Teacher Arrested For Sexual Relationshp With Student

[the171]

Actually, it was last month. Time fles.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='mme_hardy' timestamp='1331842956' post='2401356']
The problem with slippery-slope arguments taken to excess, is that you can take a small group as proof of forthcoming peril. NAMBLA exists. Pro-bestiality organizations exist. There are people all over the U.S.advocating for unusual sexual and political positions: which ones will actually get big enough to have influence is another matter.
[/quote]

Ok, but I think the argument was that NAMBLA et. all employ the same LOGIC as pro-homosexual groups. I don't know nearly enough about NAMBLA to say I agree or not, but that's where the arguments at yo, not necessarily if these groups will gain power, but the similarities in the ideologies they have.

The problem is that people don't like to follow out their logic to the inevitable conclusions that arise when you approach the extremeties. Take Peter Singer for example. He's pro-choice, centering his argument that personhood arises when consciousness does, fetuses are not conscious (or fully conscious) ergo, abortion is OK. He then follows out his logic to say infanticide is acceptable because newborns have the same lack of consciousness.

Not many people I assume who are pro-choice, think infanticide is okie dokes, but that's where the logic takes you if you press far enough. And this should make pro-choice advocates uncomfortable and have them pause for a moment to question the logic as to why abortion is permissible.

I would argue that the acceptance of contraception slippery sloped its way into acceptance of homosexuality (something I'm sure most people would never have thought could happen), but it basically went like this: sex can be enjoyed by a husband and wife as a recreational activity, without the possibility of procreation. The two can be divorced.
Well why just a husband and a wife? That seems kind of arbitrary. Why we haz to be married if it's jus 4 funz?
And why do I as a female have to have sex with a man if I want to has secks atall? If sex is just a recreational activity, why can't I has sex with whoever I want?

Very general I kno. But the key to the avalanche down the slippery slope is the pattern of logic behind the impetus. I can imagine why homosexuals get annoyed when people say gay secks is rong by people who think that masturbation and contraception are alrighty. Because the logic is I can use my sexual falculty any way I wish, as long as it's NOT with someone of the same sex or (for the more traditional folk) I'm married.

Well that's frustratingly arbitrary isn't it? Gay sex iz bad cuz it's in the Bible. But if you're married to the opposite sex, do whatever you two crazy kids want. ANYTHING GOEZ AS LONG AS UR HAVIN FUN.
And if sex is merely reducible to a recreational activity with no further significance that only requires two consenting adults . . . well why adults?


[quote]There's a simple distinction between homosexuality and child molestation[/quote]
Is a 16 year-old post-pubescent person a child though? Can we rightfully call it child-molestation if he and a 19 year-old are partaking in sexual activities? We as a culture preach taht kids are going to have sex, so let's teach them about how to protect themselves so there's nothing wrong with two sixteen year olds getting down, but when one of them is 19, 20, 23, 45 . . . they all of the suddenly can't make a decision for themselves? I don't get that.

And I think we need to make an important distinction between child molestation and ebophilia.

[quote]
So, why can I support homosexuality but not bestiality or child molestation? Because they're different. An adult human is not the same as a child or a beast.
[/quote]

Again this is a terrible argument that doesn't get behind the issue at hand which is the logic people use to set parameters around sexual activity. Two consenting adults you say, but why only two? And what is an adult?

Edited March 17, 2012 by Ice_nine

[mme_hardy]

"[color=#282828] Two consenting adults you say, but why only two? And what is an adult? "[/color]

[color=#282828]The Church has to answer the same questions: "what is an adult?" [/color][color=#282828]Is a 16 year-old post-pubescent person a child though? Can we rightfully call it child-molestation if he and a 19 year-old are partaking in sexual activities?" T[/color]
[color=#282828]Definitions are difficult because boundaries are hard to define. That's why there's Canon law, and that's why there's state law. We all know that a two-year-old can't consent to sex. We all know that a thirty-year-old can't. We do accept the range. We all have areas we think are shaky -- I think everybody agrees 16 could be called either way. The fact that the borderlines are hard to define doesn't mean you can't make a distinction. Systems of laws make distinctions on blurry boundaries all the time. Have you really committed a burglary if you just open the window? What if you just put your arm in the window? What if you just opened the lock? That doesn't mean there's no such crime as burglary; it just means that definitions are difficult when you get to the boundary.[/color]
[font="'Segoe UI"][color="#282828"]In my ideal world, it's child abuse absolutely if one partner is 14-younger. That age of consent is going to be too low in some cases, too high in others; you could make just as good a case for 15, or possibly 16. But the fact that we can't agree where between 14-16 you place the border doesn't mean there's no border.[/color][/font]

