Nocilol

[ToshX]

Originally Posted by devonin

By the same application of the law, if ones parents ever took a picture of you as an infant in the bathtub, or as a little kid running around without your diaper on, they are technically in possession of child porn.

There was actually a case not too long ago where a (i think she was 15? 16?) girl was charged with possession of child pornography for having nude photos of -herself-

Well yeah, I'm not saying it has to be like, you know, all over websites and stuff. Do I think it'd help STOP people from raping kids and stuff? Well, in many cases, yes, and I think even in the majority of cases.

Originally Posted by Shashakiro

I'm totally with Guido on real CP (for <16, anyway).

Yeah, I'm including everyone up through 17 to be considered kids.

As for what Kilga quoted, I'm pretty much saying the opposite of the first part of the statement in that sentence.

As for Shash, 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.

Parents already greatly change the lives of their children everyday. If a parent decides it will not damage the child in a considerable way, I see no problem with it.

I mean yeah, you wouldn't've seen my parents allowing that and I wouldn't allow it for my kids, but then again, it's far from likely that I'll ever engage in(as in actually help in the creation of) any kind of porn anytime in my life. Not everyone thinks the same way as I do, though.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by ToshX

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.

Yeah, and most of those parents are the ones RAPING THEIR CHILDREN.

I would bet that MOST of the child porn out there is parent and kid. These parents already convince their child to have sex with them on a regular basis. You're telling me that you WANT them to have a LEGAL way to do this?! That's insane!

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[ToshX]

You do have a point. In that case, I'd just say lowering the legal age would be a better option. I mean if people consider an 18 year old an adult, they might as well consider a 16 year old an adult.

"Oh, but there are some stupid 16 year olds." Well there are some stupid 18 year olds as well.

[devonin]

But I can slippery slope you down to having no age limit whatsoever.

What is the difference between the day before you turn 16 and the day you turn 16? Nothing. So why not make it 15? What's the difference between the day before you turn 15 and the day you turn 15? More nothing.

Age limits are arbitrary because they have to be. They will always allow some people access to something that aren't ready, and will always deny some people access to something that are ready. It is the problem inherent in legislating anything for anyone.

[Shashakiro]

If a parent consents to have his/her child engage in CP, I would call that pure child abuse with no hesitation or exception whatsoever, ESPECIALLY if the parent was making a monetary profit.

Also, from my personal experience, I think 16 would be a much better cutoff than 18, which is why I included that little disclaimer. I'm 18 now and don't really feel like I've grown all that much in the past two years. 14 to 16 was a MUCH bigger growth period for me maturity-wise. I also don't feel like the 16-year olds I deal with are particularly immature compared to me. Maybe I've just dealt with more mature people in general, but that's just my personal experience.

[GuidoHunter]

I say give yourself a couple more years, Shash. I didn't realize the huge maturity gap from 16 to 18 until I was 19 or 20. Then, though, it was strikingly clear.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilgamayan]

What, the age of consent thing again? It's not perfect, sure, but it's the least of all evils. I challenge anyone who doesn't like AoC to find a better system (bear in mind you have to factor in feasibility and cost as well as accuracy of results).

In addition, 18 isn't an arbitrary number, it's an age determined to be highly signifigant by psychologists in regard to the maturation process, and just because any given person in this thread may be an exception certainly doesn't mean that such is the case for everyone.

[devonin]

but it somehow implies that the day you change from 17 to 18, you undergo some magical and sudden transformation which is entirely false. It could just as logically have been 17 or 19 as 18. And once you cede that it could just have easily have been 17 as 18, you can start in on how it could just as easily be 16 as 17.

"By 18" as a psychological standard inherantly allows for -most- people to be "that mature" before 18. 18 is picked because, in their opinion, by that point a sufficiently large majority of people will have reached that stage to make it a useful arbitrary value. That's all. There's nothing more magical or special about the age.

[Kilroy_x]

Because of that inherent level of imperfection though it's important to remember there is always room for improvement, as well as what the imperfection actually implies.

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by devonin

but it somehow implies that the day you change from 17 to 18, you undergo some magical and sudden transformation which is entirely false. It could just as logically have been 17 or 19 as 18. And once you cede that it could just have easily have been 17 as 18, you can start in on how it could just as easily be 16 as 17.

If you want to pointless debate semantics, I could point out there there's no day where you change from 17 to 18, because a day after your 17th birthday you're not just 17 anymore.

But that would be stupid and unnecessary!

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

it's important to remember there is always room for improvement

So find it.

[Kilroy_x]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

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.

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

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]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

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]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

"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?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

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]

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.