Nocilol

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Lolicon

It isn't pointless. Figuring out what semantic value an age has categorically in terms of maturity is at the root of the morality or immorality of everything in contention within this topic.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Lolicon

The alternative is that, since everything is arbitrary and contains "well if we pick this age then why don't we pick this age?", we simply make no decision at all because absolutely everything is questionable in both directions.

Clearly that's wrong.

I don't see why 18 is a problem. Most psychologists don't either. Go take it up with them if you have a problem or conduct some studies yourself.

As for why not 17.9, or 18.1, 18 is a much more easily measured milestone. Makes sense to me.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Lolicon

I may be considered crazy by some, but I don't think that the world should base anything on age. Just test people physically or mentally somehow to test whether someone is eligible to do something. I mean honestly, if a five year old kid can actually drive and is able to do it better than some old, washed up geezar, the kid should be able to drive. I mean if a kid is detemined, they can do things properly like an adult instead of wasting life waiting (like that one kid who aced the SATs while in 7th grade).

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Lolicon

I may be considered crazy by some, but I don't think that the world should base anything on age. Just test people physically or mentally somehow to test whether someone is eligible to do something.

This isn't crazy at all. There are other potential problems with it though.

The alternative is that, since everything is arbitrary and contains "well if we pick this age then why don't we pick this age?", we simply make no decision at all because absolutely everything is questionable in both directions.

Clearly that's wrong.

Why?

I don't see why 18 is a problem. Most psychologists don't either. Go take it up with them if you have a problem or conduct some studies yourself.

Well, I'm actually in a position where I could do that, but the issue isn't what popular opinion is.

2 considerations:

Does liberty trumps safety? I see no reason why it shouldn't.

Is it OK to adopt a policy that is guaranteed to hurt a handful of people in order to possibly protect a much larger number of people? I personally think it isn't.

As for why not 17.9, or 18.1, 18 is a much more easily measured milestone. Makes sense to me.

It makes sense to you because it's a round number? lol.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Lolicon

Why?

You're asking me why it's wrong to not have an AoC? You do realize that laws against CP are founded on AoC, right?

Well, I'm actually in a position where I could do that, but the issue isn't what popular opinion is.

What is the issue then?

Does liberty trumps safety? I see no reason why it shouldn't.

For one, it's selfish, and thus counterproductive to society. Good luck getting that legally changed.

Is it OK to adopt a policy that is guaranteed to hurt a handful of people in order to possibly protect a much larger number of people? I personally think it isn't.

The inconvenience for the handful that get ****blocked isn't even close to the harm that would be done to an unready child. Eisenhower had a great line about valuing privileges over principles that fits this scenario but I forget exactly what it is.

It makes sense to you because it's a round number? lol.

Yes. Milestones are easier to remember and easier to figure out. If you want to spend the time doing the math to figure out when you're 17.9536, then be my guest, but not everyone wants to do that, and I don't see what's so "lol" about not wanting to.

EDIT: And I'm still waiting on you for a better system.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Lolicon

You're asking me why it's wrong to not have an AoC? You do realize that laws against CP are founded on AoC, right?

Absolutely. So why is it wrong not to have an age of consent?

What is the issue then?

|
v

For one, it's selfish, and thus counterproductive to society. Good luck getting that legally changed.

"selfish and thus counterproductive to society"? What a thoroughly ignorant thing to say. The greatest things about society come about as a result of selfishness. "It is not from the butchers charity or the bakers heart that we expect our meals, but from their natural and selfish desires" -Adam Smith, father of economics.

As for whether or not it's pragmatically possible to get laws changed, that's just as easily a problem inherent in government as it is in people. I would actually argue that it's more easily a problem of government.

Nevertheless, the core of what you're saying is "It's ok to kill people for the benefit of the majority, and if these people don't like it they're just being selfish."

The inconvenience for the handful that get ****blocked isn't even close to the harm that would be done to an unready child.

I don't think this statement is defensible. People go to jail because of age of consent laws. There's also a very large problem inherent in trying to weigh human suffering, as if such a thing could be done with any legitimacy.

Eisenhower had a great line about valuing privileges over principles that fits this scenario but I forget exactly what it is.

Good thing then that it's a natural right for a person to do what they will with themselves and their body and not a privilege.

