Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
This is misguided from the first sentence.What about those countries? Those countries also see women as property. We don't, and we have laws prohibiting what you're talking about. We set those laws based on our understanding of the ability of the person to make informed choices about their behaviour and relationships with other consenting adults.
|
And they have laws allowing it.
The point was the abiding by the law maybe shouldn't be the only measure. Ironically you're illustrating the same thing by showing those countries have it wrong despite being within their laws.
Quote:
At 18/19, a person can vote, pay taxes, drink, smoke, get a tattoo without parental / guardian approval, but all that and they aren't trusted with the agency of whom they go to bed with?
The limit for some people in this thread being 'the law' isn't necessarily only because 'the law' is stopping them, this is an unfounded assumption. In this instance, the law reflects our society's beliefs at large about at what age someone is capable of making and accepting accountability for decisions that affect them, when to recognize their status as an adult.
|
I don't have a problem with this logic; but it's not what the post I responded to was saying. My assumption wasn't unfounded based on what was posted.
If you're suggesting our laws probably have the age right and someone at that age has the agency to make those decisions, I don't have a problem with your position.
There's a difference in saying "we have the law right" vs "as long as it's within the law".
The first has you using moral judgement on the appropriateness of our laws, the 2nd has your morality based only in conforming to the laws.