Anyone recall this statue the UN put at their HQ in 2021?

^^^ “And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.”
--- Revelations 13:2

UN can pound sand with a train and a telephone pole.

The UN building would be a good place to house the homeless of NY, illegal immigrants, sex offenders, etc.

There'll be no need to give the current occupants any advance notice. I'm sure they'll welcome the new squatters with open arms.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
^^^ “And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.”
--- Revelations Revelation 13:2

Fixed it for you.

I've said for years that the UN should be relocated to Harare, Zimbabwe. It is such a great example of "African" governance and success.

I am generally not at all a fan of the UN. With that said...

quote:

Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.

Ages of consent exist because minors are rightly considered incapable of giving informed consent. Particularly if they are vulnerable, or have been groomed. Alas, the report doubles down, demanding that “the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of [minors] to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them."

You know one of the third-world shitholes where this is already true?

The United States.

The exact details vary by state, of course, but generally:

Two fifteen-year-olds can have (legally) consensual sex even though they're both minors.

A nineteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can have (legally) consensual sex even though one is a minor and one isn't.

A twenty five-year-old and a seventeen-year-old that get married can have (legally) consensual sex even though one is a minor and one isn't and there's a bigger age gap. A lot of people don't agree with that one, or at least find it distasteful, but it's what the law says.

All the report actually said is that minimum age of consent laws shouldn't be applied universally and completely without exception.

That statement is general enough it could certainly be twisted to cover situations I am sure we would all find abhorrent, but it's also the implicit assumption in our own legal standards.

Wait. Are you saying the United States is a "third-world shit hole"?

It was a joke based on the comments about other countries in the original article and other discussion on this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
I am generally not at all a fan of the UN. With that said...


You know one of the third-world shitholes where this is already true?

The United States.

The exact details vary by state, of course, but generally:

Two fifteen-year-olds can have (legally) consensual sex even though they're both minors.

A nineteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can have (legally) consensual sex even though one is a minor and one isn't.

A twenty five-year-old and a seventeen-year-old that get married can have (legally) consensual sex even though one is a minor and one isn't and there's a bigger age gap. A lot of people don't agree with that one, or at least find it distasteful, but it's what the law says.

All the report actually said is that minimum age of consent laws shouldn't be applied universally and completely without exception.

That statement is general enough it could certainly be twisted to cover situations I am sure we would all find abhorrent, but it's also the implicit assumption in our own legal standards.

There is an enormous difference between a 17 year old and a 7 year old. Even between a 15 yr old and a 13 yr old. There are reasons why some situations are not prosecutable crimes, such as two 15 yr olds having consensual sex. Which of the two do you prosecute? You cannot prosecute both.

Clearly children are not capable of making informed consent about sex until some age (which will vary for each individual), and under some circumstances capable but other circumstances not capable.

We can look into the grey areas with our own biases and imagine scenarios where their statement seems correct.

But we need to be very cautious about agreeing with the enemy when they make statements that have some amount of truth, because they fully intend to take things well beyond where we would consider it acceptable. And we know what the motivation is for the kind of statement the UN put out. We are best to reject their premise for that reason.

It is exactly like gun control, where we give an inch in good faith only to find they immediately push for more and more and more. We know their agenda, so just oppose them.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

There is an enormous difference between a 17 year old and a 7 year old. Even between a 15 yr old and a 13 yr old. There are reasons why some situations are not prosecutable crimes, such as two 15 yr olds having consensual sex. Which of the two do you prosecute? You cannot prosecute both.

Clearly children are not capable of making informed consent about sex until some age (which will vary for each individual), and under some circumstances capable but other circumstances not capable.

We can look into the grey areas with our own biases and imagine scenarios where their statement seems correct.

But we need to be very cautious about agreeing with the enemy when they make statements that have some amount of truth, because they fully intend to take things well beyond where we would consider it acceptable. And we know what the motivation is for the kind of statement the UN put out. We are best to reject their premise for that reason.

It is exactly like gun control, where we give an inch in good faith only to find they immediately push for more and more and more. We know their agenda, so just oppose them.

