No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
As disgusting as we see it now, keep in mind that, back then, child marriage was not only condoned but sometimes encouraged in those parts of the Southern U.S.
We'll never know if he did it because he had a thing for young girls, or if he did it simply because it was an accepted practice.
Regardless of why, it's objectively terrible that he did that.
Canada only changed the age of consent from 14 to 16 last decade.
Age of consent is not the same as age an adult is allowed to be with a minor. Minors should be allowed to consent to have sex, just not with much older people. Laws that prosecute, say, a 19 year old from having sex with a 17 years old, or god forbid two 14 years olds to have sex together, are absolutely draconian.
Actually, that's exactly what age of consent is. The age at which you're allowed to do things with an adult of any age.
Romeo and Juliet (or close in age) exceptions are for the situation you're describing, and are usually tacked onto age of consent laws as an exception.
In Canada, there's a pair of these. At 14 and 15 it's less than 5 years older, and at 12 and 13 it's less than 2 years older.
Fun fact: there's no such thing as objective morality. Back in the 1920s people thought it was objectively terrible for Black people to have equal rights.
I said it was objectively terrible, I didn't mention morals. :)
Harming people is terrible, whether or not social morality supports it.
It wasn't seen as harmful back then.
No, but it was harmful.
I'm talking about the objective harm of encouraging underage girls to avoid study and live their lives in the service of older men. There is nothing good that can be said about such a thing. It's basically indentured servitude.
Ok, it wasn't seen as relatively more harmful than anything else that would cause strain in a young person's social, educational, and professional growth. Like an overinterest in sports or gambling or books.
I'm not talking about how it was seen. I'm talking about how it is. There's a difference.
Cutting off hands was seen as socially acceptable at certain times in history, if someone was merely accused of theft. But it is horrific and terrible. How it was seen as irrelevant to it being terrible objectively terrible.
Are you just trolling, or are you actually trying to defend some of that behavior?
Ok, have fun with that, because that's not what I was talking about at all.
Fuck you for trying to win internet points by trying to paint someone as agreeing with pedophilia. It's fucking disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.
...I'm not sure how else you're trying to be seen, based on how you keep responding to me.
Then you need drugs or therapy or maybe to get off the internet for a while, because you're so damn eager to find someone to throw your righteous anger at you decided to paint people as pedophiles. It's fucking sick. Stop. Get help.