World News Today, brought to you by TW

[Trueten]

The 17 y.olds? The only emotional damage they got is the understanding of the fact, that their tenises send women to prison.

 

[Austupaio]

To be fair, that's big publicized events, I'm sure that more often than not, anyone who has an experience like this and enjoyed it just doesn't talk about it. Doesn't justify her actions, nor make her innocent.

 

[rebelknight]

Sex doesn't cause emotional damage

Rape.

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

I'm guessing Aus has a point here.

 

[Austupaio]

My point was that a consensual relationship with a sexy woman should not send said sexy woman to prison.

Yes, clearly, she should charged differently because she's attractive. That's exactly how the legal system should work.

Sex doesn't cause emotional damage, neither do consistent A's.

Says the person who's never had any. If ever you've said anything more stupid due to your age, I missed it.

Seriously, that's one of the stupidest ****ing things I've read today and /b/ raided my board earlier.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Sex regularly causes emotional distress even when it is consensual and age appropriate. When one of the parties is too young to be mentally capable of consent, sex is neither of those things.

 

[Jace]

Potentially getting several thousand dollars from lawsuits can also bubble up significant emotional damages.

 

[TheFlyingFishy]

>Florida
>Sexy women

Choose one.

I feel like anyone who thinks it's a good idea to have sex with their teacher probably isn't developed enough to have sex with their teacher, but 22 years strikes me as comparatively harsh compared to similar cases I've heard about. Not that I'm trying to justify it one way or another. The main issue, I'd say, is abuse of authority rather than the age differences.


ninja

 

[Patchouli Knowledge]

22 years may be excessive in this case, but if you could prove it caused emotional damage equivalent to being molested as a child I'd say it's totally justified.

 

[Arvenski]

When one of the parties is too young to be mentally capable of consent, sex is neither of those things.

Which wasn't the case in this instance, unless the 17 year-olds in question had developmental disabilities or something...


Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

 

[TheFlyingFishy]

22 years may be excessive in this case, but if you could prove it caused emotional damage equivalent to being molested as a child I'd say it's totally justified.

Yes. Like I said, I don't much care either way, but make note of the probability of anyone who willingly has sex with their teacher is probably more prone than others to have negative emotional consequences, or, more likely, intensify their pre-existing damages. Again, I think the abuse of authority is more damning than age in this particular instance.

 

[Austupaio]

I suppose you haven't been dickish to me for the point of it, that I could take your judgement here.

Maybe there was some miscommunication somewhere, I donno, but not even talking about this case, just think about your statement there. Just because sex is consensual doesn't mean it's all happy fun times all the time forever.

Again, I think the abuse of authority is more damning than age in this particular instance.

That's where I generally have the most issue myself, yeah.

 

[Mage246]

You don't have to have emotional issues to want to have sex with your teacher. You just have to think your teacher is hot. Of course, wanting to do it and actually do it are two different things. But that's also a function of whether or not you'd have even had the opportunity to do so.

 

[Dodes]

22 years may be excessive in this case, but if you could prove it caused emotional damage equivalent to being molested as a child I'd say it's totally justified.

Yes, I wanted to post again that 22 years seems a bit much, but I'll just emphasize and repeat this instead as that's exactly what I agree with.

Dirk Robbing, Arvenski, Mage, have any of you known or been close enough to someone who was has been raped? Because my understanding of rape changed dramatically after I knew 3 women who had been raped - one of them my sister-in-law.

That all said, a lot of all this talk has been highly presumptuous as we don't know the exact specifics, which is a shame for talking about it.

 

[Wheem]

Except no baker is required to include speech that they don't want to include.

And forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding isn't also forcing them to say that gay marriage is A-OK? Some of you guys got all bent out of shape about words being on a cake, but that's not the only way to convey a message. Lets go ahead and use a particular symbol that's been in the media a lot lately; the Confederate Battle Flag. It should be pretty obvious that some people view it as racist, while others do not. If some customer asks a baker (who happens to be a member of the first group), to bake a cake with said flag as a design element, do you believe that the baker has a right to refuse? If not, just how much should the state grind him/her under its heel? Is $135,000 too much? Not enough? Should they do some prison time, too?

What they can't do is deny service outright to a person for discriminatory reasons. There was another recent case that demonstrates this idea perfectly where a man ordered a cake with anti-gay messages written on it and promptly took the baker to court when they refused. The thing is, he wasn't denied service. They offered to bake him a cake and even provide him with the materials to add the language himself. What they refused was the speech, not the service. They didn't claim that they wouldn't serve the man because he was Christian or white or republican, etc. That's an important difference people outraged over this subject never seem to understand.

