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?

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

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]

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'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.

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by devonin

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 freely admit that I'm not qualified to make the call. Whether what you claim is true or not is still open in my book.

Also, the "stupid philosophical bull****" statement pertained to the existance/nonexistance of time discussion and not philosophy on the whole. I have great fun in the philosophy classes I took in college.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Well, there are zero false positives now, which is a large point in favor of the current system (as imperfect as it is). His system is good, but allows for more than zero false positives, so as far as I'm concerned it's not as good as the current one no matter how many people it saves from jail because their partners were 17. If someone can produce a system that allows for no more than zero false positives while at the same time lessening the incidents Kilroy detailed above I'd be all for it.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

I know it's not a "very good" system, but again I point out that it is the best we have. I guess this gets addressed later though.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

I didn't realize I needed to add the assumed. This is CT, after all.

If you guys want to go out and change the country, then do it. Debating with me in this locale isn't going to get you anywhere, because even if my opinion changes I'm too unmotivated to go out and do anything about it.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

I could say it all I want, but I don't know that it's true. (On the flip side, you don't know that it's false.)

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

How is it "clearly not working"? Are prisons seriously overrun with people who had sex with 17-year-olds?

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Yeah, great job there. I'm sure you'll win a ****ing award for ethical thought.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

If you'd been paying attention

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Great. Now ... we'll be getting somewhere.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I'm surprised your mind would do anything.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

HAHAHAHAHAHA

This is CT. This is not allowed. With the mod powers bestowed upon me I am giving you a 3 day ban, goodbye.

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

So it's defined by law? So what, it's the law that's in question.

Fine, question the law. The fact the remains that it is on the books, and whether or not it is good or bad, if someone knows it's there and breaks it anyway they get no pity from me. (Note that this stance applies to the law in question: don't bother suggesting something like "Well what happens if a law is passed against breathing?" because my stance will be different.) Unless you're proposing a full-fledged revolution, surely you can work to change a law while still following it.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

You're again arguing, without hesitation, that you have no problems with the guaranteed permanent ruin of the lives of many people

Via their own decision-making. I would guess the number of people in jail for having sex with 17-years-olds that were forced into it is less than two digits.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

in the mere hope of preventing a handful of lives from potential ruin.

That is correct, largely because, while those who have sex with 17-year-olds can easily choose to wait, those that are 12 and under are highly likely to not be qualified to make a decision, and are also highly likely to go through a ton of emotional stress, which is also potentially life-ruining.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

And what's your justification for this? They're "hornballs"?

No, and perhaps that word was a bit strong, but it seems like the use of strong words has found its way into this discussion.

And seriously, why can't you want one more day?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

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.

You know as much of my qualifications to judge things as I do of yours, so this point is moot.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

Well, there are zero false positives now, which is a large point in favor of the current system (as imperfect as it is).

There are more than 0 false positives. There are plenty of immature people over the age of 18.

His system is good, but allows for more than zero false positives, so as far as I'm concerned it's not as good as the current one no matter how many people it saves from jail because their partners were 17.

Well your foundational assumption is wrong, but the second part of your argument is as well. 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? Now personally I think weighing life in this way is detestable after a fashion, but the revised system wouldn't be weighing life, it would be leaving life in the hands of individuals. It's a model based on liberty rather than control.

[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.

Oh and Lord Carbo: While the addition of a few pieces of more heated rhetoric in Kilroy's posts, in addition to all of the perfectly valid, reasonable discussion -might- be worth a mod pointing out that he's letting it creep in a little bit, you quoting a half dozen lines in a 10 page thread out of context and deciding to hold forth one sarcastic sentence that he ought to be banned is, in my opinion, a far greater misuse of posting in CT.

[ToshX]

Originally Posted by devonin

you quoting a half dozen lines in a 10 page thread out of context and deciding to hold forth one sarcastic sentence that he ought to be banned is, in my opinion, a far greater misuse of posting in CT.

He knows, it's just an attention thing -__-

Originally Posted by OnixRose

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?

Erm, I honestly don't understand what you're saying because the sentences were a little choppy and stuff. Are you saying that an age should be decided based on how mature the kid is, how likely the kid is to cause a problem for himself or others in getting these rights, etc.?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

Fine, question the law. The fact the remains that it is on the books, and whether or not it is good or bad, if someone knows it's there and breaks it anyway they get no pity from me. (Note that this stance applies to the law in question: don't bother suggesting something like "Well what happens if a law is passed against breathing?" because my stance will be different.)

