your own there. Also, if I’m understanding you correctly (and i really may not be) you’re completely refuting your final point (the last paragraph) by arguing so.
Laura: All very fair criticism. From what stories are saying, she clearly handled the situation badly. There’s no doubt that disregarding court orders is dumb, for instance. But I don’t know if I believe she’s a predatory asshole. I mean, she certainly might be. But that feels like one spin. The other spin being that she’s a nice innocent girl who’s being completely railroaded. And I don’t believe that either. In all likelihood, I think she’s just a dumb teenager. And but for her sexual preference and some the unbalanced laws on age of consent, no one would have cared about this at all.
So yeah, she’s by means a poster child (certainly not as much as the kid with the penis injection case), I still think her situation calls interesting questions on the law in general.
” It is not what it means in popular parlance and everyone else understands that.”
My bad for going by, you know, the definition. Silly, I will try and just make up my own next time, so we can be on equal footing,
“Your claims to 18 as a standard have similarly already been refuted elsewhere in the thread, so I see no reason to revisit it. ”
18 means you are an adult, that is recognized in more states than not. As such, regardless of any regional differences, it is the standard, and regardless of what you may think, in both cases, 18 is the benchmark making it pointless to even discuss the laws in another state. We live in a republic, that means every state can define their own standards. But you are right, there is no point in debating this as it is irrelevant.
“re you claiming that in the boy’s case he was prosecuted and the girl wasn’t because he should have known better?”
I am claiming he was prosecuted because the complaint was filed by the girls parents. In both cases the younger participants parents made the initial complaint. The older individuals are being held responsible because in any legal complaint, there has to be a plaintiff and a defendant. Their parents are free to have done the same, they didn’t. That is why the two older children are being held responsible. AND the fact that they are either adults(by most standards) or on the verge of being an adult, thus making them more responsible for their actions according to the law.
“Also, if I’m understanding you correctly (and i really may not be) you’re completely refuting your final point (the last paragraph) by arguing so. ”
I am not arguing anything. If two people commit a crime and no one knows about it or cares to report it, it is not actually a crime, not because they are right to do so, but rather because of the whole, tree, woods, no sound thing. A crime has to have a victim, and in this case, the parents were making the claim on behalf of their daughters, as is their right. If they didn’t feel the girls were being victimized there would not be a crime, regardless of technicalities with the law.
What I think personally about the behavior of minors is irrelevant, if neither set of parents had complained, then this would not have been an issue. But they did, and the older kids were told to stop, they didn’t, thus it was pursued. The fact that the cops caved to media pressure has no impact on the facts of the case.
You act like the cops went after these people on a whim, they didn’t. There was a complaint, they investigated, that is their job. You thinking it was unfair, or silly is, irrelevant. Was it silly to try and match cock pictures, um, yeah. So what? If the intent was to prove this kid broke the law, then that is within their purview, silly or not.
In the end, we are debating this for the same core reason we debate anything. You prefer anarchy to order. Social liberties are all about the ends justifying the means. I disagree. Doesn’t get simpler than that.
“I am not arguing anything. If two people commit a crime and no one knows about it or cares to report it, it is not actually a crime, not because they are right to do so, but rather because of the whole, tree, woods, no sound thing. ” …wow, Vic. Wow. That is…not even wrong.
Do you know what “not even wrong” means? It is a derogatory term that means that the underlying assumptions of your argument are ridiculously flawed.
Do you realize that saying that without actually refuting anything makes your statement invalid?
Do you have any idea how English works?
Yes, as well as how a debate works. Generally when you want to refute something, you kind of need to use words, and sentences to do so. If you are confused I would be happy to explain.
No, see, this is facebook. I’m allowed to call your argument not even wrong — which it is — without explaining it to you. The smart people in the audience will get it. Tschuss!
Well of course you are free to say that LOL, it is irrelevant, but hey, if you feel better, then I am happy for you.
the law should just be half your age + 7
well, until that number is 21, then anything goes