Text 18706, 150 rader
Skriven 2011-05-14 15:51:30 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: I wanna!
================
Hello Ross,

On Wednesday May 11 2011 11:56, you wrote to me:

 MV>> Menno Blom was not seeking sex with a child. A 14 year old is not
 MV>> a child any more.

 RC> In your sick perverted cesspool of a country, perhaps, but quit
 RC> assuming that your laws apply to everyone all over.

Intent is in the mind, which the law does not cpontrol.

Can you have "intent to have sex wuth a 30 year old child"? I don't think so.
Why not? Because in your perception a 29 year old is not a child. Can you
actua;;y HAVE sex with a 29 year old child? Not in the US, but you could if
there were a country where childhood legally ends at 30. If you were to go to
that country, could you have "intent to have sex with a 29 year old child"?
Only if you KNEW that in that country a 29 year old is still a child and your
were able to adjust your perception to match that.

 MV>> As for using a computer as a method of making contact, what is
 MV>> wrong with that? It is a lot more efficient than hanging out in
 MV>> bars and much cheaper.

 RC> Had it occured to you that the anonymity afforded by the computer is
 RC> what got him in trouble?

A computer offers no more anonimity than an exchange of letters or an add in
the classified section of a newspaper. His error was that he did not realise
the offer was too ggod to be true. That can happen with any means of making
contact.

 MV>> Have you never bought or sold anything on E-bay?

 RC> Nope.

I have. Never had any problems and found lots of goodies.

 MV>> And both the knowledge that intent to have sex with a 14 yo is
 MV>> illegal AND the fact that there was no 14 yo, were carefully kept
 MV>> from him. A trap was set.

 RC> The mouse can always ignore the trap with the cheese.

No, the mouse can not ignore the trap. The mouse is not smart enough to realise
it is a trap. The drive to take the food when the opportunity is presented is
too strong.

 RC> Being enticed is one thing, succumbing to the enticement is _ANOTHER_
 RC> thing entirely,

In order to avoid succumbing to enticement, one first has to know that
succumbing ois something wrong.

 RC> your entire premise is based on blaming the enticer and not the
 RC> enticee,

It was the enticer that started the chain of events.

 RC> for your _entire_ premise to hold any water would mean that the
 RC> pervert BLOM cannot control himself

How do you know he would not have controlled himself, had he been properly
informed? You really think he would have continued, had he been clearly told
that intent to have sex with a 14 year old would haven gotten him arrested in
the US?

To make the right decison, one has to be properly informed.

 MV>> Indeed. Had he known he was lured into a trap, he would have
 MV>> acted different. He also would have acted different had he known
 MV>> that intent to have sex with a 14 yo is illegal. But he did not
 MV>> know and he was not told...

 RC> So in the Nederlands, you people arent held responsible for the
 RC> choices you make?

On;y of those choices are made out of free will without being mislead by
informatio that is witheld or misrepresented.

 MV>> You Yanks are dangerous murderers. 16 year olds are not mature
 MV>> enough to take the responsibilities that come with being in the
 MV>> driver seat of a high velocity motor vehicle. Cars are
 MV>> #DANGEOUS#. Every month as many people get killed in motor
 MV>> vehicle incidents as were killed at 9/11.

 RC> Strawman!

Denial is not a river in Egypt. You are a bucnch of dangerous war mongering
murderers

 RC> For a 16 yo to get licensed to operate a motor vehicle requires
 RC> parental consent and in many states they have to maintain good grades
 RC> in school

That is sick. A 16 years old is too young to take the responsibility to control
such a dangerous machine as a car. You are a very sick society to allow that.

 MV>>>> He had no intention of molesting a child.

 RC>>> Then why did he go to the motel?

 MV>> To meet the "girl" of course.

 RC> To do what?

Not molest. In his perception he could have no more intent to molest that you
could have of molesting a 29 year old child.

 RC> Perhaps we ought to ban Dutch Perverts from the internet, would this
 RC> affect you?

Yes it would. No because I am a pervert, but it would escalate to a point where
it would affect me.

First they came for the jews. That did not afect me because I am not a jew.
Then they came for...  etc, etc.

 MV>> Can't you figure that out? OK, lemme explain...

 MV>> "Intent" is in the mind. In our mind and since he was from here,
 MV>> presumably that of Menno Blom, a 14 year old is not a child any
 MV>> more and having consensual sex with a 14 year old woman is not
 MV>> molest.

 RC> and after _you_ in particular have consistently reminded us that our
 RC> laws and ways are not applicable over in your cesspool, how can you

You are too stupid to understand it....

 MV>> He may or may not have the intent to accept the invitation to
 MV>> have sex, but if he had, in his mind it was not molesting a child
 MV>> . Therefore he had no intention of molesting a child.

 RC> If your girlfriend visits an Islamic Country and doesnt cover her
 RC> head, she could be breaking their laws despite the lack of intent to
 RC> do so.

Yes, if she actually uncovered her head, she would be breaking the law. And
that would apply independent of her knowledge of the law. But if she did not
know it was against the law, she could not possible have the intent to break
the law by doing it.

But I guess that it beyond you...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)