20 Kids Stabbed

I'm not going to even start with you Flav.

that is not something I implied in the least, that is something you inferred, which is something totally different.

Because you have nothing to say that's actually worth listening to? for someone who claims to use logic all the time I'm starting to question whether you actually understand it at all.

No, it's something you definitely implied with your statements.

No because you're a habitual troll and I've grown tired of you.

lols. I don't know how you can consider making a simple statement an attempt at being a troll. Maybe you're still jsut mad about me calling you out for what you are... A pedophile.

Whoa there, hold the train. While Jet and I are on different pages, and quite possibly different books, that is quite an accusation to make - calling someone a pedophile.

I'd report you for that personal pointless attack, but I'll get down to it:

I am not a pedophile, I do not like prepubescent children.

I am an ephebophile.

I understand that you have trouble understanding what words mean and that there's a difference between the two.

I am not getting into your other comment as it serves no purpose other than to just troll.

Like I said: I've grown tired of you. Your statement was worded specifically to incite a response and nothing more.

See, I at least like you...

On another note: as I realize that my brain is sometimes hard to follow, I'll apologize to only Bloodrose for the reading comprehension comment, it was perhaps a bit too far.

Unlike some others, you are obviously at least decently educated, we're just apparently not on the same page.

People wonder why I argue hard for semantics, as they truly indeed change the entire scope of the discussion.

It's not an accusation... He openly admits to it but he calls it something else like it makes it better that he only likes teens instead of people under the age of 12.

Call it whatever you like... still the same thing.

Edit: Isn't the first time I've called him out on it and most likely won't be the last time I do it.

I had to look up the word Ephebophile, and it's a form of Chronophilia - the sexual attraction of adolescents primarily aged 14-19.

Commonly referred to pedophilia though, when concerning someone under the legal age of consent.

It's not the same thing, but I'll forgive your ignorance as it's only a tool for you to continue trolling.

Whatever helps you sleep at night man.

Commonly, but incorrectly.


edit: after some reading into the medical definitions though, (thanks for the word Chronophila, didn't know about that one) apparently there's another subset which is leaned more to the age range I prefer:

hebephilia

edit: unless I read that medical definition wrong, which is possible as I'm not a shrink.

It says generally, but has been known to extend to ages beyond prepubescent stages as the term applies in the legal sense to exploiting children under the legal age of consent sexually. It may be defined medically one way, and legally another. However, since you had not explicitly defined the age preferred (could be age 18-19 and still count as Ephebophila, it wouldn't be hard to make a logical deduction either way, as the terms are defined, or inferred due to interpretation or critical thinking processes)

However, it's also been found that simply having an attraction is not a crime itself, as one can not control who they are attracted to, but only when you find ways to act upon it - i.e. illicit pornography such as video, images, and such.

I'm fully aware that the law and medical definitions may or may not line up, and like you said as long as having the attraction isn't a crime itself, I'm good.

I typically like young mature women, typically 15+ but I've met women younger that look like they're 18 and younger that look like they're 12, not a fan of undeveloped girls.

However due to such an attraction I have a more open mind in regards to actual pedophiles. Hence why I don't have an issue with drawn stuff. (I realize that laws in some areas forbid that as well, but I still hold to the point that child pornography should remain illegal as it exploits children, but drawing something does no such thing, just people find it icky). Brings up another point though, as to why people who apparently have the ability to make a "choice" cannot chose to do other things. Like those high school girls who get charged with child pornography production charges for nude selfies, it's taking the written law way out of hand.

In fact like in a discussion in another thread right now brought up: it's legal to marry women as young as 16 in some states, I'm sure a lot of those depend on the age of the suitor and such, but hell.

So short and curly as far as the age thing, the upper end of the spectrum, physically wise, the # is only a stickler as the laws dictate, it's more about the physical characteristics of a young but developed woman.

Flav's derailing point is that because I have an attraction to girls of and around barely legal/illegal age that I have an argument for the double standard that is treating children like adults when they commit crimes yet treating them like children the rest of the time.

