He didn't say she is not responsible for her crime. Just called you out on what I agree is a bad frame of a 36 year old man fucking his girlfriend's underage daughter.
Is he not responsible for that? I don't care if he seduced him. Are we not responsible for things even if a woman is being sexy? The moment a 14 year old winks at you, all social contract goes void?
There is no mutual exclusivity in terms of responsibility. There is no shortage of things everyone is responsible for, or any rule saying that overlapping responsibilities cancel out one another. She has proven to be a dangerous psycho as an adult and we are talking about the same person at age 14. I am sure her life is a trail of failed responsibilities and evil choices given the audacity it takes to play victim in a scenario where you've murdered your own children.
Still, nothing about that changes the responsibility of a 36 year old to avoid sexual contact with her as a 14 year old. In fact this story is like a real-life hyperbole, like a scary tall tale parents would tell their sons on a camping trip to scare them from growing up to be promiscuous.
I don't care if he seduced him. Are we not responsible for things even if a woman is being sexy?
That is indeed the case with a very large percentage of the world. I don't personally agree, but obviously reasonable people can disagree about sexual responsibility.
While I expect men to have a reasonable degree of self control, a seducer can quite easily break through a reasonable degree of self control. We all know "don't stick your dick in crazy" yet men do, in fact, stick their dick in crazy all the time because crazy girls tend to be good seducers.
When a man fails to resist seduction, it is a failure of weakness, not a failure of malice or intent. I see weakness as a far lesser problem than malicious intent. It's the same issue when you have a malicious scammer and a stupid scam victim. Neither are sympathetic. The scammer is worse.
He didn't say she is not responsible for her crime.
His argument in substance was to deflect her responsibility by trying to shift it to the father, purely because his creep factor is triggered. I reject that nonsense.
There is no mutual exclusivity in terms of responsibility.
There is for murder. She was solely responsible for her murders.
And why do you keep saying 14? Nothing in the article said there was evidence he was having sex with her at 14. It said 17.
He didn't say she is not responsible for her crime. Just called you out on what I agree is a bad frame of a 36 year old man fucking his girlfriend's underage daughter.
Is he not responsible for that? I don't care if he seduced him. Are we not responsible for things even if a woman is being sexy? The moment a 14 year old winks at you, all social contract goes void?
There is no mutual exclusivity in terms of responsibility. There is no shortage of things everyone is responsible for, or any rule saying that overlapping responsibilities cancel out one another. She has proven to be a dangerous psycho as an adult and we are talking about the same person at age 14. I am sure her life is a trail of failed responsibilities and evil choices given the audacity it takes to play victim in a scenario where you've murdered your own children.
Still, nothing about that changes the responsibility of a 36 year old to avoid sexual contact with her as a 14 year old. In fact this story is like a real-life hyperbole, like a scary tall tale parents would tell their sons on a camping trip to scare them from growing up to be promiscuous.
o_o
That is indeed the case with a very large percentage of the world. I don't personally agree, but obviously reasonable people can disagree about sexual responsibility.
While I expect men to have a reasonable degree of self control, a seducer can quite easily break through a reasonable degree of self control. We all know "don't stick your dick in crazy" yet men do, in fact, stick their dick in crazy all the time because crazy girls tend to be good seducers.
When a man fails to resist seduction, it is a failure of weakness, not a failure of malice or intent. I see weakness as a far lesser problem than malicious intent. It's the same issue when you have a malicious scammer and a stupid scam victim. Neither are sympathetic. The scammer is worse.
His argument in substance was to deflect her responsibility by trying to shift it to the father, purely because his creep factor is triggered. I reject that nonsense.
There is for murder. She was solely responsible for her murders.
And why do you keep saying 14? Nothing in the article said there was evidence he was having sex with her at 14. It said 17.