my year 7 maths teacher got arrested for child porn

[brendan]

in Victoria:

13 and 16 yo have sex: illegal
16 and 66 yo have sex: legal

go figure

[Collin Li]

I'm not going to be morally biased like you. I say it's impractical because it's not legally practical to expect children to consent without a great risk of manipulative coercion.

When you say it is "wrong," it is bigoted in that you are implying children should never have sex, despite whether they have right to consent or not.

How is it bigoted that I don't believe children under 10 should have sex?
And it is not being 'morally biased' - both my opinion and your opinion are affected by our own morals, wether we agree or not, and that is not a bad thing

My point is that your moral point of view has nothing to do with how law should be enforced. If you think "homosexuality is wrong, hence let's ban it," that is unjustified. However, I made the case that it's impractical to let children consent, hence lets ban it.

It's a subtle difference, but it's an important one for policy making. We cannot concede to letting moral viewpoints dictate law, but instead we should stick to logical legal principles.

[Pencil]

My point is that your moral point of view has nothing to do with how law should be enforced. If you think "homosexuality is wrong, hence let's ban it," that is unjustified. However, I made the case that it's impractical to let children consent, hence lets ban it.

It's a subtle difference, but it's an important one for policy making. We cannot concede to letting moral viewpoints dictate law, but instead we should stick to logical legal principles.

haha, very sneaky how you've replaced it with homosexuality. Of course it is unjustified to ban homosexuality, that is completely different from banning children under 10 from having sex. The idea that policy making shouldn't reflect moral viewpoints is equally ludicrous. Laws need to reflect our views in order to be effective. Yes, of course, sometimes just because something is the view of the majority doesn't make it right, but generally that's how the law works, and it's a good system

[Galelleo]

Its impractical because children under 10 especially are incapable of handling those situations.. they havent the experience nor the intuition to deal with a situation like that. thats why its not legal for them to give consent.

and what Coblin said about being morally biased is the same as wht i said before about ignoring the truth simply because you dont like the idea of it (ie. kiddie porn is nasty so  lets pretend its the devil and has no relevance to us because everything around us is saintly).

[Collin Li]

My point is that your moral point of view has nothing to do with how law should be enforced. If you think "homosexuality is wrong, hence let's ban it," that is unjustified. However, I made the case that it's impractical to let children consent, hence lets ban it.

It's a subtle difference, but it's an important one for policy making. We cannot concede to letting moral viewpoints dictate law, but instead we should stick to logical legal principles.

haha, very sneaky how you've replaced it with homosexuality. Of course it is unjustified to ban homosexuality, that is completely different from banning children under 10 from having sex. The idea that policy making shouldn't reflect moral viewpoints is equally ludicrous. Laws need to reflect our views in order to be effective. Yes, of course, sometimes just because something is the view of the majority doesn't make it right, but generally that's how the law works, and it's a good system

No! Liberty is a good system, not a democratic moral code! The only reason why I do not support children having sex is because I don't believe in the practice of allowing them the ability to consent (for the reason of manipulative coercion, as I explained before). However, you think it should be banned because you think it is "wrong." Well, I don't care whether you think it's wrong. It is irrelevant what you think, because as long as an act does not harm anyone else, or it is mutually consented, then there is no problem.

I used "homosexuality" not because I was sneaky, but because it was a common point we would agree on to show that morals should not be used in law. Law should uphold liberty, and liberty is defined as an act that does not harm another. The child's age of consent is an exception, where we must consider coercion as a major factor of defining his/her liberties.

Essentially, we agree on the final law, but our means are different. My argument is for liberty, your argument is for morals by democracy. In my opinion, liberty outranks a democratic moral code.

[Galelleo]

haha, very sneaky how you've replaced it with homosexuality.

its not sneaky, nor is it unrelatd... its a form of sexuality so its very relevant in this discussion... considering that 100 years ago people like us would look on homosexuality the same way that were looking on paedofilia now.
Although of course paedofilia isnt liekly to become accepted in ourt culture because our laws ARE governed by logic... and its impractical to consider a relationship between and adult and a child the same as one betweeen two adults (of any gender)

[brendan]

Yes, of course, sometimes just because something is the view of the majority doesn't make it right, but generally that's how the law works, and it's a good system

If the law has any purpose at all, it is to ensure and protect individual liberty.

