"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > Prohibition is not the issue, taking drugs per se is a victimless crime.
> > *Driving* while drunk is the issue.
>
> Bingo. You do get it. Prohibiting behavior which causes no harm
> is wrong. Sexual activity at any age (depending on what it is)
> can be harmless _per se_, just like drinking can be harmless _per se_.

You still don't get it. Drinking and driving can also be harmless, few of us
can honestly say we have never done it, but on balance it makes sense to
outlaw it, to protect innocent victims.

> It is irresponsible behavior which causes harm which is wrong.

That's false, all irresponsible behaviour is wrong. Drinking and drving is
wrong even when it causes *no harm* because it bears a high probabilty of
causing harm, it poses undue risk to innocents.

The same is true of sex between adults and children.

> <snip>
>
> > Age of consent laws deter pedophiles from engaging in sexual predatory
> > behaviour
>
> No, not at all.

Yes. All pedophiles (meaning any adult who wishes to approach children
sexually) are not criminals.

Sexual predators don't CARE about laws, or about
> responsible behavior.

Sexual predators will to attempt to establish sexual contact with children
if *they* believe (i.e. convince themselves) that it will not harm the
child, and if it is legal. Why wouldn't they?

> They will act because they feel they have
> a right to act if they want to do so,

They do have the right if there's no law against it.

> no matter who is hurt,

Not all pedophiles believe they are harming their victims. I would submit
that many think they are doing them a favour.

> and
> most such people (like anyone who acts without concern for others)
> regard laws as simply another handicap to evade, like victims who
> resist or angry relatives.

You are discounting that there are law-abiding pedophiles who respect the
wishes of society. There will always be law-breakers, that's no reason to
abandon all laws.

> If you look at gang behavior or Mafia behavior -- where the people
> feel justified in their actions -- those in the culture actually
> gain points with their fellow gang members or Mafiosi by managing to
> evade the law successfully. Those who go to prison often get little
> tatoos to show they've served their time without breaking.
> People who are arrested for civil disobedience or some other act
> (like animal liberation or helping slaves through the underground
> railroad) are also often seen as heroes by those who share their
> views. Unless the person feels the behavior is wrong, punishment becomes
> either a source of resentment or a source of bragging-rights to one's
> fellows. If the person _already_ feels the behavior is wrong,
> punishment after the fact is superfluous.

I don't know what you're getting at. Are we supposed to adopt a Mafia
mentality?

> > Perverts can't get at innocent children
> > while they are behind bars.
>
> So -- why not lock up the entire population and let them out only as
> work-gangs under guard? Then we'd all be SO much safer....

The entire population aren't child molestors.

> <snip>
> >>>>Accepting limitations, and having stupid, ill-conceived, and unjust
> >>>>limitations on one's freedom thrust upon one by the State are two
> >>>>different things.
>
> >>>Thrust by "the State" eh? Who do you suggest do the thrusting?
>
> >>I don't suggest anyone do "the thrusting." I suggest people be
> >>educated, and those who demonstrate no ability to live responsibly
> >>in society be shunned.
>
> > If "shunning" isn't a "thrust" then what is it?
>
> It's a negative potentiality, true. People want to avoid it, true.

> But it is not a punishment; it is simply setting the person who
> can't play by the voluntary rules outside the playground until he
> can play nice again.

That's just what prison does. It sounds more brutal than any prison to me,
and I see no reason to assume it would be more effective.

> > If the rest of society isn't
> > represented by the state then what does?
>
> People represent themselves. I don't need a State to represent me.

How are you going to intervene when a child is molested in your state or
city? How are you going to assess physical and emotional harm? How will you
even know?

> >>>And why must
> >>>we wait until we discover damaged children?
>
> >>Education begins at birth. We do not wait for any damage. The
> >>point is that the law does not kick in UNTIL after the victim is
> >>damaged.
>
> > You just contradicted yourself in the previous two sentences.
>
> No, I didn't.

Du-uuh!

(A) We do not wait for any damage.

and

(B) the law does not kick in UNTIL after the victim is damaged.

How can you act *after* the victim is damaged if you don't wait for any
damage? You're a walking contradiction.

> > You don't wait
> > for damage, and the law kicks in *after* the damage is done. Can't you
see
> > the tenuous position you are in?
>
> >>It is pointless as a means to to avoid damaging anyone.
> >>It is only institutionalized revenge.
>
> > Laws and legal penalities are a deterrent, not revenge.
>
> But they don't deter well, if at all, unless people feel the
> behavior is wrong for them to do.

Most law-abiding people develop the notion that a thing is wrong if it is
illegal, provided the law is reasonable and rational.

> Prohibition is a perfect
> example.

I already told you, it's a terrible example, taking drugs in an of itself is
a victimless crime, approaching children for sex is not.

> The social harm of the prohibition was worse than
> the situation before the law went into effect; just like the
> current War on Drugs.

See above.

> > It's also not
> > entirely a bad thing for the victims and family to obtain some revenge
> > against child abusers.
>
> Revenge is always wrong.

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." It's not a good motivation, but
it's not a bad side effect.

<snip>

<avoidance>
>
> > If you aren't a pedophile then I can only conclude that you were a
victim of
> > a pedophile
>
> Nope, not that either. I am just a person who believes in freedom,
> responsible freedom.

You believe in freedom for pedophiles to approach children, why would anyone
hold onto such a terrible idea? Do you actually believe that pedophiles can
be allowed to be the judges of whether or not their actions will be harmful?