[elizabeth09]

[quote name='mme_hardy' timestamp='1331842956' post='2401356']
I think 13-year-olds shouldn't be tried as adults. I think that trend is motivated by vengeance rather than justice. It's based on the idea that a young child can be "unsalvageable", and that imprisoning children alongside adults is appropriate.

The problem with slippery-slope arguments taken to excess, is that you can take a small group as proof of forthcoming peril. NAMBLA exists. Pro-bestiality organizations exist. There are people all over the U.S.advocating for unusual sexual and political positions: which ones will actually get big enough to have influence is another matter. The existence of any pressure group doesn't make it a trend. It's easy to look at the social changes of the last 60 years and say, for instance, "Look how contraception spread from being something shameful to being something taken for granted!" What that doesn't take account of is other attempts at social change that failed and died out along the way. The success of one social movement does not mean that all social movements will succeed: remember communes?

There's a simple distinction between homosexuality and child molestation: we protect children in ways we don't protect adults, and in particular we severely restrict a child's ability to make permanent decisions. When a thirty-year-old woman marries a thirty-year-old man, we give her the benefit of the doubt and assume it's an informed decision. The same goes for a thirty-year-old woman partnering with another thirty-year-old woman. No matter what you think of the decision, it's not babyish, it's not necessarily something she was pressured into, and nobody's saying "She'll grow out of it". We don't think about decisions made by adults in the same way as we think about decisions made by teenagers or children.

A similar argument goes for animals: animals cannot consent. So why can we kill them but not have sex with them? Good question. The only answer is that our society, as a whole, treats animals as a different class from people, with different rights. If you look for somebody who's trying to change that, PETA has a great deal more influence than any pro-bestiality organization. Does the existence of PETA mean that we're all going to go vegan? Not necessarily.

So, why can I support homosexuality but not bestiality or child molestation? Because they're different. An adult human is not the same as a child or a beast.
[/quote]

It really depends on what they are being tried for who it is as well.

[Papist]

If they allowed teachers to marry they would not have this problem.

[kujo]

I think that any rational person can draw a line in the sand and say "Having sex with children and animals is objectively wrong, while 2 dudes wanting to hug and kiss and get married is somewhat less so." This whole "slippery slope"/"take your arguments to their conclusion" stuff is bullcrap! I can take Atlantic Blvd. all the way east until I drive my car into the Atlantic Ocean; however, being a sensible adult who knows that such an action would, at the very least, result in the destruction of my car, I can say that I will NOT drive all the way into the water, and will instead stop when it is clearly time for me to do so. This doesn't mean that the entirety of Atlantic Blvd is EVIL...it means that if I want to be safe and not wreck my car, I need to turn off the road sometime before A1A.

I think we should all agree that 2 dudes having sex in the privacy of their own bedroom is absolutely less of a danger to society than predatory behavior by teachers and other adults in positions of authority over children.

Edited March 25, 2012 by kujo

[add]

.
choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil

[kujo]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332676378' post='2407809']
.
choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil
[/quote]

Okay.

But in this case, YOU don't have to choose anything. I'm not asking you to decide whether to have sex with a person of your same gender, or a dog. You arent involved at all, in fact, beyond the way you and others inject your own beliefs into the situation. If two people want to get married, it's none of your business and doesn't involve you in the slightest.

[add]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332678977' post='2407813']
Okay.