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.

Unless you're proposing a full-fledged revolution, surely you can work to change a law while still following it.

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.

Via their own decision-making. I would guess the number of people in jail for having sex with 17-years-olds that were forced into it is less than two digits.

Your guess is probably off by a few digits. 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". Do you have any idea how thoroughly absurd this is? I could show you by applying it to other behaviors and laws, but then you would likely just reiterate your hypocritical ad hoc world view, so I don't even know why I should bother.

That is correct, largely because, while those who have sex with 17-year-olds can easily choose to wait, those that are 12 and under are highly likely to not be qualified to make a decision, and are also highly likely to go through a ton of emotional stress, which is also potentially life-ruining.

I know all about life ruining stress, 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.

No, and perhaps that word was a bit strong, but it seems like the use of strong words has found its way into this discussion.

And seriously, why can't you want one more day?

Well even if I don't know where your head is I know where your heart is, and I don't like it. 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.

You know as much of my qualifications to judge things as I do of yours, so this point is moot.

All things being equal, perhaps. Chances are good though that I'm both more intelligent and more educated than you. That may come across as arrogant, but it's also honest. That alone wouldn't necessarily imply any level of qualification for the discussion at hand though, nor would the revelation of any degrees or courses of study, or even professional experience. The issue, from the position of a skeptic, is that relying on "professional opinion" is a form of arrogance which places confidence in your ability to recognize authority. It may be comforting, but it's also cowardly and dishonest. If you're not willing to accept that you might be wrong in spite of the backing of authority, experience, the vox populi, and even valid logic, you aren't prepared to view the world through the right eyes.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by devonin

IOh and Lord Carbo: While the addition of a few pieces of more heated rhetoric in Kilroy's posts, in addition to all of the perfectly valid, reasonable discussion -might- be worth a mod pointing out that he's letting it creep in a little bit, you quoting a half dozen lines in a 10 page thread out of context and deciding to hold forth one sarcastic sentence that he ought to be banned is, in my opinion, a far greater misuse of posting in CT.

I love how your responses always include comments about things being "out of context" or "inaccurate." I hold as much merit to say that they are, in fact, mostly if not all in context, so long as your point has no vertebrae. None were edited to change their context.

PS it was out of one post.

Originally Posted by devonin

IOh and Lord Carbo: While the addition of ... heated rhetoric ... -might- be ... you ... misuse of posting in CT.

(Ban)

[Kilgamayan]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. >_>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Kilgamayan]

Thanks for sharing.

[sgkoneko]

Originally Posted by Maid

Who said they do? People get off/aroused to drawings, not necessarily have sex with them(not like they could /rolls eyes). I'd bet you'd get aroused by at least one example of so called drawing, simple physical response, doesn't matter if it is a photo of real being or a drawing as long as it fits your body's image of what would get you off. Not it is entirely up to you to follow up or not, but that would be simple programming received from all so correct sheep mentality, and could always be disputed someplace else.

So I guess that would also make you pretty messed up.

Welcome to our messed up* world. Guess what! it's been that way all along.

Drawings!? I've never gotten off to a drawing. Photographs is of something real. I mean if you have a good enough imagination to turn the drawing into something human and physically real in your mind, than sure, but even still that's just silly. I don't find any drawings or really all that many photographs very appealing. It's just not the real thing.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

I love how your responses always include comments about things being "out of context" or "inaccurate."

When I'm commenting on something that appears to me to be out of context or inaccurate, I describe them as being out of context or inaccurate, yes. Is there a point here, or are you just observing?

I hold as much merit to say that they are, in fact, mostly if not all in context so long as your point has no vertebrae.

When you give a quoted line of text in isolation from the surrounding body, where that surrounding body is not also present for observation, you are quoting out of context. If I quoted you as saying "We should kill all the reds" without in any way indicating that you were discussing an infestation of ants in your house, you'll see how I didn't -change- what you said, but by simply quoting you -out of context- an entirely different conclusion can be drawn from the one intended by the quote.
Also...my point has no vertebrae? What are you even talking about?

None were edited to change their context.

I didn't say you changed their context, I said you quoted them out of context.