This is the part I get, and why it's important to look at the severity of a heinous crime (not all crime in general) and their understanding of said heinous crime. I have no problem with children being accused, prosecuted, or given an appropriate punishment that begets their age or mistakes that happen once or twice. I also advocated for the psych evaluation to determine if they were fit to stand trial as an adult, which as one of the child's rights, is being protected. I do believe that his lawyer *should* (even though it's already been pointed out that he is) try to get a psychological evaluation done to determine this.

Until a few years ago, the legal age of consent in the province of Alberta was 14 for marriage, even though the federal legal age was 18. As long as parents of both involved consented, or arranged the marriage, no one would, or could challenge it federally.

It was then decided that the provincial law needed revising, as it was still legal for a man of any age, to wed a child of 14 years of age. The law on this matter was almost completely re-written.

Now the law states that a child of 16 years old is the provincial legal age of marriage (in which case a marriage can become legal upon the act of consummation or arrangement via legal process) to no one older than 5 years difference (aka no older than 21, and MUST have consent from both sets of parents or guardians) This also applies to consented sexual intercourse with no one younger than 16 years old, and no more than 5 years difference in age.

See, I never understood the requirement for the "no more than 5 years difference in age" bit, I've known people to be 12+ years apart and live together happily for decades.

Eh.

Because one is a child and the other is an adult. As much as kids might think they know everything about the world they still need to be pretected from predators like yourself.

Again, with the insults dude, what the ***?

I thought we already established that persons of different ages could have the same emotional/reasoning abilities of an adult, hence the entire topic of whether they should be tried as an adult was brought up.

So tell me, his he an adult, or a child? or does it simply depend on the person?

Personally, I think it depends on the person, and the situation one finds themselves in, to determine whether or not they can act like a reasonable (or unreasonable) adult.

Also, the law is there to protect a child from being exploited sexually. that's the part I have to agree with. Even though there have been cases of youth marrying older and living happily. But those are also individual cases.

The law has to be designed to protect as many people as possible - even if it's a knee-jerk reaction and emotionally charged reason for creating the law. The problem comes with it's enforcement, the honest or dishonest intentions of the people, and so forth. Either way, people are going to give up halfway through, or find a way to "git'r done"

I just see it used as a tool to ruin lives more than anything, outside of the spirit of it's creation.

So what's the verdict from the people arguing here: vengeance or rehabilitation?

Vengeance is basically the adult legal system. Harsh punishments, virtually no attempt to treat the underlying problem, and a life so ruined (though it was probably wrecked to begin with) that ever becoming a contributing member of society will require divine intervention or pure luck.

Rehabilitation is (nominally, anyhow) the juvenile legal system. They do reserve the option of incarceration and punishment, but they're more interested in figuring out what happened, why, and how to ensure it doesn't happen again.

If it isn't obvious, I favor the latter regardless of the age of the accused.

It's not an insult, it's the truth.

They don't... that's why we differentiate between adult and child.

The kid who stabbed these people? He's still a child. One that obviously needs some help.

I favor the latter generally as well, even more so with the current information in this case.

Doesn't seem to be from an estranged home, doesn't seem to be callous towards his actions, maybe partially ignorant, but not callous like a psychopath would be. It's an unfortunate event overall, and I would rather see treatment than emotional revenge crap.

Yes, in this particular case that would be an opinion.

So glad your world is so black and white.

I'm not a predator, and you can seriously go *** yourself by asserting as much.

My point was either we need to treat people by a case by case basis on whether or not they're a child, on everything not just when they get in trouble, or we need to stick to the mildly arbitrary number.

not have it as both.

Where does it say that Jet is a predator?

Or are you assuming?

I also favor the latter, since he'll have to live with his actions the rest of his life, and so will his victims, and there will be no getting past that. But there can be a chance to overcome the harshness if he can be rehabilitated.