cross posted from SMP "age of consent" - Page 2

[censored] · #11 07-10-2005, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So then clearly the US should strive to have our laws of age of consent impossed on any parts of the world that have not adopted them already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is this our job?

Why do you think this is the responsibiliity of the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point.

But let me ask you this. If our laws are right then why shouldn't we? (Assume no cost money,lives etc)

mslif · #12 07-10-2005, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Then clearly we need to imposse our law as by your own admition it is far superior. We would if anything be helping them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not!!! We have no rights to impose our laws or beliefs on any other countries. They might be primitive but it is their rights.

[censored] · #13 07-10-2005, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then clearly we need to imposse our law as by your own admition it is far superior. We would if anything be helping them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not!!! We have no rights to impose our laws or beliefs on any other countries. They might be primitive but it is their rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if say some (say like 30%) of the people within those countries didn't like those customs and beliefs then it would be ok to go in implement US law right?

Arnfinn Madsen · #14 07-10-2005, 07:19 PM

Our perception on this is based on what we could call a "guesstimation". We have some research of varying quality from which we derive some "facts" which we mix with out values.

If it should be based on facts each individual child would have to be examined to determine if it is capable to make a decision about this or not. As you point out some might be capable of this, I would say even at 8, while some are still not at 60.

So basically the age we put is (providing it is somewhere between 8 and 60) is an age which protects some against harming themselves or against being abused while it limits the freedom of others. Different societies will value the harm factor vs the freedom factor differently. Thus, for any society to claim moral superiority on this is far out of line.

mslif · #15 07-10-2005, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

what if say some (say like 30%) of the people within those countries didn't like those customs and beliefs then it would be ok to go in implement US law right?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO, I don't think it would be ok to implement "US law". It is them who need to change their laws. We do need to get involved at all.

Dov · #16 07-10-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But let me ask you this. If our laws are right then why shouldn't we? (Assume no cost money,lives etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

We should strive to help people understand how things work. As they become educated, they will make better decisions.

Just because you have a better way to do something does not obligate you to force your way on other people.

In fact, your way may be destructive and you don't know it yet.

To put it simply, your goal should be to help people fulfill their potential and live their own lives, not the life you set out for them.

[censored] · #17 07-10-2005, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

what if say some (say like 30%) of the people within those countries didn't like those customs and beliefs then it would be ok to go in implement US law right?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO, I don't think it would be ok to implement "US law". It is them who need to change their laws. We do need to get involved at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ahh so you are fine with those people basind their laws on the beliefs and values of the majority of the people.

so then clearly this should apply to domestic issues as well like abortion and gay marriage. right?

[censored] · #18 07-10-2005, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]

We should strive to help people understand how things work. As they become educated, they will make better decisions.

Just because you have a better way to do something does not obligate you to force your way on other people.

In fact, your way may be destructive and you don't know it yet.

To put it simply, your goal should be to help people fulfill their potential and live their own lives, not the life you set out for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Domestic implications of this?

mslif · #19 07-10-2005, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ahh so you are fine with those people basind their laws on the beliefs and values of the majority of the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with that

[ QUOTE ]
so then clearly this should apply to domestic issues as well like abortion and gay marriage. right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think that issues like these should be decided by the people and not by the Supreme Court. That would be in a perfect world. The fact of the matter is that those issues (like abortion) were brought to the Supreme Court. The government just did not decide to make a law about it just out of nowhere. We, the people, brought this on ourself.

Dov · #20 07-10-2005, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Domestic implications of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for now.

We have a system in place which (generally) encourages people to develop themselves to their potential. The resources exist for those who wish to use them, including the disadvantaged.

What is not supplied is motivation. If you want it, though, you can get just about anything you want here. (US)

I do think that we should abolish the department of education, though. I think they are holding us back in a terrible way. That is a discussion for another time, though.