Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
There are more than 0 false positives. There are plenty of immature people over the age of 18.
|
All right, granted, but your system has every last one of the same false positives, so it still produces a net loss via new false positives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
If the revised system saved 1,000,000 people from jail but 5 people ended up getting hurt from false positives, which occurred as a result of their own decision to pursue exemption from age of consent laws, isn't this better?
|
If the revised system saved 5 people from jail but 1,000,000 people ended up getting hurt from false positives, isn't this worse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin
I think the problem here, Kilroy, is that we're using this particular subject as an example in a larger argument, while for Kilgamayan, everything being said is only worth addressing as it applies solely to the part of the one argument that he is advocating.
|
I didn't realize we were discussing other things. Feel free to bring up something else anti-status-quo in another topic, and depnding on what it is I may or may not agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
So on top of saying "so what if it's an unjust law, if people break it they deserve to be punished" you're also saying "I'll treat each law as a separate creature in a very ad hoc fashion based largely on whether or not I like the character of the law's victims." ...
... ... ....
... ... huh.
|
No, and please stop assuming that. I treat the laws differently based on what they allow/forbid.
In the example I provided, breathing is highly integral to daily living, and thus a law against it would indeed be worth ignoring. In the case of the present law, while sex is enjoyable, it is not absolutely necessary to daily life when one is younger than 18, and given it allows for sex once one is over 18, I am willing to accept it as is.
Of course, if a positive revision to the current law or flat-out better new law is found, I am willing to accept that law in favor of the current one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
Well for this one it isn't hard for me, I'm celibate. However, if the law is immoral, which it is, I think it's absolutely acceptable to break it if this is done so morally.
|
We disagree here, then, because (1) I don't assume my set of morals to be sufficiently universal to warrant breaking the law, and (2) if it came down to it I'd rather dodge jail time. >_>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
Your guess is probably off by a few digits.
|
So there are thousands of jail inmates that were
forced against their will to have sex with 17-year-olds? I'd like to see some statistical backup for this claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
Once again you're saying something pretty thoroughly unbelievable. "If someone chooses to do something which isn't immoral, while knowing that there are negative consequences for it, they deserve the outcome".
|
You're assuming what they're doing isn't immoral, which is not necessarily a correct assumption.
Also, we may be using different iterations of "deserve" here. I claim that they deserve it legally. I do not necessarily claim that they deserve it ethically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
I know all about life ruining stress
|
Weren't you the guy earlier who questioned Guido using his own personal experience as found for a seemingly universal judgement? Sounds like you're doing the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
but I believe it would be minimized by a revision of the system, not exacerbated. Are you suggesting that it's worse for a trauma to be experienced at 12 than at 18? I'm not sure what the basis for this is.
|
Assuming the trauma to be the same, you've had 6 years less for preparation for dealing with it and will have 6 years more for actually dealing with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
It's possible to wait one more day, but it shouldn't be a prison worthy offense not to do so if there's no reason for it.
|
No argument here. Unfortunately, as things stand, it is.