A couple of good friends in life are a treasure to hold with both hands~

It appears that the children, once again, will show us the way.
The Never Again movement is something that I stand in admiration of. They have allowed me to step back and put in that "stop gap" that PB taught me which is the ability to hold back the emotional connection that may or may not be helpful. If you can take the information in as neutral and STOP before allowing an emotional reaction to guide you through the neutral information, you will arrive at an informed perspective and then you can put the information up against your emotions towards it and see where you land.
I hope that makes sense because it is a difficult tactic to learn if you are lead by your emotions but one that has had lasting power.

I am grateful to know that Lone Wolf no longer feels alone. :hearts:

@Sir2u
NicK always says that if you hear a new word or a topic like this, it will occur three times in one week. So I have watched it when it happens to me and occasionally mine gets to two but rarely three.

@Coldlight
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are glad you are here~

@The Devils Disciple
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Enjoy your stay~

@Hanover
Your reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

Funny how songs come into our heads.
When I am in touch with my emotions (good or bad, happy or sad) a song often comes into my head that expresses how I am feeling at the time. Like since November when my Mother in Law arrived anytime I have been stressing about it the song "Let It Be" runs through my head.

I am a bit tired of letting it be, ya know? :naughty:

What a lovely piece~ It touches all of my senses~

I am grateful that I was able to talk to each of my parents yesterday on my birthday. Turning 48 is a bit harder than I thought as I believe another 48 is not in my future but my being able to call each parent and them being there to answer is something I am so very grateful for. :heart:

@LD Saunders I'm not really sure how to maneuver around here yet.

You're doing just fine!

great story. And congrats with starting on your wel deserved rest from raising him now that he's an adult. — Benkei

Benkei, you just wrote a "great story" about some kind of "rest" that happens when you child turns 18!
Good luck with the idea that you will ever feel "rested" again. :rofl:

@Rich :heart: :heart: :heart:

We do the best we can. I have diverse interests that allow me to learn more about myself and life, always in moderation with no expectations other than what unfolds. Your best and only teacher is yourself. — Rich

Very wise advice

@LD Saunders
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

One of the things that is pissing me off about the comments on this thread is the absolute certainty that a man of forty could not have good intentions towards a girl of 17. A lot of men and women live with people a lot younger than they are. — Sir2u

Sir, my intention is not to piss you off in any way. I agree that there are men who are over 40 who could have good intentions toward a girl of 17. In fact I think that a man of 40 yrs old could teach a younger woman a good trick or two that she can carry with her into her next sexual relationship. There are men of 40 yrs old that are witty enough, caring enough, deep enough, worldly enough, compassionate enough to have a very positive effect on a girl of 17 but she should be able to get that filled by her Dad. Even though I admit that there are benefits of a 17 yr old with a 40 yr old relationship, I do not think it is a healthy relationship, not at that age, not with that big of an age discrepancy.

Just give it some time......

Also, anybody else read about the Tether token and probable swindle involved? — Benkei

I asked about Tether and the response was it is just another Token regardless of what they say about the conversion time.

@Marcus Smith
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are happy you are here~

@Paul E. Mokrzecki
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Enjoy the ride~

Have you, or anyone on this thread, asked WHY is it that in a country that has a 'right to bear arms', that these arms are banned from public ownership? — charleton

What country are you talking about?
If you are speaking of the USA, what exactly do you mean by "banned from public ownership"?

I just returned from Chicago where my family remains and I had the chance to take the train, as I so love to do. It's about an hour ride so I can relax and this time when I flew in I brought with me some 10 inches of snow and I was soo excited that I finally got to see, feel and live a week of life in the snow. I apologized to the locals who were grumbling about the weather but during one trip back to the city, I looked out the window and saw a dog trying to catch a shovel of snow that it's owner kept tossing. I was so excited I stood up and pointed at what I was seeing and the train full of a captive audience looked where I was pointing and it made a lot of us smile.

@LostThomist
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Enjoy the ride

On a separate note, check your statistics. Countries with lower ages of consent have lower rates of teenage pregnancies, so if you're really concerned about teenage pregnancy then you should logically be arguing in favour of lowering the age of consent. — Pseudonym

Even though pregnancy is a huge concern of mine, the mental affects a 40+yr old man having sex with my 17 year old daughter would be far more lasting.

