Do you think you have more "illegal" opinions or more unpopular opinions?

Usagi said:
If someone has a lot of illegal opinions...yikes.

Orhunaa said:
Where I live it's a crime to insult national and religious values. Which includes saying Armenian Genocide happened, calling the president bad things, publicly expressing someone was wrongfully imprisoned, telling that military draft is a human rights violation among many others. There are many opinions which are criminalised.

Seiya said:


Have you ever considered moving to Canada?

Orhunaa said:


Yeah, I have. It sounds like US but nicer and safer. It'll be one of the countries at the top of my list in master's degree foreign programs when I'm done with my bachelor's.

You know what's funny? My nationalist uncle fucking hates me for planning to live abroad saying that the country won't improve if the bright minds go away.

Usagi said:
If someone has a lot of illegal opinions...yikes.

Peaceful_Critic said:
I see you are indeed a true fan of Angel Dust as that would also be his opinions.

Kosmonaut said:
Illegal or unpopular opinions by dutch standards? Aside from being in favor of pirating copyrighted content, I'm as run of the mill as one can be.

Sphinxter said:
But that is legal in the Netherlands, though the E.U. says it isn't and ordered the Netherlands to comply; international politics, as always, is not that simple.

The Netherlands has not changed the law and never really formally replied to the E.U. and is still continuing their old practices of considering it as a personal copy.

Kosmonaut said:
Well, technically it's illegal even for personal use, but no one prosecutes individuals for it, rarely even big sites, however we're part of the EU, so it's one huge illegal opinion the Netherlands have.

149597871 said:
I think that the age of consent shouldn't exist, same for anti-incest laws.

Railey2 said:
You think it's cool to have sex with 9 year olds? How could you possibly justify that? I need an explanation

149597871 said:


It's just illogical to use the same standard for everyone since not everyone hits puberty at the exact same age. Taking into account their current mental state and level of maturity is also very important. In contrast whether the person is 211 months old or 216 months old doesn't really matter that much.

Plus the age of consent is usually somewhere between 16-18 which in most cases is ridiculously high to begin with as the vast majority of people around that age are probably ready both physically and mentally to have sex and to be honest many of them probably have had at least a few sexual experiences by the time they reach that age.

As for your question, with maybe a few extraordinary exceptions I think it would be rather disturbing. It is just that if it's going to be illegal it should be illegal because of the aforesaid reasons in my first paragraph rather than simply because of the fact that they haven't reached a certain age yet.

Orhunaa said:
You know what's funny? My nationalist uncle fucking hates me for planning to live abroad saying that the country won't improve if the bright minds go away.

Yarub said:
I'd consider that a compliment if anything. Either way, he is correct in a nationalist view.

Railey2 said:
if you want to move from a hard line to a system of a million individual judgments, prepare for a lot of people getting hurt.
I'm not saying that there aren't 13 year olds that are more mature and ready for sex than some 16 year olds, but the age of consent exists to protect the 13 year olds that AREN'T ready. It's a hard line for that very reason, if you erase the line you're opening the door for thousands of creeps that will now have a much easier time getting away with fucking children that are decidedly not ready.
When thinking about laws, you also have to consider practicality and purpose. The age of consent wasn't made to allow everyone who is ready to have sex, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to protect people that aren't ready. For that, you need as hard of a line as possible, even if it means that a few outliers who could already have sex are caught up in it. You certainly won't suggest that a couple mature 13 year olds having sex legally is worth hundreds of immature 13 year olds being abused?

149597871 said:


It's not really that hard. If a couple or a person at a "questionable" age wants to engage in a sexual relationship let them consult with an expert/psychologist, explaining the situation. If they conclude that there isn't anything malicious and the person is indeed physically and mentally ready to have sex then I don't see a problem. A short sex ed on pregnancy, STD risks, etc. would also be helpful.

HungryForQuality said:
It's pretty much guaranteed everyone here has at least one illegal opinion which is approving of illegal downloading and streaming. Hell that's not even some minor infraction. Depending on where you live in the US or europe, that shit is prison time and/or a large fine.

The thing is that shit is totally for convenience and no one got a problem with it. But people who steal or slang to survive are condemned by the same people.

And I do the same shit but I have self awareness and am not a hypocrite.

I extend my hand to any groups struggling even if I don't get that same love back. Even now.