Yes. Milestones are easier to remember and easier to figure out. If you want to spend the time doing the math to figure out when you're 17.9536, then be my guest, but not everyone wants to do that, and I don't see what's so "lol" about not wanting to.

lol. Here's what's so lol about it. What's pi squared times 33, divided by the square root of phi? Take that answer, that's now justification for the deliciousness of cream soda. Alternatively, add 10 + 8. The second is easier so it's the better justified explanation for the deliciousness of cream soda.

EDIT: And I'm still waiting on you for a better system.

K. How about we retain the age 18 limit, but allow a special system whereby if a person under 18 wants to engage in sexual activity they can pay for psychiatric testing to receive exemption from the age of consent laws. There, that's your better system, and that's just a minor modification.

What's wrong, did you think I didn't have an answer? You shouldn't ask questions unless you're willing to accept answers.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Lolicon

Absolutely. So why is it wrong not to have an age of consent?

Because without an age of consent, the legal foundation for CP laws crumbles, and there's nothing stopping people from having sex with five-year-olds.

"selfish and thus counterproductive to society"? What a thoroughly ignorant thing to say. The greatest things about society come about as a result of selfishness. "It is not from the butchers charity or the bakers heart that we expect our meals, but from their natural and selfish desires" -Adam Smith, father of economics.

So how will someone that wants to hurt themselves benefit society by doing so?

I don't think this statement is defensible. People go to jail because of age of consent laws.

Not the law's fault they weren't paying attention.

There's also a very large problem inherent in trying to weigh human suffering, as if such a thing could be done with any legitimacy.

You can't seriously be trying to argue that the sexual frustration of a 17-year-old is on par with the emotional damage done to a raped 12-year-old.

Good thing then that it's a natural right for a person to do what they will with themselves and their body and not a privilege.

This is true, but that right ceases when hurting yourself starts hurting other people.

lol. Here's what's so lol about it. What's pi squared times 33, divided by the square root of phi? Take that answer, that's now justification for the deliciousness of cream soda.

The mind boggles that such a statement could exist in CT.

I will try to review as best I can since you clearly don't get it. As you and devonin have tried to show, definitive age selection for an AoC is hard because of the "why not one day more/less?" argument. Now, psychologists have observed a strong correlation between the age of 18 and sexual maturity. Now, given everything else is the same (18 vs. 17.9 vs 18.02 vs 17.68944), why not pick the convenient milestone number?

K. How about we retain the age 18 limit, but allow a special system whereby if a person under 18 wants to engage in sexual activity they can pay for psychiatric testing to receive exemption from the age of consent laws. There, that's your better system, and that's just a minor modification.

What standards would be used? Where would the funding for testing facilities come from? Where would the funding for training come from? What happens to false positives that engage in sexual acts?

[devonin]

Re: Lolicon

I will try to review as best I can since you clearly don't get it. As you and devonin have tried to show, definitive age selection for an AoC is hard because of the "why not one day more/less?" argument. Now, psychologists have observed a strong correlation between the age of 18 and sexual maturity. Now, given everything else is the same (18 vs. 17.9 vs 18.02 vs 17.68944), why not pick the convenient milestone number?

I think you're the one still missing the point: Age is a fake, invented illusion that we decided to throw onto people because we felt like attaching symbolism to the anniversary of ones birth based on our current calendar.

Age is no guarentor of -anything- certainly not maturity.

18 is picked because by today's standards, based on how today's society has molded children, it was arbitrarily decided that "By 18, we figure most people are probably mature enough for X" That statement is totally empty, because nobody ever tests people before, during or after that age for anything, and something as fluid as "maturity" is an ill-defined concept at the best of times.

What standards are the psychologists using when they've decided that a sufficient majority of 18 year olds are mature enough to handle things that they ought to give full abilities to all of them, including the ones who aren't mature enough to handle it? What is the magic percentage at which it is okay to allow the ones who aren't ready for porn, sex, voting, military service and gambling to do those things, because enough people are? 90%? 80%? 50%?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Lolicon

Because without an age of consent, the legal foundation for CP laws crumbles, and there's nothing stopping people from having sex with five-year-olds.

:Sigh: SO? While the odds of a mature 5 year old existing are virtually nil, there's still a tiny possibility. Keep in mind that the legal system could still handle actual abuses by refocusing so each individual case of harm is an offense. From this, people considered paedophiles by current standards would still have strong incentive not to have sex with immature individuals.

So how will someone that wants to hurt themselves benefit society by doing so?