You both seem to be arguing from a utilitarian perspective that because some harm can arise from the young adult's actions you (or the law) is justified in acting to prevent that harm. — Pseudonym

I think you are mistaking a "utilitarian perspective" with a "Parents perspective". I am not only suggesting that "some harm can arise" I am saying even if you get away without getting pregnant, you were still a victim of a predator (yes I am using that word accurately) who was after you for your age, not for who you were as a person.

But this alone is clearly not enough, adults make really bad decisions and yet the law does not intervene. We could, for example ban people from drinking alcohol if they've ever made a bad choice and drunk too much. We could make it illegal to have sex with someone who has had an abortion. We could put anti-social octogenarians under house arrest. — Pseudonym

I will give you that adults can and do make really bad decisions but if it affects another in a bad way, the law most certainly does intervene. In the same way the law will intervene on a drunk on a club crawl, OB/Gyn's are OBLIGATED to report any signs of abuse to a woman (pregnant or not) AND if Mom with baby in utero has a blood screen done and it comes up 'fuzzy' they are obligated to contact the authorities to follow that Mom's pregnancy through the babies birth. Even though pregnancy is contained to the woman's body, the law has it's eyes on that baby from the first New Pregnancy visit of any woman. All of this oversight by the law seems to keep a pretty good tab on very natural event.

So why don't we do these things, they would be quite certain to avoid further harms.In fact someone whose already had an unwanted pregnancy has proved themselves at least likely to make the same mistake again. More than can be said for the teenager. — Pseudonym

Source please.

We don't do them for one of two reasons, both of which you are both ignoring. Either we consider autonomy to be a right and so it is a duty to maintain it, or, remaining utilitarian, we consider the harms of acting outweigh the harms of not. — Pseudonym

Again you use the term "utilitarian" and I use the word "parenting", maybe even throw in the word "actively parenting" and that position in life, I absolutely agree it involves weighing out the harm of acting or not acting.

So my question to you both is, if you think that a 17 year old should have the full authority of the law brought to bear to ban them from having sex with whomever they choose, then why would you not extend the same ban to those adults who have demonstrated themselves by their actions liable to make the exact same bad decisions that you are concerned the 17 year old will make? — Pseudonym

If my 17 year old chose to have sex with someone who was 40+yrs old, I would be looking to put both of them through a therapy of choice. He could go to jail and she would go to counseling to try and get to the root of why she is looking for comfort in the man my age, not her age.

All of these examples of when and why children should be able to make their own choices in life, expressing free will of decisions and paths to take are all wonderful in theory and many are wonderful in application.

The omission that keeps being left by the way side is that the female under the age of 18, now possesses a life long commitment to the decision that she now has to make. Have a baby at age 19 by herself and the flowery path that a single woman with a child has ahead of her OR deal with the life long ramifications of having to make the choice to have an abortion and have to disclose that on medical records for the rest of her life.

And where is he who has been slapped on the wrist twice by the law and still believes he is morally correct in attempting to have "consensual" sex with anyone over the age of _____ <insert under the age of 18 here> because she was willing?

Out buying formula after working a double shift? Or out trying to tempt another young lady into his trap?

We are halfway to the weekend....yippee!
Okay so it is fake enthusiasm but it is enthusiasm..

Its not the existence of an age of consent I object to, its the cultural influence over what that age actually is. We cannot keep denying a young adult's right to choose what to do with their own body on the basis of some cultural notion of development with no objective basis. — Pseudonym

Yes, we can deny a young adult's right to choose what to do with their own body until they, alone, are capable of handling the consequences of their actions both foreseen and unforeseen.

Here's another perspective. Many 16-19 year old girls like to have sex. Who's to say that the experience these girls had with your brother wasn't overwhelmingly a positive one. Have you spoken to any of them or have any reason to believe that your brothers actions have caused them harm? — Perplexed

Perplexed, how do you know that many 16-19 year old girls like to have sex? How do you know what their take away is with having sex with any man, of any age? How many men had you slept with by age 16? How much older was he/were they than you? Do regret having sex with your first? Were you worried about being pregnant? Did you wonder if he broke you because of all of the blood? When did you tell your parents that you were having sex? Is one of your fantasies to get a "do -over" in losing your virginity to someone less experienced, more gentle and slower moving?

