Search results

The odds of anyone lying about your medical credentials are zero, since nobody is dumb enough to claim that you have any.

Good grief! Are you really so naive that you think that no offence has been committed if you are not prosecuted?

The protagonists are say fourteen. They are above the age of criminal consent, which means that they legally know right from wrong and can be prosecuted if they commit a crime. They don't have to know why an act is criminal, just that criminal acts are wrong. Having sex with someone under 16...

Because ,duh, the age of criminal responsibility, that's the age by which a person is considered to know right from wrong and act accordingly, is less that the age of consent.

Either or both could end on the sex offenders register. It would depend on the discretion of the police and prosecution. Again, it depends on the particular circumstances.

Then what you "know" is wrong. Sex with a minor is always a sex offence. It may not be in the public interest to prosecute, but that's another side of the decision. Anyone who has sex with someone underage commits an offence, as long as they are over the age of criminal responsibility, which...

Wrong. A single beneficial mutation is not useless. If it was it would just be one of the much more common neutral mutations that do nothing significant. Beneficial mutations are, by definition, beneficial in and of themselves, irrespective of any other mutations. Beneficial mutations, by...

Oh I've taught adults as well. Every age group from 7 to 70, but teenagers are my specialist area. Children tell you that you've made a mistake. Adults admit when they make a mistake. You are not behaving like an adult here.

The match is over. You won. Time to stop harassing the ref, go and get changed ready for the next match.

Of course I do. Don't be pathetic and think you are being clever. I've taught 12 year olds for half a lifetime, and you couldn't even compete with them.

Not running, but laughing. I've said by what I wanted to, and it still applies. Your continued bewildered whittering to the contrary notwithstanding.

You cannot say definitely one way or another. Such generalisations, which you insist on making are worthless, since there will always be a set of circumstances that doesn't fit. For example , I would argue that a 12 year old who wants to transition in the teeth of opposition from parents, is a...

No, I haven't bothered. I have been replying to a more interesting poster. You keep waving your twisted knickers in the air. We don't need a reference to see just how silly that looks.

Sorry, but your prickly defensiveness is speaking volumes here. When in a hole, stop digging.

There is no "in general". Circumstances differ. Social workers remove children from parental care every week that passed. Every year that passed reveals dead children who were not so removed. I am a parent and a grandparent, an angle and a great uncle. I have also participated in...

As you used it, the clear implication is all humans. Even if this was just an ambiguity, a simple acknowledgment on your part would have been sufficient. Instead you continue to double down , going from stupidity to farce. Accept it and move on. You are making yourself look ridiculous.

I'm not remotely attempting to do so. I have demonstrated however, that it is sometimes in that child's interest to have an abortion, despite their parents wishes, and that therefore regulations and legislation needs to reflect this. The harping on about maturity is a red herring. The issue...

For those occasions when it is not implied. Any other weasel word excuses?

I'll be in touch next time.

When you say, "you abhor human beings" that implies all. To say otherwise is sophistry. A typical reaction to getting caught out. Double down instead of saying " sorry, I should have said some." This place really shows up the difference between theory and practice .