NMP Thio Makes 2nd Police Report

Icemoon SG

The issue with animals is tricky. What is consent to an animal? What constitute consent? Lack of struggle? After all, we humans struggle if we get tied up, molested etc. Furthermore if you own a dog, you have certain rights over it. You can sell it, shower it, let it wear fanciful clothes etc. Will a dog consent to you giving it a shower, by the way?

If there is no possibility of consent where animals are concerned, then consent should not be the criteria to judge whether the action is criminal. Harm should be the criteria, agree?

Gedanken SG

How would the defense prove that?

Icemoon SG

If there is potential for harm, then the way to go is to encourage people to practise safe sex.

Icemoon SG

My view .. I'm not a lawyer anyway:

1. The girl's behaviour .. like she is a wanton girl? With multiple underage bfs.

2. Seduction. lol

I think the point is to discredit her (like 1), then the defense argument will carry more weight.

crosshairs SG

There can be no sound and logical debate with a goal post shifting individual who does not recognise the very real danger of inbreeding and it's effects on innocent children.

Icemoon SG

I'm not saying there is no danger from the 'accidental' inbreeding.

But this argument does not stand 'cos the act itself does not lead naturally to inbreeding, just like gambling does not lead naturally to family breakdown, or sex with strangers in HIV-infested countries like Africa lead to AIDS.

Have to clarify a bit. The law defines the act as essentially an act of penetration. So I'm justified to say the act itself does not lead naturally to inbreeding.

If you worry about innocent children, shouldn't it be criminal as well to have sex with a person you know is HIV-infected? (I know no idiot will risk his life this way, so I hope it is clear that I'm talking about protected sex here)

Furthermore, does it mean that if I can prove there is no chance of inbreeding, then the act is not criminal?

Remember we are talking about consensual act between two mature adults behind closed doors.

Gedanken SG

If the girl does exhibit such abberrant behaviour, would it not be judged that she does not have sound judgement?

Yes, attacking the witness is a common tactic for the defense against sexual assault charges. However, according to Section 375, rape is committed when the defendant has intercourse with a girl under the age of 14, regardless of consent. After a bit of digging around, the impression I get is that the age of consent is a figure arbitrarily set, and in some systems the figures were set in the late 1800s. However, if you consider research into cognitive development, the ability to provide consent comes about after the age of 15 or 16 (depending on whose research you read), so 14 is in fact a liberal standard.

Gedanken SG

I think it's interesting that you should hold this opinion, especially since Section 377 states:

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

That being the case, you should logically be arguing for repeal of 377A.

Icemoon SG

Me a bit confused liao.

'cos how come adults with identical abberrant behaviour are considered to have sound judgement but not for underage girls?

The logical relationship -> if you exhibit such abberrant behaviour, you do not have sound judgement.

Similarly -> if you have sound judgement, you will not exhibit such abberrant behaviour.

See .. it is a reductio ad absurdum if we apply it to adults.

Mr. Green

Icemoon SG

I'm not sure how they define this order of nature.

I mean to say, we are not alone in the animal kingdom in having gays.

Perhaps the order of nature refers to the order of nature for man, rather than the animal kingdom.

Gedanken SG

You've lost me there.

Yes, such abberrant behaviourreflects lack of sound judgement. What part of that doesn't add up? Confused

Gedanken SG

Well, that's the precise wording of 377.

If, as you say, we are not alone in the animal kingdom in having gays, there's no utility in making the distinction between the order of nature for man and animals, is there?

Icemoon SG

I think a distinction has to be made. The order of nature for man should be different from the order of nature for animals.

The predatory behaviour of certain species of animals, where fratricide is not against the order of nature, is a sign that a distinction has already been made.

Icemoon SG

The term 'sound judgement' was first used by Crosshairs. I quote him:

If someone has intercourse with you without your explicit consent is that not an offence? Or when a doubt exists to whether the party being exploited has the ability and sound judgement to give consent in the first place, like in the case of the underaged?

If abberrant behaviour reflect lack of sound judgement, how is it that adults with abberrant behaviour are still deem to have sound judgement?

Note that in Crosshairs' reply, it is implicit that adults have the ability and sound judgement to give consent, is it not?

Gedanken SG

That doesn't add up. Earlier, you wrote:

Certainly you were making no distinction then, and indeed point 1 implies that nature constitutes no grounds for 377A - why introduce the point otherwise?

If, just for argument's sake, we do make a distinction between nature for man and beast, then your point 2 is at odds with 377.

Icemoon SG

I am confused over the definition of 'nature' myself.

Why is 2 at odds with 377?

Gedanken SG

Begs the question. I asked how the defense could prove that the victim had sound judgement, and in response you proposed the girl's wanton behaviour with multiple underage boyfriends. How does such behaviour prove sound judgement?

I would agree with you if you said that aberrant behaviour does not always disprove sound judgement, but it cannot possibly prove sound judgement.

Gedanken SG

If there is no natural obstruction to the act, what prima facie case is there to demonstrate that it is against the order of nature?

Icemoon SG

There is none, I guess.

So we can conclude the order of nature has to refer to that of man and not of beast?

Icemoon SG

Hmm .. you are right I guess, got me stuck here. Mr. Green

Sound judgement can never be proven, it is just something implicit in you after you reach a certain age.

Well .. who said the law is fair anyway?

« Previous Page Next Page »