If the bakers had offered to make the lesbian couple a regular cake, as in this other case, and sell them two sets of decorations so that they would have two brides to put on top, would that have been good enough? I somehow doubt it.

Because as a customer I'm not offering a service and I'm under no obligation to spend my money in any way other than how I choose for the reasons I choose. But if I'm in the service industry I am offering a service, and by opening my business I've agreed to follow the rules that we've created to protect minorities from discrimination that causes real problems. Those rules might apply to situations where lives aren't at stake and alternatives are present, and that's fine.

Yea, that's the usual argument, and I disagree completely. People's right to association (and disassociation) should be respected, and not vanish the minute that they decide to open up a storefront. If someone doesn't like how others are running their business (ie, by refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay couples), then they should criticize, spread the word about perceived injustices, start a boycott, etc...not act like a child and go crying to "authority figures," demanding that they punish those that hurt their feelings.

And that should apply to buyers AND sellers; individuals AND businesses. Since you seem to disagree, and only want sellers forced into transactions that go against their conscience, I'll go ahead and mention that I've read that "Sweetcakes by Melissa" has apparently been moved into the owners' home, and is now an orders only business. This means that they are no longer considered a public accommodation, and can refuse to sell gay wedding cakes at will. I assume that you're OK with a gay grocery store owner being forced to sell them any ingredients that they want, even if it goes against his conscience; knowing that any cakes made from those ingredients wouldn't be available for gay weddings. If he does side with his deeply held beliefs...well, time to squash him for being such a bigot. Or maybe he should dodge the issue by closing his own doors, and just using the building as a warehouse for online/phone orders?

Why is it not better to get the government out of the way, and let markets handle things when businesses discriminate? All this theoretical, "groups X, Y, and Z will all starve/be dressed in rags/be perpetually bored/etc...because everyone would ban them from their stores!" is ridiculous. We might as well lower the speed limit to 15mph because a unicorn might try to cross the road, and gosh it sure would be a horrible tragedy if someone ran over it.

 

[K-64]

Sex regularly causes emotional distress even when it is consensual and age appropriate. When one of the parties is too young to be mentally capable of consent, sex is neither of those things.

I wouldn't say 17 is too young to be mentally capable of consent. Especially considering how the age of consent over here is 16. And doesn't the US have some funny business about ages of consent when there's less than X years difference in a number of states?

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

I doubt any of them have the X set as 13 or over.

 

[K-64]

That wasn't really the point. The point was that even the legal system of the US recognises that 17 year olds are old enough to consent. Usually with some extra odd clauses.

 

[Austupaio]

You're describing discrimination. What does slavery have to do with it? Are you a slave to your customers?
Should physicians/nurses, real estate agents, merchants, car salesmen etc. be allowed to refuse service to some?
You could end up having an entire group of people being denied basic needs.

I bet doctors and nurses find this whole discussion silly. They can't just deny treatment to a person they don't like.
They're obligated to treat murderers and other despicable people equally; and you won't sell them a cake...

Apparently, yes, you are a slave to your customers if you must serve them under threat of the court ruining your life by awarding the customers a sum larger than the average salary. Any of those people should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason they like, because they are free human beings in a, supposedly, free country operating a business in a, supposedly, free economy. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.

The idea of entire groups of people being denied basic needs is bull**** slippery slope non-sense. There are thousands of bakers in Oregon, the majority of which would have probably made this cake. If and when a service is monopolized by a bigoted entity should it be investigated, not before.

Also, I would say the doctors being obligated to treat murderers is non-sense too. Should they have to treat a rapist? How about if the rapist raped their own daughter? They may choose to, but they should never be forced to.

This whole idea of forcing someone to do something they obviously are uncomfortable with and don't believe in is exactly the sort of thing the left should be fighting, not lauding.

It is rightful, then, for a bank to refuse to serve a man just because he has dark skin? And if all of the banks in an area have this view? It is rightful that he (and everyone like him) should have restrictions on their ability to manage and use their personal finances because they're unfortunate enough to live among bigots?

You do not have to do business with me if you don't like me or if I smell or if you have a consistent policy (no shirt, no shoes, no service) in which I am in violation, but no public accommodation can institute a policy of discrimination.

It sure is, if all of the bankers decide that they are uncomfortable with it. If all of the banks in the area have that view, an incredibly outlandish and tinfoil-tier scenario, then that is interfering with the black's rights to engage in banking and the monopoly should be investigated then.

Public accommodation =/= private business. A woman baking cakes in her home's oven for cash is not a public service.

 

[Patchouli Knowledge]

Not just doctors, either. I should be able to kill people I don't like too.