[Pencil]

No! Liberty is a good system, not a democratic moral code! The only reason why I do not support children having sex is because I don't believe in the practice of allowing them the ability to consent (for the reason of manipulative coercion, as I explained before).

I used "homosexuality" not because I was sneaky, but because it was a common point we would agree on to show that morals should not be used in law. Law should uphold liberty, and liberty is defined as an act that does not harm another. The child's age of consent is an exception, where we must consider coercion as a major factor.

Essentially, we agree on the final law, but our means are different. My argument is for liberty, your argument is for democracy. In my opinion, liberty outranks democracy.

I would say the two concepts are very closely related.
I do see your point, often the majority view has led to the mistreatment of minority groups and affected their liberty, and laws relating to homosexuals is a good example (of course we are slowly improving). However this doesn't mean that morals have no place in our law, and should be ignored. We can't simply look at everything with a 'practicality' approach

[Collin Li]

I don't understand where morals have a place in law. Give me an example, and I will either explain why it is wrong, or why there is an argument for it in terms of liberty (usually to do with someone harming one another without consent).

Morals that do not have an argument for it in terms of liberty only violate other people's liberties with the only benefit of the tyranny of the majority.

[Pencil]

its not sneaky, nor is it unrelatd... its a form of sexuality so its very relevant in this discussion... considering that 100 years ago people like us would look on homosexuality the same way that were looking on paedofilia now.
Although of course paedofilia isnt liekly to become accepted in ourt culture because our laws ARE governed by logic... and its impractical to consider a relationship between and adult and a child the same as one betweeen two adults (of any gender)

Once again I don't like how you are drawing a link between paedophelia and homosexuality. Yes, the treatment of homosexuals in our society has been wrong, doesn't mean that has any relevance

[Collin Li]

its not sneaky, nor is it unrelatd... its a form of sexuality so its very relevant in this discussion... considering that 100 years ago people like us would look on homosexuality the same way that were looking on paedofilia now.
Although of course paedofilia isnt liekly to become accepted in ourt culture because our laws ARE governed by logic... and its impractical to consider a relationship between and adult and a child the same as one betweeen two adults (of any gender)

Once again I don't like how you are drawing a link between paedophelia and homosexuality. Yes, the treatment of homosexuals in our society has been wrong, doesn't mean that has any relevance

His point is that a moral code of law (decided by democracy) is inconsistent, because 100 years ago we would have no homosexuality. Now we are tolerating. Now, think of the moral viewpoint of children having sex. Will that ever change? No, because it undermines responsible definitions of liberty, not because moral viewpoints will change.

His point is that morals are not a strong pillar for the law, but instead, we should respect individual liberty as the primary facet of law-making.

[Pencil]

I don't understand where morals have a place in law. Give me an example, and I will either explain why it is wrong, or why there is an argument for it in terms of liberty (usually to do with someone harming one another without consent).

But isn't that how they are related? In our society we value liberty, we don't believe people should go around harming other people - it's all part of our morals

[Galelleo]

im not trying to say that its incorrect to treat htem that way... im trying to support coblins argument by saying let us not judge too harshly less we ourselves be judged (thats a bible quote right there...right?)

[Collin Li]

I don't understand where morals have a place in law. Give me an example, and I will either explain why it is wrong, or why there is an argument for it in terms of liberty (usually to do with someone harming one another without consent).

But isn't that how they are related? In our society we value liberty, we don't believe people should go around harming other people - it's all part of our morals

I guess you could argue that liberty is the highest moral. It is the only moral that makes sense to be applied in law, because it is the moral that allows everyone to choose morals for themselves (where there is no absolute moral code, this is the most humble and humane option).

The value of the Harm Principle (the idea that we cannot harm each other) is a fundamental idea of liberty, because this is how we can all live with our own morals. There is no need to enforce morals among other people.

The most important thing is we respect each other's rights.

[Galelleo]

I don't understand where morals have a place in law. Give me an example, and I will either explain why it is wrong, or why there is an argument for it in terms of liberty (usually to do with someone harming one another without consent).

But isn't that how they are related? In our society we value liberty, we don't believe people should go around harming other people - it's all part of our morals

I wouldnt say that... i would say that in law, practicality is often based on common decency + respect for others.