Not my problem, not societies concern. I'm capable of resigning myself to the fact they are entitled to do so because they are not actively hurting other members of society.

Not the law's fault they weren't paying attention.

Do you have any idea how disgusting this is? "if you don't pay attention to a baseless law, you deserve to be arrested, imprisoned, raped in jail and stabbed to death, dying alone and miserable away from everyone you ever knew or cared about". Yeah, great job there. I'm sure you'll win a ****ing award for ethical thought.

You can't seriously be trying to argue that the sexual frustration of a 17-year-old is on par with the emotional damage done to a raped 12-year-old.

If you'd been paying attention you'd know I was arguing that the incarceration of thousands for having sex with a girlfriend one day younger than 18 is hardly justified by the fact an unknown number of people are helped by an arbitrary, ill-conceived system.

This is true, but that right ceases when hurting yourself starts hurting other people.

Great. Now just prove that all sex acts are somehow connected, and we'll be getting somewhere.

The mind boggles that such a statement could exist in CT.

I'm surprised your mind would do anything.

I will try to review as best I can since you clearly don't get it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

As you and devonin have tried to show, definitive age selection for an AoC is hard because of the "why not one day more/less?" argument. Now, psychologists have observed a strong correlation between the age of 18 and sexual maturity. Now, given everything else is the same (18 vs. 17.9 vs 18.02 vs 17.68944), why not pick the convenient milestone number?

Because if a superior correlation exists, according to psychology, then it would be more ethical to enact a law which minimized potential harm. However, enacting any law at the expense of others is immoral in my perspective, no matter how many people stand to benefit. If maturity (was even quantifiable) followed even a Gaussian distribution, do you have any idea how many people would be harmed by the existing law?

What standards would be used?

The same mystery Psychological standards behind the 18 years old = maturity argument you've adopted, I imagine.

Where would the funding for testing facilities come from?

The cost would be payed privately.

Where would the funding for training come from?

Wherever. Psychological training generally comes from Colleges. Colleges are generally funded in numerous ways.

What happens to false positives that engage in sexual acts?

Tough ****. I can't say that harm wouldn't occur in the modified system, just that less harm would occur. Less is better.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Lolicon

It's good to see that you've reduced yourself to ad hominem and endorsing legal actions that would lead to kids under 12 having sex when they're not ready for it in order to "protect" the hornballs that can't wait one more day for their girlfriend to reach a number defined by a law that has existed for longer than both of them have been alive. It makes me feel less bad about ignoring the rest of your opinions on this topic.

I think you're the one still missing the point: Age is a fake, invented illusion that we decided to throw onto people because we felt like attaching symbolism to the anniversary of ones birth based on our current calendar.

Oh, don't start this. I would have hoped that CT would be the one place above stupid philosophical bullshit about how time doesn't exist.

Age is no guarentor of -anything- certainly not maturity.

I know this. But since you object to its use, I challenge you to find a better blanket. The reason I defend age is because there isn't one.

18 is picked because by today's standards, based on how today's society has molded children, it was arbitrarily decided that "By 18, we figure most people are probably mature enough for X" That statement is totally empty, because nobody ever tests people before, during or after that age for anything, and something as fluid as "maturity" is an ill-defined concept at the best of times.

I highly doubt all of psychology is drawing numbers out of a hat, but I'm not in the field, so I could be wrong.

What standards are the psychologists using when they've decided that a sufficient majority of 18 year olds are mature enough to handle things that they ought to give full abilities to all of them, including the ones who aren't mature enough to handle it? What is the magic percentage at which it is okay to allow the ones who aren't ready for porn, sex, voting, military service and gambling to do those things, because enough people are? 90%? 80%? 50%?

I don't know, go ask them. I just take the information I'm given from people who are qualified to tell me.

[devonin]

Re: Lolicon

It's good to see that you've reduced yourself to ad hominem and endorsing legal actions that would lead to kids under 12 having sex when they're not ready for it in order to "protect" the hornballs that can't wait one more day for their girlfriend to reach a number defined by a law that has existed for longer than both of them have been alive. It makes me feel less bad about ignoring the rest of your opinions on this topic.

You're missing the point of his stance by applying it in the one most extreme case you can think of, and saying that because it doesn't work in that one extreme case, it is worthless. Deciding to state 'OMG I'm ignoring you now' in what was otherwise a perfectly good debate is pretty poor form. Either address his points in a calm rational way (And if he isn't doing the same in return, he'll just look like an ass while you look good) or don't participate.

