|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 20:48:24 GMT
Do you believe that properties obtain as nonphysical abstracts or something? I'm not a physicalist. Ah. I think that the idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent, and I reject the idea of real abstracts (which is characteristic of nominalism).
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 7, 2018 20:53:23 GMT
YES.... And adults have a full understanding of the risks involved.... Children don't. It is impossible for you to be this fucking stupid. Is an adult's "full understanding" utterable? Maybe... Maybe not... But what it is.... is inherently understandable. You do understand that children don't have the experience and the far more years of observation than an adult has.. Is that "utterable" enough for you?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 20:54:28 GMT
Ah. I think that the idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent, and I reject the idea of real abstracts (which is characteristic of nominalism). I am not one of those goofy anti physicalists though. link
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 20:58:24 GMT
Is an adult's "full understanding" utterable? Maybe... Maybe not... But what it is.... is inherently understandable. You do understand that children don't have the experience and the far more years of observation than an adult has.. Is that "utterable" enough for you? Maybe and maybe not probably exhausts the logical possibilities, yes. So we don't know which one it is? Speaking of ("full") understanding, I'm not sure you understand what I'm asking you. If we claim that Joe has a "full understanding" of the risks involved with sex, would Joe be able to state his full understanding? For example, say that Bob challenges the idea that Joe has a full understanding--Bob thinks that Joe is particularly dim, despite the fact that Joe is 27 years old, but Frank asserts that Joe does indeed have a full understanding. So we say to Joe, "Okay, Joe, demonstrate that you have a full understanding. Make your statement now." Do you believe it's possible for Joe to state his full understanding?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 21:22:50 GMT
Ah. I think that the idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent, and I reject the idea of real abstracts (which is characteristic of nominalism). I am not one of those goofy anti physicalists though. linkIn my view, linking physicalism and physics is kind of inane, by the way. Physicalism isn't subservience to a scientific discipline. The terminological relation is because physics is talking about the same sort of stuff that physicalism posits.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 21:27:49 GMT
I am not one of those goofy anti physicalists though. linkIn my view, linking physicalism and physics is kind of inane, by the way. Physicalism isn't subservience to a scientific discipline. The terminological relation is because physics is talking about the same sort of stuff that physicalism posits. Well if that's how you want to define it then I am a physicalist.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 21:29:52 GMT
In my view, linking physicalism and physics is kind of inane, by the way. Physicalism isn't subservience to a scientific discipline. The terminological relation is because physics is talking about the same sort of stuff that physicalism posits. Well if that's how you want to define it then I am a physicalist. That's specifying a way not to define it. As a definition I'd say that physicalism simply posits that only material and processes and relations of material exist.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 21:38:20 GMT
Well if that's how you want to define it then I am a physicalist. That's specifying a way not to define it. As a definition I'd say that physicalism simply posits that only material and processes and relations of material exist. What do you mean by material?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 21:39:07 GMT
That's specifying a way not to define it. As a definition I'd say that physicalism simply posits that only material and processes and relations of material exist. What do you mean by material? things made of atoms, molecules, etc.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 21:44:40 GMT
What do you mean by material? things made of atoms, molecules, etc. Isn't that just materialiam? Either way I don't disagree with that.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 22:20:15 GMT
things made of atoms, molecules, etc. Isn't that just materialiam? Either way I don't disagree with that. Yes, materialism is another name for it. One reason that there was a shift away from that term, though, was to distinguish it from Marx's (dialectical, historical etc.) materialism. Another reason was that too many people took materialism to exclude relations and processes.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 7, 2018 23:15:32 GMT
