A middle school social studies teacher was busted on sexual bat...

[Rachel]

ring-2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Just to be fair, Bruce said 16 years old (unlike the article which is about a 14 year old). That's perfectly legal in the state you live in.
Also, it's a bit disingenuous to refer to a 16 year old (or any teenager) as a child. Developmentally speaking, it's flat-out incorrect. As a legal concept, the word you're looking for is "minor." (But in the case of a 16 year old in Kentucky, it's a minor old enough to give consent to sex with a peer or adult of any age).

It's a matter of opinion in re: to if a 16 year old is to be referred to as a child or as you put it a minor. I see both terms as being comparable.

Much like your comments: I say they reflect the feelings of a pedofile - however, legally, you may be referred to just as an adult who loves to take advantage of children, or the young, or the minors. Be that as it may, in terms of the legal system - I'm not interested in what "legally" is correct here. Remember, OJ Simpson is a free man. What does that tell you?

The girl was under 16 - she was 13 when it started. However, regardless, it is illegal to have sex with a CHILD, that is to say, a person under 18 years old. If you're going to play lawyer -then show me in the Ohio Statutes where having sex with a 16 year old is "legally" acceptable for a teacher.

[ring-2]

Rachel wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a matter of opinion in re: to if a 16 year old is to be referred to as a child or as you put it a minor. I see both terms as being comparable.

Well, they're not. They can "seem" any which way you want, but teenagers are generally called adolescents. Developmentally, "child" is still incorrect... 7, 8, or 9 would be close to the end of what folks should stop calling "childhood" and begin to call pre-adolescence or adolescence. Although I agree there's a bit of wiggle room; individuals develop at different rates.

Rachel wrote:

Much like your comments: I say they reflect the feelings of a pedofile - however, legally, you may be referred to just as an adult who loves to take advantage of children, or the young, or the minors.

It's spelled "pedophile" here in America, and that's the second time you've spelled it like a semi-literate, hooked-on-phonics teenager. Do you always call people that disagree with you pedophiles? Oh, and by the way, pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children... Birth to 11-12ish. At least get your terms straight if you want to hurl around baseless insults.

Rachel wrote:

Be that as it may, in terms of the legal system - I'm not interested in what "legally" is correct here. Remember, OJ Simpson is a free man. What does that tell you?

It tells me that you're so afraid of being wrong about something that you're willing to completely dismiss the crux of my argument by saying you aren't interested. If you aren't interested, why the hell are you still talking?

Rachel wrote:

The girl was under 16 - she was 13 when it started. However, regardless, it is illegal to have sex with a CHILD, that is to say, a person under 18 years old. If you're going to play lawyer -then show me in the Ohio Statutes where having sex with a 16 year old is "legally" acceptable for a teacher.

Well, for starters, the original post that you flew off the handle about mentioned a 16 year old specifically. Sorry, but a 16 year old is not a child, and in many states is allowed to sleep with anyone they choose. Yes, that post was probably a troll trying to yank some self-righteous tight-ass into a lather, but the point still stands.

I wasn't familiar with Ohio law, but out of curiosity I looked it up. The age of consent there is 16 too, according to section 2907.04 of the Ohio revised code. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.04

And I happen to agree with you about one thing... it's never appropriate for a teacher to betray a position of trust that way, at any age (regardless of how many college professors end up screwing / marrying their students... it's almost tradition!). But then again you're referring back to the original article, which we weren't talking about.

[Rachel]

ring-2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, they're not. They can "seem" any which way you want, but teenagers are generally called adolescents. Developmentally, "child" is still incorrect... 7, 8, or 9 would be close to the end of what folks should stop calling "childhood" and begin to call pre-adolescence or adolescence. Although I agree there's a bit of wiggle room; individuals develop at different rates.
<quoted text>
It's spelled "pedophile" here in America, and that's the second time you've spelled it like a semi-literate, hooked-on-phonics teenager. Do you always call people that disagree with you pedophiles? Oh, and by the way, pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children... Birth to 11-12ish. At least get your terms straight if you want to hurl around baseless insults.
<quoted text>
It tells me that you're so afraid of being wrong about something that you're willing to completely dismiss the crux of my argument by saying you aren't interested. If you aren't interested, why the hell are you still talking?
<quoted text>
Well, for starters, the original post that you flew off the handle about mentioned a 16 year old specifically. Sorry, but a 16 year old is not a child, and in many states is allowed to sleep with anyone they choose. Yes, that post was probably a troll trying to yank some self-righteous tight-**** into a lather, but the point still stands.
I wasn't familiar with Ohio law, but out of curiosity I looked it up. The age of consent there is 16 too, according to section 2907.04 of the Ohio revised code. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.04
And I happen to agree with you about one thing... it's never appropriate for a teacher to betray a position of trust that way, at any age (regardless of how many college professors end up screwing / marrying their students... it's almost tradition!). But then again you're referring back to the original article, which we weren't talking about.

Praiz God - I im hapy to sea tat we agrea on sometin. ; )