Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
He Called The Fire Department?
#26

He Called The Fire Department?
Quote: I wonder how may parents  would be happy to leave their young boys there.



I bet roughly the same number who were happy to leave them with Michael Jackson.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#27

He Called The Fire Department?
(09-02-2019, 10:59 AM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The choir boys come from somewhere.

They most probably come from underneath the Bishop's cassocks.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#28

He Called The Fire Department?
(09-03-2019, 10:52 AM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-02-2019, 10:59 AM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The choir boys come from somewhere.

They most probably come from underneath the Bishop's cassocks.

Posted obvious pun here.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply
#29

He Called The Fire Department?
(09-02-2019, 10:14 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I meant real boys who are used in the choirs.

And when you say "used" ...  Consider

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it.
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Gawdzilla Sama
Reply
#30

He Called The Fire Department?
He means "used" in the catholick sense.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Gawdzilla Sama
Reply
#31

He Called The Fire Department?
(09-01-2019, 07:43 PM)Unsapien Wrote: Why would someone call the fire dept for being stuck in an elevator. The Vatican must have a huge inhouse maintenance crew, or are they not allowed to work on sunday even to help out the pope?


Or what about the elevator company?

I'm pretty sure The Vatican has its own fire department, probably only steps away.
And the elevator company that built the Vatican's lifts probably went out of business like 300 years ago.  Big Grin 

-Teresa
There is in the universe only one true divide, one real binary, life and death. Either you are living or you are not. Everything else is molten, malleable.

-Susan Faludi, In the Darkroom
The following 2 users Like Tres Leches's post:
  • Fireball, Unsapien
Reply
#32

He Called The Fire Department?
Back then it had a somewhat different meaning, hon.

[Image: religion-heretic-church-barbecue-barbequ...74_low.jpg]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • grympy, Tres Leches, Gawdzilla Sama
Reply
#33

He Called The Fire Department?
(09-02-2019, 10:32 AM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-02-2019, 12:23 AM)grympy Wrote: PS age of consent in the Vatican is 12... 

Why so old?  In Aussie RC churches it seems to be more like 8.

Serious answer to a flippant question:

Apparently, the Vatican criminal  code is that of Italy. That makes sense, as the Vatican  has no discrete police force, nor  separate civil court  system as far as I know .They DO have lawyers specialising in Canon  law, and  their own diplomatic service. 

The excuse given by the Vatican was that it was simply overlooked .Fair enough I guess, they may have thought  it was unlikely their dirty little secret would ever become public.  Consider  

Context: The age of consent was 12  in most European  countries , for  centuries , only changing in the  1920's. Within my lifetime, the age of consent was 14 in the Northern Territory.  I've always assumed that was because of the high number of aborigines in the NT .Traditional aboriginal society was /is a gerontocracy. .
Reply
#34

He Called The Fire Department?
(09-04-2019, 12:19 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Back then it had a somewhat different meaning, hon.

[Image: religion-heretic-church-barbecue-barbequ...74_low.jpg]
 

  Aka 'Auto-da-Fey' by the hoi poloi . It was usually in public, drawing huge crowds, which included mobile purveyors of KFC , french fries, and other snacks. 

 WOW !  REALLY? Abso-fucking-lutely!  Would I lie? Tongue  

An auto-da-fé or auto-de-fé (from Portuguese auto da fé [ˈaw.tu dɐ ˈfɛ], meaning "act of faith") was the ritual of public penance of condemned heretics and apostates that took place when the Spanish Inquisition, Portuguese Inquisition or the Mexican Inquisition had decided their punishment, followed by the carrying out by the civil authorities of the sentences imposed.

The most extreme punishment imposed on those convicted was execution by burning. In popular usage, the term auto-da-fé, the act of public penance, came to mean burning the convicted person at the stake, although that was a punishment for only the most serious offenses.    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-da-f%C3%A9
Reply
#35

He Called The Fire Department?
(09-04-2019, 01:17 AM)grympy Wrote:
(09-02-2019, 10:32 AM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-02-2019, 12:23 AM)grympy Wrote: PS age of consent in the Vatican is 12... 

Why so old?  In Aussie RC churches it seems to be more like 8.

... the Vatican  has no discrete police force, nor  separate civil court  system as far as I know .They DO have lawyers specialising in Canon  law, and  their own diplomatic service.

What used to be called the Corps of Gendarmerie served as a police force. In the 1970s they became the Central Security Office, and in the 1990s were again renamed the Security Corps of the Vatican City State. Far as I can tell, whatever the name, they serve the function of police, albeit a police without a real jail.