If not isn't it somewhat condescending for you to assume that they don't have minds of their own or can make decisions for themselves. — Perplexed

Sure girls can make decisions for themselves about many things at 16 like what kind of makeup to buy, what prom dress will look the best and what their friends should do about their first high school crush. Those are things that 16 year olds have the rationale to choose and can handle the lasting impact of the consequences of their choices. To look back in horror at the peach taffeta prom dress you thought was so princess like is one thing but to look back at how you navigated your sexual growth with someone twice your age makes for therapy, at least a good year of therapy. All 16 year old girls have the desire to express their free will to choose but they do not always understand the long term consequences of their choices which is why adults set what appear to be arbitrary ages for consent.

One more thing: even though it can be condescending for any adult to assume that girls at age 16 don't have minds of their own, IT IS NOT condescending of an adult to assume that a 16 year old cannot always make the best decisions for themselves.

@Phil
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are glad you are here~

He was saying that we're talking about protecting children from themselves, rather than protecting children from adults — Michael

You nailed it. Well done

The question is gun control, not gun "takeaway." — tim wood

Call it what you will but it feels like a thinly veiled road into the confiscation of legally owned firearms by the government we have elected.

There are circumstances in which the phrase "grandfather clause" is used to describe someone or something that is not going to have to change it's current stance but everyone or everything that comes after that point in time will be subjected to the change.

I have been on both sides of the "grandfather clause" and what I have found is that if there is anyway possible to preserve my current position, I am better off as a consumer, from electric company programs to rights to water on a private property, change is rarely in favor of the consumer.

So I am very hesitant to change my mindset that "gun control" is not gun take way but let me entertain the idea of enacting "gun control" in today's reality.

1) There would be a need to "grandfather in" the firearms that are already in the publics hands.
2) An armed guard at every school until we solve the 6 minute time frame needed for an armed officer to get to the school with an active shooter.
3) A person under the age of 21 may purchase and possess a hunting rifle after successfully completing a marksman course in safety.
4) A person who can pass a background check must also be 21 to purchase a fire arm.

Maybe
5) Having identifying numbers on ammo purchased for high capacity fire arms

What would you do if you saw a 40 yr old man hitting on the girl in the picture? I was 15 in that picture and wound up dating a man who was 23, who was my first sexual relationship. At the time I thought it was extremely flattering that a man of 23 would find me attractive despite the horror and anger my Mom expressed when she found out we were having sex. The most poignant question I have ever been asked in both therapy and in confiding in friends came from @Hanover who dared to ask where my Dad was.... good question.... because as a parent now? Whomever was hitting on her would have been speaking in a different octave when they left then when they came in.

@CuddlyHedgehog
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Enjoy the ride~

In fact I have. On this very subject. — Thorongil

I have felt a shifting of the sands that I stand on in regards to this topic, so I am very interested in what you change you have found.

It takes a lot to change something fundamental about who we are, what we believe in and what we want our future to look like. It is very hard for me to let someone else's logic weigh something so ingrained in me.

It is almost like someone trying to convince me that there is a God when I was raised an Atheist.
(Just as an example as I was raised Catholic)

I don't really know what the difference is between those who support gun control and those who oppose it. Is it that they disagree over whether or not gun control will make the country safer, or is it that opponents of gun control believe that the right to own a gun is more important than a safer country? — Michael

Your questions/observations are as close to the core beliefs of the need to own a firearm than you realize.

I haven't even gotten an answer to the last moral bite to chew on and you hit me with another. It feels like your nearing the core of the issue for me anyway.

From my experience, and seemingly from yours too, these are not good places to leave sick people in. — Agustino

No, no they are not.
So if you were able to choose, how would you go?
I am thinking I would try Death by Chocolate!
(L) @Sir2u (L) @Lone Wolf (L) @Agustino
Thank you for being here for me~

But are you saying that it's better to allow domestic abusers and the mentally ill to buy guns that to risk the chance that all guns will be confiscated? — Michael

Michael, your question is making me think.
We have laws in place to remove current firearms from and remove the right to buy future firearms, from those convicted of domestic abuse and those who are diagnosed as mentally ill but as I have suggested before most who want to do harm with a firearm will find one illegally.

Having said that: I still don't have a solid answer as to which risk is greater to me.

You live in Arizona don't you? Don't you have to be 21 to buy alcohol? Strange that it's higher. — Michael

I am not understanding your question. Yes you have to be 21 to purchase alcohol but if you are caught driving under the influence at any age before 21, you loose your license to drive until you are 21.

Hilary Gun control and a plan for the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic. — Michael

Hilary Clinton's Democratic Party Leader slipped within the first few seconds of this video. Make no doubt about it, Democrats would like nothing more than "the slippery slope" of gun control to turn into gun confiscation.