Railey2 said:
not really how it will shake out when a grimy adult is pushing themselves onto a very young child, saying "what, you know it's legal or are you saying that you aren't mature? I know a psychologist, they'd definitely agree with me now shut up and spread your legs you slut."
What you're doing is adding more uncertainty to these situations and stripping away one very needed layer of protection. And you know that there'd be misrulings as well, right?

I really don't know what's going through your head, this is a really fucking bad idea. Stop and think for a second about how a system like this can be abused to further the exploitation of children. The possibilities are endless.

149597871 said:


What you are describing is a classic rape. There isn't any consent in the aforesaid scenario to begin with and it would be illegal even according to the system that I proposed, therefore it is not really abusing it in any way or whatsoever.

As for how perfect the system is - it probably isn't perfect but if applied correctly it can be considerably safe if not even safer than what we currently have.

Railey2 said:
Yes it's rape, that's the point. The system we have right now errs on the side of the potential rape victim, the system you want to establish doesn't. I know it would still be illegal, what I'm saying is that it'd be harder to prosecute and would therefore happen more frequently, because you removed the certainty of the hard line from the system. Sexual predators would use the law itself to coerce children into having sex with them. Do you understand?

Do you understand what I'm saying? :((


Not sure in what world you're living where having it sometimes be legal to fuck 12 year olds protects 12 year olds more than it being illegal across the board, but damn. Please explain? How would it be safer than what we currently have?

Erg_Orgy said:
I say we ban lolis, it's for a greater good.

149597871 said:


I don't know why do you think it would be that harder to prosecute.

149597871 said:


I don't know why do you think it would be that harder to prosecute. "you are required to have both X and Y in order to do Z but you've still done Z without having neither of those".

It better protects people who are above the age of consent plus it's not ruining potential couples and people's lives in cases where both parties gave their consent and were ready to engage in a relationship. The current system is a complete mess and treats rape and consensual sex almost the same as long as one person is above the age of consent and the other is not.

Railey2 said:
Because theres now a legal defense for fucking a child? Because sexual predators can intimidate and coerce their victims by making this clear? Before right now if there's evidence of them having sex you could go to the police and there'd be nothing left for the predator, but with your system you have to drag the child through psychological testing and have it judged on a case by case basis, where the outcome might favour the predator? You are clearly just ignoring this potentiality, even though I spelled it out for you multiple times. At this point, I do have to ask myself why that is..

Is this just an insane blind spot that you have because you really want to have sex with a "mature" 13 year old and frantically try to think of a system where you can live that fantasy out legally? Maybe you just can't wrap your head around the concept of Bright-line rules and how they help to sidestep grey areas to protect a group of people that desperately needs said protection? Maybe there's a different explanation for why you're so willingly ignoring the openings that a system like that leaves?

Railey2 said:
@149597871 great, so you only need to coerce a child into taking the test, and if they seem mature enough they'll pass? "Just play your part and you'll be rewarded, don't tell them we've been doing stuff already or you know what's gonna happen!" Hint: Abused children are often more mature than children that haven't been abused, so that's good news, eh?

And then you can legally rape them all you want, coercion is really easy after that, after all you have the sex-permit so the child has no legal recourse. And if they don't pass, "oh well". Just resort to threats, as is par of the course. It's not like you're worse off than you were before! Perhaps you can try again later with a different psychologist? Just get a reevaluation.

You're creating a legal basis for rape, psychological testing like this is prone to fail and relies on the psychologist being professional, which is also not a given. Therapists and other psychologists make mistakes all the time. Even if it only fails 5% of the time... congrats, you just created a class of people that can be legally sexually taken advantage of by fully grown adults, how does that feel?


The problem here is that you only look at the perfect hypothetical implementation and ignore all the problems that would realistically crop up if it was ever put into practice. This is shit-tier political thinking. There's a reason why the bright-line rule of sexual consent exists, it's because the damage that is done to children when laws fail them is so insane, we're better off avoiding the grey area entirely. It sucks for the couple of mature kids that would be ok, but they'll just have to wait a year or two. Better than feeding thousands of kids into a system of legal rape.

149597871 said:
@Kosmonaut

Psychological tests/assessments have been around for quite some time and are used in many professional fields. I wouldn't call them "totally impractical" based on Universal truths such as people being able to make mistakes or nothing being 100% accurate. If I turn this into let's say gun ownership or sex/gender reassignment requiring psychological evaluation argument which let's be honest may potentially have even far worse consequences and are arguably more difficult to assess, will you still call it totally impractical and say that guns and transitioning should be banned for all people? Or maybe blindly pretend that it's okay to give anyone a gun as long as they have reached a certain age?

