Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: iago on December 09, 2003, 01:21 AM
But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal?  If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?

It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).

No alcohol, no drugs, no sex. Poor 14-year-olds

Quote from: Adron on December 12, 2003, 02:39 PM

Quote from: iago on December 09, 2003, 01:21 AM
But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal?  If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?

It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).

No alcohol, no drugs, no sex. Poor 14-year-olds

Why isn't it their decision to make?

Grok - I know TONS of people who drive after drinking.  I worked at a bar, and almost everybody who went there did.  Do you really think they would be able to regulate driving under the influence of drugs, or would that just create even more drivers-under-the-influence?

Cause a thirty year old guy could dominate a 14 year old girl?

Quote from: iago on December 12, 2003, 07:28 PM

Quote from: Adron on December 12, 2003, 02:39 PM

Quote from: iago on December 09, 2003, 01:21 AM
But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal?  If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?

It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).

No alcohol, no drugs, no sex. Poor 14-year-olds

Why isn't it their decision to make?

Grok - I know TONS of people who drive after drinking.  I worked at a bar, and almost everybody who went there did.  Do you really think they would be able to regulate driving under the influence of drugs, or would that just create even more drivers-under-the-influence?

Thanks for making my point for me again.  The things you keep bringing up, what you're really against, are already illegal.  Driving under the influence, damaging other people's property, wreckless driving, hurting other people, all those and more have laws for punishment.

Most of the arguments against allowing people to make their own decisions about drugs are related to those people breaking laws which would exist with or without drugs.  If you want to outlaw any reason that would cause someone to break a law, then you have to outlaw employers firing people just before Christmas, outlaw girlfriends dumping their boyfriends, etc.  Let's just make anything that contributes to crime illegal in its own right.

Quote from: Grok on December 12, 2003, 11:54 PM

Quote from: iago on December 12, 2003, 07:28 PM

Quote from: Adron on December 12, 2003, 02:39 PM

Quote from: iago on December 09, 2003, 01:21 AM
But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal?  If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?

It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).

No alcohol, no drugs, no sex. Poor 14-year-olds

Why isn't it their decision to make?

Grok - I know TONS of people who drive after drinking.  I worked at a bar, and almost everybody who went there did.  Do you really think they would be able to regulate driving under the influence of drugs, or would that just create even more drivers-under-the-influence?

Thanks for making my point for me again.  The things you keep bringing up, what you're really against, are already illegal.  Driving under the influence, damaging other people's property, wreckless driving, hurting other people, all those and more have laws for punishment.

Most of the arguments against allowing people to make their own decisions about drugs are related to those people breaking laws which would exist with or without drugs.  If you want to outlaw any reason that would cause someone to break a law, then you have to outlaw employers firing people just before Christmas, outlaw girlfriends dumping their boyfriends, etc.  Let's just make anything that contributes to crime illegal in its own right.

I agree, based on your arguments, that firing people just before chrismas and girlfriends dumping their boyfriends, etc. should be illegal because the people are hurting each other:

QuoteThat's entirely different from saying we should revoke laws which penalize people from hurting each other.  And remember, laws penalize, they don't prevent except through fear of penalty.  Some things we have to demonize to get people to accept laws against them, and to follow them

Also, you're saying that if illicit drugs are made illegal, there won't be a lot more people driving under the influence?

Quote from: iago on December 13, 2003, 07:53 AM

Also, you're saying that if illicit drugs are made illegal, there won't be a lot more people driving under the influence?

It's hard to say. It's not unlikely at all that there would be a similar amount of people driving under the influence.

My reasoning:

People who use drugs illegally now and drive would continue to do so.

People who avoid illegal drugs because they are illegal, but would drive after taking legal drugs probably drink and drive already today.

People who don't drink and drive today probably wouldn't take drugs and drive either.

It all depends on the drug, weed doesn't make you do risky things, usually you become more cautious about your surroundings when you are high.  But if we're talking about PCP or something, then yeah I'd understand why you dont want people driving.

Quote from: iago on December 12, 2003, 07:28 PM

Quote from: Adron on December 12, 2003, 02:39 PM
It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).

Why isn't it their decision to make?

It's not their decision to make because they're immature, unable to think clearly, and unable to make good decisions. Just look at us, vL, and ask yourself: Why do we exist?

The real answer is that we were pestered too much by immature 14-year-olds on b.net, and wanted somewhere to get away from all that.

