Posts by jp1692

some believe protesters have the “right” to block main roads, traffic and other places simply because they have a right to protest something.. in la, two deputies were ambushed and shot in the head and as the ambulance tried to take the fallen deputies to the emergency room, protesters blocked the way chanting they wished the police would die!

.

in nyc blm protesters blocked the george washington bridge and other major highways and streets to protest for their cause.. do you think this is acceptable?

jp1692

No, of course not!

10

Would You Be Comfortable Wearing Political Attire or Putting Political Bumper Stickers?

by minimus in

jw
friends

some people get triggered if they see something they don’t like.

you can’t even talk about your preferences with some people because they get very upset.

would you freely talk about politics or show who you support?

jp1692

Of course I would.

And I suggest you all carefully observe the respectful and tolerant reactions to the expression of my personal “preferences” by all the ex-cult members here. It will be interesting and informative to see what happens.

Let's watch and see if, as Minimus said, "some people ... get very upset."

70

California passes bill lessening penalty for pedophiles having sex with willing kids.

by mickbobcat in

i was wondering about this.

if california or other far left groups in charge would push for making pedophiles quote normal unquote.

so it passed but has yet to be signed by newsom.

jp1692

It's informative to see how disparate the age of consent is around the world and how it has changed over history, with ages ranging widely from as young as 10 years old (or even lower) to as high as 20. Although there are some records going back eight hundred years or so, in Western countries they are pretty sketchy before the mid- to late-19th Century.

In traditional societies, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menarche for a woman, and pubic hair for a man, “but the boundaries remained fluid.” Reliable data for ages at marriage is scarce [See Footnote: 1].

Even now, the age of consent varies by jurisdiction across Europe. The ages of consent are currently set between 14 and 18. The vast majority of countries set their ages in the range of 14 to 16; only three countries, Cyprus (17), Ireland (17), Turkey (18) do not fit into this pattern (Ages of consent in Europe).

An eye-opening look at sexual consent ages around Europe, mapped | indy100

Over the course of American history, the most commonly observed age of consent was 10 years. As late as 1880, 37 states had an age of consent of 10 years while 10 states kept an age of consent at 12, and Delaware maintained its age of consent at seven years, having lowered it from 10 in 1871 [See Footnotes: 2 & 3]. Most of the higher age ranges that we see currently came about during the early 20th Century.

Also, many jurisdictions have close-in-age exemptions, or so-called "Romeo & Juliet" laws. For instance, in Canada, the age of consent is 16, but there are two close-in-age exemptions: sex with minors aged 14–15 is permitted if the partner is less than five years older, and sex with minors aged 12–13 is permitted if the partner is less than two years older [See Footnote: 4].

In the United States, there exist several federal statutes related to protecting minors from sexual predators, but none of them imposes an age limit on sexual acts. Each U.S. state has its own age of consent, as does the District of Columbia. As of August 1, 2018, the age of consent in each state in the United States was either 16, 17, or 18 years of age, with the most common age of consent being 16 years of age. About half of the states have a Close-In-Age Exemption [See Footnotes: 5].

It's hard to logically and equitably reconcile why sexual activity between two willing and consenting individuals would be legal in Alabama or Georgia, but the exact same act would be illegal in Florida—a state which borders both of those other states. Two couples could engage in the exact same sexual activity literally feet way from each other on opposite sides of the state line and have drastically different legal outcomes. In the first two states, they are fine; But in Florida, someone's going to jail. Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn't to me.

In contrast, the close in age exceptions does make sense in certain, specific situations—situations which are easily understood. Consider these two very different scenarios to illustrate the point:

Two young adults in living in Georgia and who have know each other for awhile have begun a romantic relationship. Both sets of parents know each other and approve of their children's relationship. As it turns out, their birthdays are just one day apart. On the day the older one turns 16, they have consensual sex for the first time. The younger one is still less than 24 hours away from their 16th birthday, so technically the older one has committed statutory rape—although neither of them would think of their experience that way. On the contrary, they both believe they are very much in love with each other. Nevertheless, according to the Georgia Penal Code § 16-6-3, the older one could possibly be sentenced to 1 to 20 years in prison. Does that really make sense?
Compare that to a more egregious situation where a 50-year-old individual in a position of authority and trust who over time psychologically grooms, emotionally manipulates and then sexually abuses a young, prepubescent and naive child, even threatening and intimidating that child to maintain their silence.

Of course, these are two very different scenarios—that's the point. They would be understood that way and treated that way by any reasonable person.

I doubt that very many people, if any, would think that these two extremely different hypothetical examples should be treated the same. That is the point that extreme examples can clearly elucidate. The second example is clearly a gross and heinous crime and the perpetrator should be severely punished. In the first example, most people would probably be totally understanding and just hope our two young lovers practiced safe-sex. (Religious fundamentalists would disagree of course and would almost certainly have a different, harsher and more "Puritanical" view. But those of us living in the 21st Century would not.)