149597871 said:
A specialist can easily identify cases of manipulation unless the criminal is some sort of genius and the child is a perfect actor. Not denying that the possibility exists, but I find it hard to believe that "thousands" of kids with perfect acting abilities would end up being "fed" to thousands of pedophiles who also happen to be genius manipulators capable of tricking a professional, the authorities and the parents over an extended period and getting away with it. Besides, if the person is such a great manipulator he wouldn't really need to follow the law in the first place, wouldn't he?

149597871 said:
Oh, that reminds me that there are plenty of such cases already so let's not pretend we are moving from a perfect system to a flawed one. We are just trying to determine which system is less flawed.

149597871 said:
In fact, one could even argue that the child is far less protected in the current system because it's a lot easier to lie to your ignorant parents than it is to lie a professional or a team of professionals thus the brilliant acting often isn't required.

149597871 said:
As I already mentioned in my previous post psychological testing is often one of the key factors in far more essential things (at least in normal countries), including gun ownership laws, military, etc. Even astronauts undergo a psychological evaluation. These 5% are quite an exaggeration. If we can trust psychology with the fate of our country or the entire world I'm pretty sure it will be lot safer than that when it comes to trusting it with a lot less significant issues.

149597871 said:
But just for the sake of the argument let's assume that indeed nothing is 100% accurate that there will inevitably be a mistake at some point. I hate saying this but several boys each year are dying in the United States alone as a result of the circumcision procedure going wrong. Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics and a few other defenders of the practice are still claiming that the potential health benefits outweigh the risk. It is a very rational approach that has been and is currently used in various different fields in our society. Else you would never allow your kids to leave home because there is a risk that something bad may happen to them outside despite obviously knowing that it will be a lot more beneficial for them than keeping them locked in their rooms all-day.

But unlike circumcision, this one has actual benefits.

149597871 said:
To begin with I don't think most people would even try to get the "permission" as it is meant for very special cases so even if it becomes a reality don't expect that all teens would immediately start having sex 24/7 right after they hear the news.

149597871 said:


A specialist can easily identify cases of manipulation unless the criminal is some sort of genius and the child is a perfect actor. Not denying that the possibility exists, but I find it hard to believe that "thousands" of kids with perfect acting abilities would end up being "fed" to thousands of pedophiles who also happen to be genius manipulators capable of tricking a professional, the authorities and the parents over an extended period and getting away with it. Besides, if the person is such a great manipulator he wouldn't really need to follow the law in the first place, wouldn't he? He just needs to tell the child: "Just play your part and you'll be rewarded, don't tell them we've been doing stuff already or you know what's gonna happen!".

Oh, that reminds me that there are plenty of such cases already so let's not pretend we are moving from a perfect system to a flawed one. We are just trying to determine which system is less flawed.

In fact, one could even argue that the child is far less protected in the current system because it's a lot easier to lie to your ignorant parents than it is to lie a professional or a team of professionals thus the brilliant acting often isn't required.

As I already mentioned in my previous post psychological testing is often one of the key factors in far more essential things (at least in normal countries), including gun ownership laws, military, etc. Even astronauts undergo a psychological evaluation. These 5% are quite an exaggeration. If we can trust psychology with the fate of our country or the entire world I'm pretty sure it will be lot safer than that when it comes to trusting it with a lot less significant issues.

But just for the sake of the argument let's assume that indeed nothing is 100% accurate that there will inevitably be a mistake at some point. I hate saying this but several boys each year are dying in the United States alone as a result of the circumcision procedure going wrong. Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics and a few other defenders of the practice are still claiming that the potential health benefits outweigh the risk. It is a very rational approach that has been and is currently used in various different fields in our society. Else you would never allow your kids to leave home because there is a risk that something bad may happen to them outside despite obviously knowing that it will be a lot more beneficial for them than keeping them locked in their rooms all-day.

But unlike circumcision, this one has actual benefits.

Considering how small the risk is, the benefits overall and that the fact that there isn't that much "less of a risk" in our current system, it is safe to say that these arguments cannot be used as an excuse.

To begin with I don't think most people would even try to get the "permission" as it is meant for very special cases so even if it becomes a reality don't expect that all teens would immediately start having sex 24/7 right after they hear the news.

@Kosmonaut read the comment, will try to reply tomorrow.