Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I thanked posts that said you were off the edge a little bit. I thought you made some good points, but you also made some bad posts in that thread (no offence).
|
Sure bud. You know why I was off the edge? People were excusing the actions of a child rapist. You would be to if you took the same stance that a 16 year old was a child which you're trying to pretend to do now.
Teacher charged with sexual assault after his former student reveals that she was taken advantage of at 16.
One argument: At 16 she had the ability to consent and might have wanted it, therefore just because they had sex doesn't automatically make the teacher a pervert.
My (and Canadian law) argument: As the teacher was in an authority position, this was rape. She had no ability to consent and trying to argue she was asking for it was victim blaming and disgusting.
You thanked the people making the first argument. I'm sure you wouldn't be thanking that if you replaced 16 with 6 in that first argument. Or at least I pray you wouldn't be, so no you can't take the hard line stance that a child is a child regardless of whether they are 6 or 16. You've already shown your thoughts on that.