Reasonable people can easily see the differences between extreme cases. Yet things quickly get more complicated as we move from hypothetical extremes to the more common real-life acts which are often complex and frequently obscured in moral shades of gray.

If we can't even agree on what is the appropriate age of consent, we will likely never come to agreement on how to handle those morally muddy areas. Nevertheless, it is good to examine the issues with a clear mind absent outdated religious mores and informed by our historical and cultural context, biological facts and sound logical reasoning.

Works Cited:

1. Bullough, Vern. "Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society". faqs.org. Internet FAQ Archives. Archived from the original on 28 September 2008. Retrieved 25 August 2015.

2. Purity Congress Meets, The New York Times, 15 October 1895.

3. Children & Youth in History, University of Missouri-Kansas City.

4. "Canada's age of consent raised by 2 years". CBC News. 1 May 2008.

5."Age of Consent across the United States". AgeOfConsent.net. Retrieved 1 August 2018.

6. Sandra Norman-Eady, Sandra. Statutory Rape Laws by State. 14 April 2003. OLR Research Report.

84

Does Anybody Here Sympathize With The Looters That Cause Destruction?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i realize some here are diehard democrats.

whether you are democrat, republican or independent, do you support any of these looters that cause mayhem and destruction for their cause?

i have heard some people sympathize with these law breakers saying they understand why they do what they do and leave it at that.. of course i wonder how they would feel if their own property was burnt or stolen or destroyed..

jp1692

Minimus: Whether I was ever a JW or not has nothing to do with it.

My last post was directed to DwainBowman’s inflammatory post, as I made clear in the text. It had nothing to do with you. That’s twice in this thread you’ve thought posts of mine were directed to you when they weren’t. It’s not always about you! 👍

Apparently Simon removed DB’s post—as he should have. That kind of hate speech doesn’t belong here—or anywhere for that matter.

84

Does Anybody Here Sympathize With The Looters That Cause Destruction?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i realize some here are diehard democrats.

whether you are democrat, republican or independent, do you support any of these looters that cause mayhem and destruction for their cause?

i have heard some people sympathize with these law breakers saying they understand why they do what they do and leave it at that.. of course i wonder how they would feel if their own property was burnt or stolen or destroyed..

jp1692

Where I live in California, the penalties for looting are somewhat less severe than what someone like DwainBowman suggested in the post above:

Under Penal Code 463 PC, California law defines “looting” as taking advantage of a state of emergency to commit burglary, grand theft or petty theft. Looting charges can be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony and is punishable by up to 3 years in jail.

As I have repeatedly said on this thread, looting is a crime which should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm glad we no longer live in a society with primitive and draconian laws and punishments such as Bowman suggests.

It's weird how people who have left a cult such as Jehovah's Witnesses will still hold onto punitive, vengeful emotions indulged by that evil book known as the Bible and exemplified by its main character, the capricious and jealous desert god: Jehovah.

84

Does Anybody Here Sympathize With The Looters That Cause Destruction?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i realize some here are diehard democrats.

whether you are democrat, republican or independent, do you support any of these looters that cause mayhem and destruction for their cause?

i have heard some people sympathize with these law breakers saying they understand why they do what they do and leave it at that.. of course i wonder how they would feel if their own property was burnt or stolen or destroyed..

jp1692

Minimus: Regarding the incorrect picture used, you are asking ME why they used it.

No, it's a rhetorical question asked of anyone and everyone reading this thread. It's not about you.

When I say "protesters," I mean protesters. Just as when I say "rioters," I mean rioters. They're not the same (although I acknowledge that an individual could do both). I was making a distinction between two separate activities—one legal and the other not. You seemed to understand that in your post on the first page in response to mine.

I'm not responsible for what other people say, including—and maybe especially—the media and politicians.

Minimus: Rioters are often called protesters by the media and others.

And protesters are often called rioters by the media and certain politicians. Like I said, I'm not responsible for what other people say.

Minimus: Like I said, they could have a number of pics from different cities in America that have been affected by the peaceful protesters.

Agreed. It's weird they didn't. We can only speculate why.

43

Today's WT Study: "Return to Jehovah" - Lots of Elephants in the Room

by Room 215 in

today's article prods active jws to participate in the effort to reactivate us backsliders.. unfortunately, it fails to prepare the participants to adequately address the real reasons so many have left and want nothing frtherethan to be left alone: the un and child abuse scandals, prophetic failures; dumbed-down, increasingly specious and simplistic verbiage in literature and talks, the cult of personality and unwarranted veneration of those 8 singularly unremarkable members of the gb, etc., etc..

jp1692

Thank you for that, JWGB.

People who have never been in a cult may try to understand the pain that results from the destruction of family bonds, but—try as they might—they just can't.

Your words of empathy are comforting.

Again, thanks!

jp