The Swiss Guard still serve as the papal bodyguards / honor guards. I know about those guys because I had to apply to them to see the catacombs under the Vatican when vacationing in Europe in 2003.

As to law ... if they have police, the function of police is to enforce laws ... so they have at least rudimentary civil codes, but knowing the Catholics, probably just have another name for it. Since the population of the Vatican was 799 as of this year (down from 1000 in 2017) and the only people that live there, work there ... there probably isn't any practical difference between work rules and civil law. Move the little boys you're diddling in and out quietly through the back door, no public drunkenness, keep all graft deniable, things like that.
The following 3 users Like mordant's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Tres Leches, grympy
Reply
#36

He Called The Fire Department?
Legal defences in Australia for underage sexual intercourse...

If a person is accused of engaging in sexual behaviour with someone under the legal age, there are various
statutory defences available, which are outlined in legislation. While legislation varies in each state and territory,
in general two types of defences are available.

The first type relates to whether the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the person with whom they
engaged in sexual behaviour was above the legal age of consent. All jurisdictions (except NSW) have provisions
for this defence in legislation; however, several variations exist regarding restrictions on the use of the defence
according to the age of the alleged victim. The defence cannot be used if the victim's age at the time of the
alleged offence was:

• 10 years or younger in the Australian Capital Territory;
• 12 years or younger in Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria;
• 13 years or younger in Western Australia;
• 14 years or younger in the Northern Territory;
• 16 years or younger in South Australia.

The second statutory defence relates to situations in which the two people are close in age. For example, in
Tasmania it is a defence if the child is 15 years of age and the accused person was not more than 5 years
older than the child, or if the child was above 12 years of age and the accused person was not more than
three years older than the child. In Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, engaging in sexual behaviour
under the legal age can be defended if the defendant was not more than two years older, and in Western
Australia not more than three years older, than the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been
committed. In Victoria and Western Australia there is also a legal provision for defence if the accused can
demonstrate they are lawfully married to the child.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#37

He Called The Fire Department?
(09-04-2019, 01:45 PM)SYZ Wrote: Legal defences in Australia for underage sexual intercourse...

If a person is accused of engaging in sexual behaviour with someone under the legal age, there are various
statutory defences available, which are outlined in legislation. While legislation varies in each state and territory,
in general two types of defences are available.

The first type relates to whether the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the person with whom they
engaged in sexual behaviour was above the legal age of consent. All jurisdictions (except NSW) have provisions
for this defence in legislation; however, several variations exist regarding restrictions on the use of the defence
according to the age of the alleged victim. The defence cannot be used if the victim's age at the time of the
alleged offence was:

   •  10 years or younger in the Australian Capital Territory;
   •  12 years or younger in Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria;
   •  13 years or younger in Western Australia;
   •  14 years or younger in the Northern Territory;
   •  16 years or younger in South Australia.

The second statutory defence relates to situations in which the two people are close in age. For example, in
Tasmania it is a defence if the child is 15 years of age and the accused person was not more than 5 years
older than the child, or if the child was above 12 years of age and the accused person was not more than
three years older than the child. In Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, engaging in sexual behaviour
under the legal age can be defended if the defendant was not more than two years older, and in Western
Australia not more than three years older, than the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been
committed. In Victoria and Western Australia there is also a legal provision for defence if the accused can
demonstrate they are lawfully married to the child.

That's pretty consistent with laws in various US states. I think if the alleged victim and the perp are close in age, that should be taken in to account, as I doubt for example your average 15 year old boinking a 13 year old has the sophistication to be doing anything coherent and premeditated beyond "what comes naturally".

The "I thought she was of age" defense on the part of someone who's no longer a minor is way more questionable in my view. It's roughly equivalent to "I thought I could get away with it" or "I thought she was of age but looked young enough to fuel my deflowering fantasies". To my mind if there's a power imbalance between two people, the person with more power is apt to abuse it, and that doesn't magically go away because the victim hasn't passed some arbitrary age. If the perp is 18 or over, employed, and no longer living at home, and the victim is still in school and living at home, that's a power imbalance.

I wonder how all this works if a precocious 16 year old boy initiates sex with a 19 year old girl? What if the girl is mentally challenged or totally unworldly compared to the boy? This business of comparing ages is arguably better than nothing and might work for typical cases but it doesn't really get at the core of what should be considered sexual violence.
The following 2 users Like mordant's post:
  • grympy, SYZ
Reply
#38

He Called The Fire Department?
None of this matters. Ain't no 16-year-old priests diddling 14-year-old parishioners.

