[lit-ideas] Re: virtue-practical example of being taught

  • From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:22:01 -0500

JE: Age of consent laws of course vary by US State and
also vary across Europe, and discussion of a lowering
of the age of consent is not in itself nefarious.
(NAMBLA is a different matter.)

"Not nefarious"? I think you're being [maybe unintentionally] disingenuous Judy. Let's say a particular governmental body coincidentally lowered the age of consent to whatever NAMBLA admitted was their age cutoff? Is it then, as it is now, still implicitly wrong for them to scream "we love boys of 14 and want to have sex with them" if there is NOTHING legally wrong with this? Would they still be common pedophiles? Would they even NEED a society/association? If not, then how low can they go?

And... what would possibly be the reasons for lowering the 'age of consent' other than a bunch of people -- hopefully a majority -- coming to the conclusion that those who have attained that age, can indeed give informed consent? If that is the case, then their {NAMBLA's} WHOLE premise is validated and is no longer, as you indirectly term it, nefarious.


Paul Stone
Kingsville, ON, Canada

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: