• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eighteen involved in gang rape of 11 year old girl in Texas

It is not a question of interpretation. Legal consent and actual consent are not the same thing. As for pedophilia that is a term to describe a specific sexual appetite for pre-pubescent individuals. Someone who is 11 is not pre-pubescent. In fact, if this girl in question truly appeared to be as developed as many post-pubescent individuals then there is no aberration in their sexual interest at all.

So, if this girl had been 17 instead of 11, being gang raped by 18 savages would have been perfectly acceptable. Is that really your point?
 
So, if this girl had been 17 instead of 11, being gang raped by 18 savages would have been perfectly acceptable. Is that really your point?

I'm not defending DoL's actual point of view, but do you guys really not realize that you're twisting people words and giving them meaning that is not there at all. He didn't condone rape anywhere in his post. WTF?
 
I'm not defending DoL's actual point of view, but do you guys really not realize that you're twisting people words and giving them meaning that is not there at all. He didn't condone rape anywhere in his post. WTF?

It sure sounded like it in the post I quoted, but maybe that was a misinterpretation on my part. Does it matter that the 11 year old "consented" to gang rape? Would it matter if the girl were of age?
 
This will probably be the last you hear of this.
 
Couldn't happen in this country. Especially in Texas. Must be a mistake. She should have been carrying a gun.

ind3eeds sehs shoulda abieen. not herefault though.


strimgnem up.
 
It sure sounded like it in the post I quoted, but maybe that was a misinterpretation on my part. Does it matter that the 11 year old "consented" to gang rape? Would it matter if the girl were of age?

I thought he was taking issue with the word 'rape' itself. Meaning the girl, at 11, could have consented in the sense of being able to say 'yes, i want to have sex'. Pointing this out doesn't look like condoning to me. He was pointing out the difference between actual and legal consent. For example, if an 18 year old had sex with his/her 17 year old boyfriend/girlfriend in some states, the law would call it statutory rape even though most us would say that the legal judgment of consent was not a good measure of the situation.

That's a much more difficult argument to make for any 11 year old since their mental grasp of sex is much lower than that of a 17 year old and it's kind of a distasteful argument to bring up since she likely didn't just 'have sex' with 18 grown men, but I understand his argument.

I personally think that even if an 11 year old says yes and is physically past puberty, she doesn't have the mental capacity to consent in any meaningful way.
 
I've just never met someone who actually had any idea what I was trying to say. It leads me to believe I'm just bad with words.

Or it could be that you don't make any f***gin sense.
 
Or it could be that you don't make any f***gin sense.

I understood him perfectly. Here's his argument in one sentence: When you evaluate this situation exclusively with reason, you can see that it has a much lower affect on humanity than other similarly violent crimes like genocide.

But then everybody twisted this argument by insinuating that he was a sick, psychopathic pedophile for not evaluating it exclusively with emotion. It turns out though that you can evaluate things from a non-emotional standpoint and an emotional standpoint and still be a normal person.
 
I understood him perfectly. Here's his argument in one sentence: When you evaluate this situation exclusively with reason, you can see that it has a much lower affect on humanity than other similarly violent crimes like genocide.

But then everybody twisted this argument by insinuating that he was a sick, psychopathic pedophile for not evaluating it exclusively with emotion. It turns out though that you can evaluate things from a non-emotional standpoint and an emotional standpoint and still be a normal person.

Thanks again. I figured if I tried to explain again I would just be horribly misinterpreted.
 
The thing is, they can give consent, but it's meaningless.

Meaningless under the law, but beyond that I would say it is quite meaningful.

This is crap and creepy as well. I cannot imagine looking at an 11 year old that way and any grown man who does is a perv. 11 is a child, they do not have the decision making capabilities of an adult, plus they're easily manipulated. If you need that kind of unfair advantage over a girl then you are truly a loser, not to mention a criminal.

You can't see "decision-making capabilities" on a person. The point is if someone at that age has the physical attributes of someone much older it is not perverted to find those attributes attractive.

What we seem to have here is a difference of opinion between those who empathize with the victim, and those who empathize with the perpetrators. It seems to be a nonchalant shrug, along with a "what's the big deal? I'd hit that" attitude. I find the latter to be so absurdly inflammatory and callous that I'm beginning to suspect we are being deliberately trolled by those who frankly don't think the rape of a child is a big deal at all. Pretty pathetic.

Things are not so simple when people start calling for blood. If she was as physically-developed as someone much older then it would not be surprising for her to be mistaken for someone older or for people the age of the individuals arrested to consider her physically attractive. What we know of the situation is limited and while there is apparently video evidence of the acts, it does not indicate whether things began as the victim alleges.

What your attitude indicates is that no matter what horrific act we are discussing, you really can't be bothered with it because you can think of something even worse that has happened somewhere before. Was a newborn microwaved until she exploded? No big deal, because there was a genocide in Rwanda. Did a psychopath blow into a kindergarten and murder 35 children with an assault rifle? Can't really be bothered about that because there is bad stuff going on in Durfar. Was an entire family tortured and butchered in their home? Oh, puleese, this kind of sh*t happens all the time, and there is a civil war in Libya.

This is nothing more than a pathetic way of getting attention for yourself and giving you the excuse to make dispicable comments without taking responsibility. Your attitude, your manipulation of the forum, your insistance that no topic is really worth talking about because nothing is really as important as stuff YOU think is important has already given you more attention than you deserve here. You will get no more acknowledgment or attention from me.

Hopefully others here will make the same decision.

Arcadius is raising a legitimate question. If you fixate on every individual crime you are going to lose your head and render yourself useless in resolving bigger issues.

Just because they define an 11 year old as being a legitimate target for their sexual predation, that does not make an 11 year old an adult.

Too bad I wasn't saying anything like that at all. My opinion is people should stick roughly to their own age groups.

THe perspective of one who triviliazes the gang rape of a child?

Why would anybody want to adopt such a sick point of view?

Well, my interest is in demystifying things like this.

So, if this girl had been 17 instead of 11, being gang raped by 18 savages would have been perfectly acceptable. Is that really your point?

Rape is never acceptable. What I said was not even close to what you claim. The claims prompting my response suggested first that someone at that age cannot consent and that it was pedophilia. One of those positions was incorrect and, in my opinion, the other was also incorrect.

Looking at the situation it would not surprise me if the girl was lying about how things started out. We only have her word that she was coerced into the situation. That would have a lot of relevance in my mind as it concerns the charges and potential sentencing.
 
I understood him perfectly. Here's his argument in one sentence: When you evaluate this situation exclusively with reason, you can see that it has a much lower affect on humanity than other similarly violent crimes like genocide.

But then everybody twisted this argument by insinuating that he was a sick, psychopathic pedophile for not evaluating it exclusively with emotion. It turns out though that you can evaluate things from a non-emotional standpoint and an emotional standpoint and still be a normal person.

Could you tell this low life that?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...11-year-old-girl-texas-13.html#post1059334983

And DOL's above post has a lot of good points.

People think "pedophilia" is the sexual attraction to someone under a certain age, usually 18. It has NOTHING to do with age. It has to do with their body development. It is not "pedophilia" to find a 16yo girl who has an adult body attractive. People are attracted to their body, her attributes are adult, so that's not perverted at all. Therein lies the problem of labeling someone a sex offender who is 18 having sex with their 16yo gf. Or even 25 with their 16yo gf. Her body shape and development is 100% adult, shes only not an adult on paper. If someone is attracted to a very well developed 11yo, for the same reason, that's not pedophilia. That's actually called hebephelia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

It may not be socially acceptable, but pedophilia, it is not. If someone is attracted to a 5yo with a 5yo's attributes, that IS pedophilia.

Pedophilia is one of the most misused and misunderstood terms in the English language today.
 
Last edited:
I still can't believe almost everyone thinks I'm a troll or some heartless monster. Even though I have never said in any way that rape should be condoned. In fact I expressed my sympathy multiple times. I just don't understand how your train of thought works.
 
I still can't believe almost everyone thinks I'm a troll or some heartless monster. Even though I have never said in any way that rape should be condoned. In fact I expressed my sympathy multiple times. I just don't understand how your train of thought works.

I know what you mean, bro. I got attacked for saying that I abhor rape, being said that those that are strongest against a crime are more likely to commit it. Now get this, this same idiot attacked me earlier for not having kids and thus my non-emotional reaction to this thread was an indication that I must agree with the rape or some kind of ****.

Glad he's banned. He wasn't worth the space on my screen.
 
I still can't believe almost everyone thinks I'm a troll or some heartless monster. Even though I have never said in any way that rape should be condoned. In fact I expressed my sympathy multiple times. I just don't understand how your train of thought works.

In this situation people tend to be reactionaries. Note how many of them start out assuming the story is just as apparently stated and that all of the people arrested are guilty thus deserving of the severest of punishments.
 
Every one of these animals if found guilty should be chemically castrated and sent to prison for a minimum of 25 years.
 
In this situation people tend to be reactionaries. Note how many of them start out assuming the story is just as apparently stated and that all of the people arrested are guilty thus deserving of the severest of punishments.

I think punishment and retribution are very juvenile concepts when regarding crime. In this case I think the perpetrators should simply be removed from society, to keep them from harming anyone else. Instead people are just saying they should be murdered or castrated. And my favorite, that they are somehow sub-human. This is one of the reasons I value logic over emotion.
 
Last edited:
I think punishment and retribution are very juvenile concepts when regarding crime. In this case I think the perpetrators should simply be removed from society, to keep them from harming anyone else. Instead people are just saying they should be murdered or castrated. And my favorite, that they are somehow sub-human. This is one of the reasons I value logic over emotion.

removing them from society IS punishment, at least for most people it would be. punishment is valid, retribution is not, unless she was my daughter. then i would kill them. twice.
 
removing them from society IS punishment, at least for most people it would be. punishment is valid, retribution is not, unless she was my daughter. then i would kill them. twice.

But you shouldn't be removing them to punish them. You should be removing them to prevent more harm. And then you would be arrested and get sent to prison, and your daughter wouldn't have her mother when she needs her most.
 
But you shouldn't be removing them to punish them. You should be removing them to prevent more harm. And then you would be arrested and get sent to prison, and your daughter wouldn't have her mother when she needs her most.

oh no......criminals should have some sort of punishment. and i doubt i would be sent to prison....what jury would do that?
 
oh no......criminals should have some sort of punishment. and i doubt i would be sent to prison....what jury would do that?

Perhaps punishment as a way to deter those who would commit the crime. But it's a very primitive thought process to just call for someone to be thrown in the fire because they committed a certain act. Because you just killed someone. Murder is illegal. You can't just go kill someone because you're pretty sure they committed a crime. The judicial system is far from perfect, it's better than just going around killing people.
 
But you shouldn't be removing them to punish them. You should be removing them to prevent more harm. And then you would be arrested and get sent to prison, and your daughter wouldn't have her mother when she needs her most.

I don't know if it's the word 'punishment' that you take issue with. But criminals do need consequences. I don't believe in a justice system built on revenge or on putting people in time outs, but I do believe in one that 1) Like you said, removes them to prevent harm. 2) Gives them consequences that make them not want to do the crime again (which I guess really is punishing). 3) Rehabilitates them in the sense that they are taught how to not enter into the same situations/mindsets that contributed to their actions and gives them the tools necessary to contribute to society.
 
Perhaps punishment as a way to deter those who would commit the crime. But it's a very primitive thought process to just call for someone to be thrown in the fire because they committed a certain act. Because you just killed someone. Murder is illegal. You can't just go kill someone because you're pretty sure they committed a crime. The judicial system is far from perfect, it's better than just going around killing people.

i would never kill someone unless i knew for certain they committed an awful crime against my children. in fact, i doubt i could retaliate UNLESS the crime was against my children. in this case, seems a video is making the rounds.

now, justice is not really a primitive thought process. it's a necessary tool for society to punish those who commit crimes. otherwise, anarchy.
 
I don't know if it's the word 'punishment' that you take issue with. But criminals do need consequences. I don't believe in a justice system built on revenge or on putting people in time outs, but I do believe in one that 1) Like you said, removes them to prevent harm. 2) Gives them consequences that make them not want to do the crime again (which I guess really is punishing). 3) Rehabilitates them in the sense that they are taught how to not enter into the same situations/mindsets that contributed to their actions and gives them the tools necessary to contribute to society.

Our justice system isn't very good at the third. I also think some criminals can't be rehabilitated. But, I agree with all of them. I also think there should be more research into understanding what causes people to commit certain crimes, so we can stop them before they happen.
 
i would never kill someone unless i knew for certain they committed an awful crime against my children. in fact, i doubt i could retaliate UNLESS the crime was against my children. in this case, seems a video is making the rounds.

now, justice is not really a primitive thought process. it's a necessary tool for society to punish those who commit crimes. otherwise, anarchy.

Even then it's still vigilantism, and murder. I think we should only punish to the degree necessary to deter crime. I think justice is a very subjective concept. We just need to keep order and maintain the safety of the populace.
 
Back
Top Bottom