Oh, don't start this. I would have hoped that CT would be the one place above stupid philosophical bullshit about how time doesn't exist.

I don't recall saying that time doesn't exist. I said that a concept like "age" is invented because we decided to bother keeping track of the anniversary of people's birth. Some cultures keep track of the anniversary of the first hunt, the first sign of puberty, the first sexual conquest, we decided to keep track of the anniversary of birth.

As an aside, if your birthday is on the anniversary of your -birth- and does exist as an objective thing, does someone born on February 29th of a leap year (Who has had say...6 birthdays) deserve to be treated as a 6 year old, or as a 24 year old?

I know this. But since you object to its use, I challenge you to find a better blanket. The reason I defend age is because there isn't one.

I think the previous suggestion that those under an "age" who can prove themselves capable of engaging in whatever activity is age restricted was a pretty good one to at least look at and work with. And just to emphasize: The point of Kilroy_x's that you seem so hellbent on just not addressing is that his argument is "Picking -anything- as a "blanket" is ludicrous, because you can never cover everyone who ought to be with such a thing, and will always cover those who oughtn't

I highly doubt all of psychology is drawing numbers out of a hat, but I'm not in the field, so I could be wrong.
I don't know, go ask them. I just take the information I'm given from people who are qualified to tell me.

I never said they were drawing numbers out of a hat, I said "They picked the age they did, because they decided that by that age, a sufficient percentage of people were "over" the maturity threshhold that they felt okay about letting in the ones who weren't, and not letting in the ones who were over that threshold and not over that age.

And my question was to you, not to psychologists. What percentage of people need to be -actually- capable of handling something at a certain age, before you will feel okay making it so everyone of that age, including those who -aren't- capable of handling it can do it?

Let me phrase it this way: What percentage of people should be allowed to have sex before they are ready, simply by virtue of age?
What percentage of people should be allowed to gamble before they are ready, simply by virtue of age?
What percentage of people should be allowed to go overseas and kill people before they are ready, simply by virtue of age?
What percentage of people should be allowed to choose who leads your country before they are ready, simply by virtue of age?

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Lolicon

You're missing the point of his stance by applying it in the one most extreme case you can think of, and saying that because it doesn't work in that one extreme case, it is worthless. Deciding to state 'OMG I'm ignoring you now' in what was otherwise a perfectly good debate is pretty poor form. Either address his points in a calm rational way (And if he isn't doing the same in return, he'll just look like an ass while you look good) or don't participate.

I applied it to the scenario he brought up and tried to use to make his point. Don't see anything wrong with that.

As an aside, if your birthday is on the anniversary of your -birth- and does exist as an objective thing, does someone born on February 29th of a leap year (Who has had say...6 birthdays) deserve to be treated as a 6 year old, or as a 24 year old?

Me personally? 24. Objectively/Legally? I don't know, and for the former I don't know if an objective conclusion is even possible.

I think the previous suggestion that those under an "age" who can prove themselves capable of engaging in whatever activity is age restricted was a pretty good one to at least look at and work with. And just to emphasize: The point of Kilroy_x's that you seem so hellbent on just not addressing is that his argument is "Picking -anything- as a "blanket" is ludicrous, because you can never cover everyone who ought to be with such a thing, and will always cover those who oughtn't

I'm not addressing it because I know it's true - in fact, it's been the entire point of my argument as well (this admittedly may not have been obvious). The additional point my argument was making is that there isn't a better system, which is why I back this one. His proposed solution was actually doing fairly well until his stance on false positives reared its ugly head - any system that's willing to accept kids 12 and under that aren't ready for sex having it isn't as good as the current one.

And my question was to you, not to psychologists. What percentage of people need to be -actually- capable of handling something at a certain age, before you will feel okay making it so everyone of that age, including those who -aren't- capable of handling it can do it?

Let me phrase it this way: What percentage of people should be allowed to have sex before they are ready, simply by virtue of age?
What percentage of people should be allowed to gamble before they are ready, simply by virtue of age?
What percentage of people should be allowed to go overseas and kill people before they are ready, simply by virtue of age?
What percentage of people should be allowed to choose who leads your country before they are ready, simply by virtue of age?

I already told you that I don't know. In addition, I will not take the time to try to produce a percentage because I know any number anyone produces can and will be argued with "why not .1% more/less?" making it a pointless endeavour.

