Physically, I've seen 13 year olds who looked 18. However, mentally, they're still 13. Sex changes EVERYTHING, and so few kids are capable of realizing that.

I've known a few 13 year olds who were as mentally mature as 18 year olds, and lots of 13 year olds who were physically mature as 18 year olds, but I've never met one that was both. Not saying that's not possible, but they're bound to be very few and far between.

Here is the thing to a certain degree you are right, but you are wrong, let me explain
I'm not interested in fixing "A country's" political system, I'm interested in fixing the global political system. See the beauty of it is that in global politics there are no rules other than the rules we agree to. So really will I be preaching to the converted? Yes, but do I stop there? No. There is strength in numbers and the only way to go about having a global political transformation is by starting at the top. By ensuring that those basic rights and liberties are agreed on globally then pushed downward whether self interested politicians agree or not. It will difficult, but not impossible since in the last 50 years we have achieved considerable gains. So it can be done, yes some people will have "issues" with it, the first two countries that come to mind is the US and Canada. The US because its become too powerful without any checks on its power and Canada which accepts them in prinicipal but has no one who cares enough to ensure enforcement of the agreements. Its not about making a better person, its about making a better system that can then make a better person.

I refuse to accept things I cannot change, nor will I. Even if I believe the Canadian system is doomed, I will go as usual during our election some time this spring, strand on a table and yell at a crowd and at least inform them that by voting, you are legitimizing a system like this [insert long rant]

Back on topic


I used to have quite a few friends in the modeling industry, you'd go to these parties and you'd meet 12 year olds that look 25 and 30 year olds that act like 12 year olds.


In America, under the law a "person" under the age of 18 is not actually a "person" not in the legal sense of the word


In regards to voting that works, in regard to sexuality and alcohol (but somehow not tobacco, go lobbying!) it seems much more arbitrary

...
I guess it's not OK in my book.  I'm not certain how you equate watching illegal porn to freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech is meant to protect a person's right to express ideas, even if they be unpopular.  What are you trying to express by watching people rape other people.  I suppose if you were making a movie where you were raping other people, that would be an idea protected by freedom of speech.  If you really want to take it to the extremes that you want to, raping people on the streets would be protected by freedom of speech.  


The entire idea behind laws of society are to restrict.  Society does not grant people rights, society protects people from the actions of other people.  How can it do this without restrictions?  This is where I am protected from being raped on the streets by restricting your rights to do so.  


So it's OK with you for your neighbot to have a multi-kiloton warhead in his basement because he didn't get caught when he was buying it?  Are you saying that he can call up the police and tell them all about it and then say, "Sorry, you guys were to slow.  I'm already home from the market with it and there's nothing you can do about it?"  Do you think the police are going to just say, "Aw shucks!" and let it go at that?  Or are you confusing nuclear politics with domestic law?  You might find that they are applied quite a bit differently.  By the way, would a nuclear weapon be considered a WMD?  I seem to remember invading a country looking for those.  And before you bring up the conspiracy theories, remember I am talking about the point -> an awful lot of countries decided this was OK for us to do.  Not all of them.  Maybe not even a majority, depending on which theorists you subscribe to, but an awful lot of people decided it was OK.  
My point is: countries do not shut up about posession, but they bide their time and make consessions.  Domestic police do not.  There is no international audiance that will tell the Dallas Swat team to back off if the guy in APT 2B promises not to do it any more.
Ah, you've finaly told me what you do for a living.  You're a disillusioned University student.  How old are you Devlar?  You look like you're in your early 20's maybe.  It's cool how you have already figured out everything.  I"m interested in knowing it so soon.  Did you read it in a book?  Or did you figure out your country wasn't worth saving by trying to and being beaten back?  How many political campaigns did you organize before realizing it was futile?   How long did you live in Lybia to figure out their government was better?   Protests?  Anything?  How long did you live in Lybia to figure out their government was better?  How many Libian refugees did you talk to?  Or is this the just "cool" thing to know at your school?
By the way, as you well know America is "freinds" with many a dictator.  We usually don't invade countries till they start frying people in acid.  That was a jab towards our southern engaement, wasn't it?  Give us a reason Canada.  Then we'll show up with bells on.
So which country in Europe are you moving to that will allow you to decide which laws you will follow and which not?  
I'm not certain how you get to the point where asking your people to follow the laws = supreme power for the state.  Perhaps the Canadian government does suck by not having a system of checks and balances to protect the people.  You're right, I don't know enough about Canadian politics to be able to comment intelligently on anything relating, but I'm fairly certain that the politicians in America would have a hard time passing a law that would enable the killing of citizens for looking funny at them.  You see, we have these rules we call laws built into our law making process.  By RESTRICTING what a law can or can't do to an individual, we are protecting the common citizen against such.  Of course, I suppose that politicians are wealthy enough they could just pay to have any murdered they so choose, but that is still against the law and even they would be punished if found out and caught.
Anyway, if you can pick and choose which laws to follow and which not, why are you bothering to move?  If you feel you are repressed by certain laws, all you have to do is ignore them.  Go ahead, it's OK.
PS - I can't tell what that smiley you used up there is supposed to say,  I hate these slippy things - they all look the same to me.

