Stephen Fry raises philosophical questions over age of consent

Stephen Fry has raised important philosophical questions when asked about the age of consent in an Oxford Union meeting, broadly:

  • How can a 1 day difference between 15 and 16 turn a person from a victim to a perpetrator (who will then be anally raped and beaten in prison)?
  • Why are people so obsessed with salacious “child sex” stories? Is it really *only* about protecting children?

Admittedly he puts these points over in a very politically correct way still claiming that despite this “we just have to draw the line”. It’s hard to know for certain if he truly believes in age of consent laws or not (we would hope he is intelligent enough not to believe in them). However, one might hope he has created a sense of cognitive dissonance amongst the Oxford University students there.

Watch the video here:

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Stephen Fry raises philosophical questions over age of consent

  1. Alan Vaughn says:

    Admittedly he puts these points over in a very politically correct way still claiming that despite this “we just have to draw the line”. It’s hard to know for certain if he truly believes in age of consent laws or not…

    I agree. I think he was being very cautious and guarded with what he wanted to project there, but I also feel if you had a quiet word with him alone – somewhere far removed from the notoriously PC setting of academia, totally devoid of prying cameras or microphones, he would more likely open up and echo everything we say and have been saying for years. Otherwise, he clearly fears a knee-jerk media response, that would be eagerly and patiently waiting for the slightest opportunity and weakest excuse, to award him the label of ‘child sex apologist’, or worse…
    Stephen also recognizes, as we do, that we live in a totalitarian democratic society, where ‘freedom of speech’ is allowed and even encouraged… Providing such speech is politically correct, does not offend feminists and thus, endorses the dominant narrative.
    Anyone who dares to dissent, or merely questions that narrative will no longer enjoy freedom, never mind freedom of speech…

    • holocaust21 says:

      True, he seems to keep coming out with anti-paedohysteria stuff. He said this, he singled out and attacked that disgusting piece of shit Keir Starmer over yewtree, and he pointed out that he has no sympathy for self-pitying child “abuse” victims.

      Still, he probably could get away with being more unPC *if* he played his cards right. He’s got the money so he can afford to be outcasted by the politically correct BBC etc. He could probably gain back some political capital by writing for Sp!ked, or joining Sex & Censorship or even Mike Buchanan’s campaign or starting his own organisation.

      Afterall, Roosh managed to call for rape to be legalised without being imprisoned or executed so there’s a way! And Roosh didn’t even apologise.

  2. Salem21 says:

    As for Oscar Wilde’s time, There was no age of consent for homosexual activity, Heterosexual age of consent had not long been raised from 12 – 13 then 1885 to 16…No such magical line in the sand for homosexual behaviour; I also read Oscar enjoyed the company of youths when he visited Morocco — Like most pederasts. Maybe he thought it would be to risky to mention that. As for the AOC there are other avenues like the P.I.E proposals in the 1970’s, Where they can make sure the child in question is not being manipulated when they’re under ten etc. But like a line in a film I watched recently goes — The puritans have won!

    • holocaust21 says:

      The trouble I had with the P.I.E proposals is they fail to address the issue that “protection of children” is a lie to hide the feminazis true motives. The feminazis true motives are, as far as I can tell, a combination of sexual jealousy, irrational fear and lust for power.

      You could argue that “protection of children” comes under irrational fear, however, the fear IS irrational. For one, how the hell does the age of consent even help protect children? If these children get so terribly exploited and told to say they consented when they didn’t then how are even insane laws like the age of consent going to help? 99% of the time they’ll just be told to stay quiet and thus no one would know anyway – AOC or not. The only way to prevent the other 99% of cases is to try to keep men away from children all together and put CCTV cameras outside everyones houses so they can see if a man visits a house with a child. But nah, that’d be ridiculous right?

      Oh wait. Already men get randomly jailed if they teach in primary schools. Parents frequently divorce and the woman keeps the child… Apologies I was wrong. Feminist laws really do protect children it’s just they need to go to their ultimate conclusion: Ban men from being anywhere near children

      • Salem21 says:

        “The feminazis true motives are, as far as I can tell, a combination of sexual jealousy, irrational fear and lust for power.”…Some might say this is a male access issue, The fact that women don’t like the idea of men getting access to nubile, fresh flesh, pardon the pun! One thing I forgot to mention in last blog about the AOC is that there was no homosexual age of consent because ALL homosexual activity was illegal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s