[OnixRose]

Re: Lolicon

I see why some people could consider it a "life ruining experience", but I think it's no more of one than if someone were to do it when they were, say, 18. Well yeah, obviously 18 year olds are going to make better decisions, though, so maybe I should change my argument to saying they should be allowed to make it with parental consent. Now, you may ask, "who the hell would allow their child..." etc. Well, surprisingly, there are a considerable number who would. I mean yeah, it'd be a minority of people, but still a considerable amount.

what about just having it (if you like kind of stuff) having it from an age where they (kids) have a slight mind of their own(to limit the likelyhood that they'd be forced into it) with parental consent as well, and maby as far as that would go maby just solo stuff nothing to extreme that may be emotionaly damaging?

[devonin]

Re: Lolicon

Me personally? 24. Objectively/Legally? I don't know, and for the former I don't know if an objective conclusion is even possible.

But you see my point I hope? That you've just admitted yourself that far from being "stupid philosophical bull****" (And as a philosophy major I find that pretty offensive a statement) you freely see how "age" and "birthdays" are actually just completely invented and have nothing, really, to do with anything.

I'm not addressing it because I know it's true - in fact, it's been the entire point of my argument as well (this admittedly may not have been obvious). The additional point my argument was making is that there isn't a better system, which is why I back this one. His proposed solution was actually doing fairly well until his stance on false positives reared its ugly head - any system that's willing to accept kids 12 and under that aren't ready for sex having it isn't as good as the current one.

You're letting emotions cloud the logic of what he's saying. He didn't say "Oh yeah, lets let those 12 year olds get it on" he's saying "Even -if- there are -some- false positives, there will be -less- false positives if you have to prove yourself, than there are now, where you just get the abilities dumped on you simply because you've blown out enough candles.

I already told you that I don't know. In addition, I will not take the time to try to produce a percentage because I know any number anyone produces can and will be argued with "why not .1% more/less?" making it a pointless endeavour.

I'm asking you for your -opinion- as a point of curiosity. There's no -need- to play the "Why not .1% more or less" game because the point I am trying to make (And what -I- percieve Kilroy to be making, but obviously I can't presume to speak for him) is that the current system of just deciding "Ah well, we -think- there are few enough people at this point who will abuse, misuse or otherwise waste these abilties we're letting them exercise that we might as well just let all of them do it" is not a very good system.

And if you say "Well, it is the best we have" without adding the obligatory "so far" and open yourself to giving other possible systems a fair shake, you just become an advocate for the status quo, and given some of the other threads we're having right now, the status quo isn't exactly the best we -should- accept.

Oh, also while I'm here: You'd probably do well in the future to stop trying to argue against the "why not .1% more/less" objection by trying to say that there's an actual objective reason why. The sooner you accept (as I have) that the limits on pretty much -everything- were just arbitrarily chosen "Because we guess that's close enough" the sooner you can start looking for new and better ways to do things instead of getting bogged down defending the status quo when it clearly isn't working for society.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Lolicon

It's good to see that you've reduced yourself to ad hominem and endorsing legal actions that would lead to kids under 12 having sex when they're not ready for it in order to "protect" the hornballs that can't wait one more day for their girlfriend to reach a number defined by a law that has existed for longer than both of them have been alive.

It's good to see that you can focus a large part of your attention on something which constitutes maybe 9 out of 1000 words and which is irrelevant to the argument, while simultaneously either failing to recognize the argument or committing a straw man fallacy. So it's defined by law? So what, it's the law that's in question. You're again arguing, without hesitation, that you have no problems with the guaranteed permanent ruin of the lives of many people in the mere hope of preventing a handful of lives from potential ruin. And what's your justification for this? They're "hornballs"? Well I'm glad you can get indignant at a slight comment without losing your ability to condemn countless people to a horrible fate because you don't like their character. In the mean time I'll be busy not being a blatant hypocrite.

It makes me feel less bad about ignoring the rest of your opinions on this topic.

Meaning you were doing it already anyways and now found an excuse in a sentence embedded in the middle of an argument that made you uncomfortable. That's fine, you don't need to argue with me or anyone if you aren't going to even try and consider learning.

I don't know, go ask them. I just take the information I'm given from people who are qualified to tell me.

How do you judge this qualification? How do you interpret the information? I'm not sure you're qualified to judge qualification, or to interpret information to any higher standard.