I'm going to make this short, but one rude word deserves another

Turn on your TV, walk into a school, learn a langauge, you obviously live in a totalitarianism because of it right?

Are you even paying attention? what part of "my rights end at your nose" is difficult to understand? Reading Skills might be useful at a time like this. Watching does not equal doing, that's the last time I'm going to say that since its beating a dead horse at this point. Since with that mentality you could arrest any person who walks by a homeless person who doesn't help them, since obviously you aren't helping and therefore adding to the problem. Do tell me how the hell people are allowed to watch burning bodies on TV on the news yet this makes it something magically different, posessing a newsclipping of a picture of a burning body, of an illegal act is somehow so different than posessing child pornography

Society can restrict actions BETWEEN individuals, no restrict individuals. Society grants people rights as areas where other people or governments cannot enter, that is the point of law. Therefore if there are not two people in an action then there is no way to restrict it, posession cannot be restricted.

Its good to know at 29 you've figured out nothing about the way things work

Where did you learn your politics? Mine? From Books, From Internships, if your going to put down education then really do a better job, since all it does is make you look ignorant, i'd rather be a booksmart and schooled political scientist than neither smart nor schooled.

OH!! now i see where you got your education, from your friends! Good job, keep it up, but pick better friends, because after that nice long post you have done nothing but demonstrate to me how age does not indicate intelligence, maybe you should read some of those books you seem to dislike so much. If I might recommend a few old ones that will explain what law is, and what freedom of speech and expression is since your society is supposed to be based on these principles, try "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills, or "The Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine and "The Two Treatise of Government" by John Locke.

I have not attacked you personally in this thread until this post, which is a response, and it is one thing to disagree with my politics, its a whole other to fling nothing but ad homeim attacks at me directly because you cannot prove your point in any other way, its sad and pathetic, and demonstrates to a much greater degree the level of your intelligence than mine.

Devlar, I'm sorry, but you haven't proved a single point to me, either.  This country was not founded on those books.  No where in the Constitution does it say that to see the meaning of the Freedom of Speech, we need to look at book "X".   This is one persons interpretation that you happen to agree with.
I'm sorry I try to think for myself instead of regurgitating others ideas.  When you try those ideas out, let me know how they work. You will find that when you are 29, you will not know as much as you do now.  I know I did.  I expect that as I get older, I will discover I know even less.

Going back on topic, what she did was illegal so she was arrested.  If she didn't deserve to be arrested, then she will have ample opportunity to prove so in court.

-Bright Boy

The foundation of your country is the French and American revolution, if you refuse to believe the people either were or who knew your founding fathers and helped shape your constitution then you can believe whatever you want. Quite frankly I really could care less what you believe at that point. The fact is you don't have anything to support your interpretation of society and it makes most, if not all, of what you said conjecture and irrelevant.

Thread will be closed if it doesnt hop back on topic with what it was about to begin with, only warning.