But in this case, YOU don't have to choose anything. I'm not asking you to decide whether to have sex with a person of your same gender, or a dog. You arent involved at all, in fact, beyond the way you and others inject your own beliefs into the situation. If two people want to get married, it's none of your business and doesn't involve you in the slightest.
[/quote]

I [b][u]try[/u][/b] to follow catholic beliefs, sometimes I fail. If this is offensive to you then I apologize.
When A 23 year old New York substitute teacher (female), was arrested for having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl a crime has been committed against my catholic beliefs and in State governments. I offer no apologize for said.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc[/media]

[kujo]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332687451' post='2407920']


I [b][u]try[/u][/b] to follow catholic beliefs, sometimes I fail. If this is offensive to you then I apologize.
When A 23 year old New York substitute teacher (female), was arrested for having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl a crime has been committed against my catholic beliefs and in State governments. I offer no apologize for said.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc[/media]
[/quote]

No one is saying you can't have your beliefs. But you can't expect your personal religious beliefs to be codified into law by the US government.

As to the teacher, she should be sent to jail for the crime she committed because she broke the law. Having sex with animals and dead people and having multiple wives are all crimes; being gay is not a crime, and getting married isn't either

[add]

Have a nice day

[kujo]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332689645' post='2407963']
Have a nice day
[/quote]

You too I am going to be a godfather in a few hours...there's nothing better!

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332676378' post='2407809']
.
choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil
[/quote]

and the laws are not supposed to force you to choose "good".

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332651842' post='2407741']
I think that any rational person can draw a line in the sand and say "Having sex with children and animals is objectively wrong, while 2 dudes wanting to hug and kiss and get married is somewhat less so." This whole "slippery slope"/"take your arguments to their conclusion" stuff is bullcrap! I can take Atlantic Blvd. all the way east until I drive my car into the Atlantic Ocean; however, being a sensible adult who knows that such an action would, at the very least, result in the destruction of my car, I can say that I will NOT drive all the way into the water, and will instead stop when it is clearly time for me to do so. This doesn't mean that the entirety of Atlantic Blvd is EVIL...it means that if I want to be safe and not wreck my car, I need to turn off the road sometime before A1A.
[/quote]

It's not how far YOU personally are willing to take it. It's saying "here's the logic you are using, here's where that same logic ends up if you take it far enough, therefore since that outcome is quite obviously floopied up, doesn't that mean the logic is off too?" Because whether or not YOU take it there, it CAN be taken there and using the same exact system.

And now we have Singer and company saying infanticide isn't immoral. Sure, you're regular pro-choicer wouldn't extend their consciousness argument that far (just like most people who think gayness is rad but are totally against pedophilia) but that's where it goes.

Sometimes you need to extend your logical system to the extremes to examine the faults and weaknesses in that system. The logical outcome of these extremes hasn't much to do with the slippery slope theory as much as "hmm, it seems our schema is obviously flawed. Perhaps we shouldn't use the SAME one on more ambiguous matters."

[kujo]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1332694103' post='2408008']


It's not how far YOU personally are willing to take it. It's saying "here's the logic you are using, here's where that same logic ends up if you take it far enough, therefore since that outcome is quite obviously floopied up, doesn't that mean the logic is off too?" Because whether or not YOU take it there, it CAN be taken there and using the same exact system.

And now we have Singer and company saying infanticide isn't immoral. Sure, you're regular pro-choicer wouldn't extend their consciousness argument that far (just like most people who think gayness is rad but are totally against pedophilia) but that's where it goes.

Sometimes you need to extend your logical system to the extremes to examine the faults and weaknesses in that system. The logical outcome of these extremes hasn't much to do with the slippery slope theory as much as "hmm, it seems our schema is obviously flawed. Perhaps we shouldn't use the SAME one on more ambiguous matters."
[/quote]

Again, though. Look at my analogy.

Taking that road to its "logic conclusion" will result in my car ending up in the ocean. That doesn't mean driving on that road = driving into the ocean, no matter how "flawed" that road may be. There are many many stops along the way where you can say "Well, driving into the ocean is clearly a bad thing, but going to Flannigans on Atlantic and Ocean Blvd isn't!"

I understand what you're saying here. But my point is that there are certain outcomes that are demonstratively worse than others. Letting gay people get married isn't logically connected with rescinding laws preventing child abuse, rape, polygamy, bestiality and other criminal forms of sexual perversion.