Nocilol

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

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?