Unfortunately having the same rules apply equally to all 14-year-olds is a bit unfair. Some of them actually do think clearly. It would however be too expensive and complex to have mandatory tests that everyone would have to take to prove that they are mature and can think clearly. We can do that in vL, but it simply wouldn't work on a nation-wide scale.

So, they had to pick a simpler rule, and what they did was to pick up on the correlation between age and maturity. When you're 18, you may drive a car, you may drink a beer, you may smoke a cigarette, you may have sex, you may get married, and perhaps some day you may take drugs.

That brings up another question: why 18?  All of a sudden, at 18, people become responsible?  That seems way to arbitrary, they should just make it legal at any age.

I'm 20, I've been able to drink for 2 years (not that I do, but that's besides the point).  If I got to the US, I still can't drink legally, which I think is silly.  I'm as mature as I'm getting, and I'm sure most people my age are.

Another point is that everybody under legal age has drank, smoked, or done whatever if they want to.  It doesn't stop them; it's pretty silly to try.

Quote from: iago on December 13, 2003, 09:17 AM
That brings up another question: why 18?  All of a sudden, at 18, people become responsible?  That seems way to arbitrary, they should just make it legal at any age.

I already commented on those objections in my post... Since having a nation-wide mandatory test of maturity is too complex and expensive, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's clearly unreasonable to allow 3-year-olds to do whatever they feel like. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

If you can propose a better method than age, which would have a higher correlation to maturity, please do!

Quote from: iago on December 13, 2003, 09:17 AM
Another point is that everybody under legal age has drank, smoked, or done whatever if they want to.  It doesn't stop them; it's pretty silly to try.

That's a point, but not a good one. I doubt that most 7-year-olds have drunk, even if they at that age are old enough to go to a candy store and buy some candy. Would you suggest that it be possible for them to go to the "candy store" and buy some beer?

(assuming they could afford it, and as candy stores would surely try to stock some alcoholic beverages for the kids if they were allowed)

Personally, I think that those under legal age who do drink and do whatever they want to should be marked "immature", and not be allowed to drink, drive or similar at the age of 18 either. Which is actually true for some cases here. If you drive a moped at the age of 14, when the minimum legal age required is 15, then you may not be able to get a (car) driving license permit when you're 18.

[I'll respond more to this tomorrow (later today, whatever), but just pointing out that this legal age thing should be split off to a new topic]

Quote from: iago on December 13, 2003, 09:17 AMI'm as mature as I'm getting, and I'm sure most people my age are.

No you're not, and yes, while you are sure now, you'll understand better as you mature.

For normally maturing people (adults), they can look back on themselves 5 years ago and realize they are a vastly different and more mature person.  This happens continuously.  Some people stop maturing at whatever age, and often their peers leave them behind, literally and figuratively.  You may be 29, and doing 29-year-old things, and suddenly 5 years later you're still 29, and your friends are all gone, doing 34-year-old things.

Well, that's true, but you're talking about in a slightly different context.  I mean that between 20 and 21, there isn't enough of a difference that I can drink at 21 but not at 20.

Quote from: iago on December 13, 2003, 07:39 PM
Well, that's true, but you're talking about in a slightly different context.  I mean that between 20 and 21, there isn't enough of a difference that I can drink at 21 but not at 20.

So?  For simplicity of enforcement, they legislate an age where most people reach a maturity to handle it.  You may have already reached that point, or not.  If you were mature enough, you might easily understand it.  But since it has a personal effect on you and you are not demonstrating that you can separate the issue from your personal feelings, maybe you are not mature enough and the law is doing a good job.  

Quote from: Grok on December 13, 2003, 08:21 PM

Quote from: iago on December 13, 2003, 07:39 PM
Well, that's true, but you're talking about in a slightly different context.  I mean that between 20 and 21, there isn't enough of a difference that I can drink at 21 but not at 20.

So?  For simplicity of enforcement, they legislate an age where most people reach a maturity to handle it.  You may have already reached that point, or not.  If you were mature enough, you might easily understand it.  But since it has a personal effect on you and you are not demonstrating that you can separate the issue from your personal feelings, maybe you are not mature enough and the law is doing a good job.  

Actually, it doesn't have a personal effect on me because
a) I'm in Canada, where legal age is no more than 19.
b) I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs anyway

[edit] Also, what seems silly is that in Canada, not only am I allowed to buy and drink it, I can (and did) sell it.  I took a course and have a card saying that I can sell beer.  But yet, in the states, I can't even drink it? Your crazy country, I say.