Any organization claiming divine moral authority has no use for law -- as they've shown here.
<Insert intelligent thought here>
Reply
#39

He Called The Fire Department?
(09-04-2019, 08:35 PM)mordant Wrote: [quote="SYZ" pid='144226' dateline='1567604721']
Legal defences in Australia for underage sexual intercourse...

If a person is accused of engaging in sexual behaviour with someone under the legal age, there are various
statutory defences available, which are outlined in legislation. While legislation varies in each state and territory,
in general two types of defences are available.

The first type relates to whether the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the person with whom they
engaged in sexual behaviour was above the legal age of consent. All jurisdictions (except NSW) have provisions
for this defence in legislation; however, several variations exist regarding restrictions on the use of the defence
according to the age of the alleged victim. The defence cannot be used if the victim's age at the time of the
alleged offence was:

   •  10 years or younger in the Australian Capital Territory;
   •  12 years or younger in Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria;
   •  13 years or younger in Western Australia;
   •  14 years or younger in the Northern Territory;
   •  16 years or younger in South Australia.

The second statutory defence relates to situations in which the two people are close in age. For example, in
Tasmania it is a defence if the child is 15 years of age and the accused person was not more than 5 years
older than the child, or if the child was above 12 years of age and the accused person was not more than
three years older than the child. In Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, engaging in sexual behaviour
under the legal age can be defended if the defendant was not more than two years older, and in Western
Australia not more than three years older, than the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been
committed. In Victoria and Western Australia there is also a legal provision for defence if the accused can
demonstrate they are lawfully married to the child.

That's pretty consistent with laws in various US states. I think if the alleged victim and the perp are close in age, that should be taken in to account, as I doubt for example your average 15 year old boinking a 13 year old has the sophistication to be doing anything coherent and premeditated beyond "what comes naturally".

The "I thought she was of age" defense on the part of someone who's no longer a minor is way more questionable in my view. It's roughly equivalent to "I thought I could get away with it" or "I thought she was of age but looked young enough to fuel my deflowering fantasies". To my mind if there's a power imbalance between two people, the person with more power is apt to abuse it, and that doesn't magically go away because the victim hasn't passed some arbitrary age. If the perp is 18 or over, employed, and no longer living at home, and the victim is still in school and living at home, that's a power imbalance.

I wonder how all this works if a precocious 16 year old boy initiates sex with a 19 year old girl? What if the girl is mentally challenged or totally unworldly compared to the boy? This business of comparing ages is arguably better than nothing and might work for typical cases but it doesn't really get at the core of what should be considered sexual violence.
[/quote

Syz, thanks for that info on Oz, I wasn't aware. Not something I've ever felt the need to think about. Your comments seem perfectly reasonable to me. I think Oz may have a to way go in eliminating violence against women

 At least one Scandinavian countries has what I think is a realistic attitude to the age of  consent.  I think it's Sweden, but not sure. . If it's peers, such as two fourteen year olds, or say 14/16 , no legal action is taken. If one is slightly under age, legal  action is taken only only if the girl complains.

Julian Assange is accused  of Rape in Sweden (?) Seems the term 'rape'  there has a MUCH broader definition than in most other countries. The law seems to be there to protect women against all kinds os sexual violence, down to, and including inappropriate touching. 

Some US states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws.   IE if two under age kids have sex, the older of the two can be and is charge with statutory rape.

Such laws  are made by anal retentive adults who can't bear the thought that kids or anyone else might be having a good time. 

Like Methodists who are against sex.  They're  terribly afraid that  it might lead to dancing.  Consider


(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


OT anecdote: In 1950's ,mum was a friends with several neighbours. One had a husband who beat her, but he wouldn't/couldn't leave him. Mum gave her a couple of suggestions;

(1) when going to bed, take a hammer. Say nothing. Just smile at him and put the hammer under her pillow. (2) Threaten to poison him.Then put an emetic in his food .

Drastic? Yep . At that time in Oz there was no single parents pension, and no womens shelters. There was "The deserted wife's pension " If a woman had left an abusive husband, , she had damn well better be able to prove it. IE . bruises, medical reports. Evidence was taken under oath. If the MAN assessing her claim didn't believe her, she would be deemed "a person undeserving" and her claim rejected. There was no right of appeal.
The following 2 users Like grympy's post:
  • mordant, SYZ
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)