PS it was out of one post.

I never said it wasn't. I said "a half dozen lines" in a "10 page thread" Kilroy has been actively posting on the subject across the 10 pages, and simply because out of 10 pages of actively participating, you can come up with a half dozen lines (even if from only one post) doesn't serve to discredit his ability to post in this forum.

(Ban)

You're welcome to it.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

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.

Perhaps. Fewer people go to jail though, that's a good thing. It's possible that on balance there is a loss, a gain, or no difference at all in terms of suffering from a revision of the system. Despite this I still favor a system which grants maximum liberty, or imposes minimum restrictions on liberty.

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?

Perhaps. Weren't you the same person saying that if people bring something on themselves they're responsible for the outcome though? I sincerely doubt the balance would be that negative, otherwise I wouldn't be advocating the position I am, but again this comes down to an issue of favoring maximum liberty.

No, and please stop assuming that. I treat the laws differently based on what they allow/forbid.

Still a baseless restriction of liberty.

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.

So then, you are saying:

*If I can ignore a law which is harmful without consequent, I will do so
*If a law or other restriction is so harmful that following it would screw everyone over rather than just some people, only then is it wrong.

Your starting position seems to be a restriction of all liberty, and then liberty is granted based only on how much is absolutely necessary. I personally consider the opposite approach to have more basis, as well as more sanity.

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.

Good to hear, although I personally think the revision I'm advocating is a superior system, in which case you seem to be failing to recognize superiority.

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. >_>

Moral universality isn't required, nor does your personal collection of thoughts and your personal preference carry universality.

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.

Sorry, I misread.

You're assuming what they're doing isn't immoral, which is not necessarily a correct assumption.

Two mature individuals have consensual sex. What's the problem?

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.

I claim that a law without ethical basis deserves no respect. If a person doesn't deserve something ethically, they don't deserve it period.

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.

Good point. In the end though, there's no experience which isn't personal experience. I'm not saying the personal nature of knowledge makes any person wrong, I'm just saying it opens up the issue to further analysis. I might be wrong. I wouldn't be advocating the position I am if I thought I was, and I also strive to understand other perspectives despite the fact this understanding remains open to bias.

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.

Neither is necessarily true. A child might be more resilient in youth than an adult who is set in their perception. It might also be easier to forget or get over something if it happens when the mind is fairly undeveloped. There's no reason to assume trauma would have any substantive difference between two ages, just as there's no reason to assume maturity might have any substantive difference between two ages.

No argument here. Unfortunately, as things stand, it is.

We're not particularly arguing over how things are, we're arguing over how they should be. I know it's easy for you like most people to get them mixed up because you never see the two as disassociated.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by devonin

When you give a quoted line of text in isolation from the surrounding body, where that surrounding body is not also present for observation, you are quoting out of context. If I quoted you as saying "We should kill all the reds" without in any way indicating that you were discussing an infestation of ants in your house, you'll see how I didn't -change- what you said, but by simply quoting you -out of context- an entirely different conclusion can be drawn from the one intended by the quote.
Also...my point has no vertebrae? What are you even talking about?

No vertebrae, as in... dear Lord you know what I ****ing mean. It's a statement with no backing. Like a platitude.

I also dare you to tell me how out of context they are. I was quoting them to emphasize how ad hominem they are.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

I was quoting them to emphasize how ad hominem they are.

Ad hominem, meaning an attack on the person.

Going down the list...

Yeah, great job there. I'm sure you'll win a ****ing award for ethical thought.

Sarcasm isn't an attack on a person, nor is the statement that a person will or will not attain something an attack on a person. It may be construed as an attack on a person's abilities, but a person's abilities are not them. Similarly, insulting a persons actions is not a personal attack.

If you'd been paying attention

Not a personal attack, merely a statement pertaining to an action or inaction.

Great. Now ... we'll be getting somewhere.

Not a personal attack.

I'm surprised your mind would do anything.

This is the closest to a personal attack, and I wouldn't be able to blame a person for taking offense at it. It wasn't intended as a personal attack, but an expression of frustration at the conversation.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Not a personal attack. There's no mention of anything even remotely pertaining a person within that repetition of 2 letters.

I'm not sure you understand what an Ad Hominem actually is. It isn't just a statement that makes someone uncomfortable, as you seem to think.