while people owe them a duty of care... the rest fills itself in.

Note how I said 15. And not even that maybe. I'm just against draconian blanket bans. With some study and research, an age where law and social customs meet could be reached, and put exceptions like, age difference cannot be more than "x" to prevent pedos getting in the action.

I'd probably do the same with voting, as long as it was kept separate from miltiary service, if anything that should be fucking pushed to 21.

Drinking and smoking are also realities of todays teens, a blanket ban just encourages black market and underground shit that in the long run is more risky than teens being able to drink/smoke with parental permission and oversight. Blanket bans do nothing to curtail behaviors society sees as acceptable or at least not taboo.

edit: william GET THE FUCK OUT THIS IS MY RIVERDANCE, GET UR OWN AUSTRALIAN.

Leave it to the parents you mean? I'm fine with that.

edit: im gonna post NORM

this is how shit has worked pretty well, now with colours:


18+ and 14+ = OK
14+ and 14+ = OK
18+ and <14 = crime of adult banging a child, even if consensual
14..17 and 10..13 = possibly crime of rape, 10..13's ability to consent reviewed case-by-case
(<13 and <13 = heap of confusion because of no criminal responsibility)
14+ and <10 = crime of RAPE, no review of consent

////durr so fucking difficult to get right ~advanced~, should be fine now

right so a 15 year old sleeping with a 15 year old is ok but a 15 year old sleeping with a 13 year old is not? and if we are arguing that people under 15 can have and should have sex, why should pedos not be involved in the action? if anything i would say that some pedos would be more careful and experienced than younger frightened and inexperienced teens.

your argument has no substance, its just a bunch of poor generalisations based on what our society insists and pressures people into thinking. you show no resistance at all to it in your personal life and you seem to think no one else should r they should be shunned for doing so: which i need to tell you is the most ridiculous aspect of your entire "argument" if we can call it that. that one of the core reasons i dont think kids should be sleeping with each other still has such a strong grasp over you. thankfully you are no longer the concern of your guardians legally so do what you like.

also im not really sure what the black market is like for tabacco in mexico... but im not sure it will do more harm than its doing now should it be blanket banned.

the same is not as true for alcohol, but still its risk of harm is lower than stuff like hard drugs but higher than soft drugs. so again this doesnt really point to anything. and this is ignoring completely my earlier argument that these are not blanket bans like prohibition, there are already age limits enforced which i trust you dont disagree with? so why if they are so harmful and we can appreciate children being harmed by them, dont we bump up the age slightly?



yes military service should be 21 and over and it used to be until conscription which is why we are even having this discussion now with regards to drinking and smoking. and i would also say voting should be 21 and over, but in fairness in our country both major parties are identical so it makes no difference what the age of voting is.


going for breakfast. bye.

wild mspaint appears just in case anyone has trouble reading the colours in my previous post:

nothing wrong with the divide by 2 add 7 rule tbh. just make it a god damn law

Voting to move this thread to the pubbie bazaar

also, I shit you not a relevant link to our rape debate: http://www.wlwt.com/r/29047898/detail.html

EDIT: I posted that based on title. its not actually very funny at all

Minign stop harping on about this duty of care shit. It's civil law and and for the most part doesn't apply to criminal law. Literally it only applies to Gross negligence manslaughter and even then it's an extremely narrow duty of care...