Here is the complete text of the relevant section of the report. Sorry for the wonky formatting, the report doesn't seem to have selectable text so I had to OCR a screenshot.

----
Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/ gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances.
Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other gender-diverse people, or outside marriage - whether pre-marital or extramarital - may, therefore, never be criminalized.

With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.

Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of
persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.
------

Certainly, some groups might misrepresent and misuse that statement as supporting abhorrent acts.

However, to me, it seems very clear that this is directed at things like the places where when a man rapes a child, they don't do anything to the rapist and stone the girl to death for having extramarital sex (or throw people in prison for having gay sex, et cetera, et cerera), rather than being directed at the places that don't let old men have sex with small children.

"Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy" and "with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests" sure seem, TO ME, to be saying (as you point out), that a seven-year-old and a seventeen-year-old are not the same and should not be treated identically under the law, and that due to their "evolving capacities" and "progressive autonomy" (increasing ability to make their own decisions) and "age [and] maturity," a seventeen-year-old, despite being a minor, has some capacity to consent in some situations in a way that a young child does not. The US legal system is clearly in agreement with that position.

I do not see how a reasonable person can read those statements as saying "a small child can provide consent."

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:


Certainly, some groups might misrepresent and misuse that statement as supporting abhorrent acts.

However, to me, it seems very clear that this is directed at things like the places where when a man rapes a child, they don't do anything to the rapist and stone the girl to death for having extramarital sex (or throw people in prison for having gay sex, et cetera, et cerera), rather than being directed at the places that don't let old men have sex with small children.

"Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy" and "with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests" sure seem, TO ME, to be saying (as you point out), that a seven-year-old and a seventeen-year-old are not the same and should not be treated identically under the law, and that due to their "evolving capacities" and "progressive autonomy" (increasing ability to make their own decisions) and "age [and] maturity," a seventeen-year-old, despite being a minor, has some capacity to consent in some situations in a way that a young child does not. The US legal system is clearly in agreement with that position.

I do not see how a reasonable person can read those statements as saying "a small child can provide consent."

Easy. And, of course, there is an entire spectrum of ages involved. But I can assure you that many pre-pubescent children are lured into activity without violence as we normally envision rape. So if a 10 yr old is enticed into what is clearly sexual activity for the gratification of an adult, it is entirely possible that child has been conditioned or groomed over a period of time to believe they are choosing to do it. Or the child has been frightened so badly that they will testify that they freely consented. Early teens can be infatuated with significantly older people and believe they are freely consenting, but they are being manipulated and used.

I think the statement could be interpreted the way you stated, that victims of sex crimes should not be stoned, but the UN could have worded the entire statement very differently if that was their point. Instead they use verbal contortions to justify accepting children's right to consent to sex and to excuse sex between adults and children.

Note that when victims of rape are executed in backwards places, a claim of consent would not save them. In fact they are assumed to be at fault for taboo sex (e.g. outside of marriage). I don't see how saying a child victim of pedophilia was able to consent to it would make any difference in those places. But in the developed world such a position if accepted by the court would exonerate the perp.

I believe you are falling for one of the strategies of the evil leftists, which is to put forth propositions which can be interpreted by us as having room to mean something good, but they are just trying to prop open a door to get something evil instituted. Here's a simple example: Recently on another forum after the latest school shooting, someone asked if gun owners would be willing to give up their guns to save children. This question is a trojan horse, because the premise is false to begin with. But in the narrow confines of the question, we should answer YES. That is falling into their trap.

Ditto this UN statement. It's a trap.

The left is obsessed with sexualizing children. I understand it’s always been like that but man, they are not hiding it anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
Wait. Are you saying the United States is a "third-world shit hole"?

Our present regime is that of a "third-world shit hole," is it not? Political prosecutions, banning opposing views, state or party run media were not there yet but if The Krimson Kenyan keeps going we will be.

Speaking of old ways....

we need to bring back tar & feathering.

A healthy fear of failing constituents should be mandatory.

I can only say what I've said since I became an adult-fuck the UN. And I have to add, that's been a LONG time.

Yes, this will go over about as well as their demand for every American to surrender all firearms.