Maybe and maybe not probably exhausts the logical possibilities, yes. So we don't know which one it is? Speaking of ("full") understanding, I'm not sure you understand what I'm asking you. If we claim that Joe has a "full understanding" of the risks involved with sex, would Joe be able to state his full understanding? For example, say that Bob challenges the idea that Joe has a full understanding--Bob thinks that Joe is particularly dim, despite the fact that Joe is 27 years old, but Frank asserts that Joe does indeed have a full understanding. So we say to Joe, "Okay, Joe, demonstrate that you have a full understanding. Make your statement now." Do you believe it's possible for Joe to state his full understanding? You get hung up on the stupidest crap. Joe, as a 27 year old adult who hasn't suffered a brain injury, should have the "full" understanding of being a 27 year old. Now.. You want to say that Joe suffers from a mental deficiency and has the "mind of a child" then it's questionable... And the reason that they call it "the mind of child", numuts, is because it's understood that children don't have the normal mental processes of an adult.. and therefore will lack of the some of the understanding to consent as a normal adult.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 7, 2018 23:16:32 GMT
Blade. No one has quite managed to fill his role as the village idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 0:03:47 GMT
Maybe and maybe not probably exhausts the logical possibilities, yes. So we don't know which one it is? Speaking of ("full") understanding, I'm not sure you understand what I'm asking you. If we claim that Joe has a "full understanding" of the risks involved with sex, would Joe be able to state his full understanding? For example, say that Bob challenges the idea that Joe has a full understanding--Bob thinks that Joe is particularly dim, despite the fact that Joe is 27 years old, but Frank asserts that Joe does indeed have a full understanding. So we say to Joe, "Okay, Joe, demonstrate that you have a full understanding. Make your statement now." Do you believe it's possible for Joe to state his full understanding? You get hung up on the stupidest crap. Joe, as a 27 year old adult who hasn't suffered a brain injury, should have the "full" understanding of being a 27 year old. Now.. You want to say that Joe suffers from a mental deficiency and has the "mind of a child" then it's questionable... And the reason that they call it "the mind of child", numuts, is because it's understood that children don't have the normal mental processes of an adult.. and therefore will lack of the some of the understanding to consent as a normal adult. Right, so would he be able to state his full understanding of the risks? What would he say? Let's hear what the full understanding is.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 8, 2018 3:46:30 GMT
You get hung up on the stupidest crap. Joe, as a 27 year old adult who hasn't suffered a brain injury, should have the "full" understanding of being a 27 year old. Now.. You want to say that Joe suffers from a mental deficiency and has the "mind of a child" then it's questionable... And the reason that they call it "the mind of child", numuts, is because it's understood that children don't have the normal mental processes of an adult.. and therefore will lack of the some of the understanding to consent as a normal adult. Right, so would he be able to state his full understanding of the risks? What would he say? Let's hear what the full understanding is. What it means to be a 27-year old?? I fully understand that you are a dipshit. Stop asking dumbass questions and just get to your fucking point already. I swear: If this is just building up to you assuming/trying to prove that somewhere out there exists an 8-year old who can have the same understanding of life and the world as a 27-year old.. and thus can give real consent to an adult for sex... You are out of your fcking mind.... and I'm gonna be real disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 4:01:02 GMT
Right, so would he be able to state his full understanding of the risks? What would he say? Let's hear what the full understanding is. What it means to be a 27-year old?? I fully understand that you are a dipshit. Stop asking dumbass questions and just get to your fucking point already. I swear: If this is just building up to you assuming/trying to prove that somewhere out there exists an 8-year old who can have the same understanding of life and the world as a 27-year old.. and thus can give real consent to an adult for sex... You are out of your fcking mind.... and I'm gonna be real disappointed. I don't know if you can't read or you're just not bothering to. You said that a 27 year old can have a full understanding of the risks, and that they'd be able to state their full understanding of the risks. So what would they say as a statement of their full understanding of the risks?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 8, 2018 11:36:36 GMT
What it means to be a 27-year old?? I fully understand that you are a dipshit. Stop asking dumbass questions and just get to your fucking point already. I swear: If this is just building up to you assuming/trying to prove that somewhere out there exists an 8-year old who can have the same understanding of life and the world as a 27-year old.. and thus can give real consent to an adult for sex... You are out of your fcking mind.... and I'm gonna be real disappointed. I don't know if you can't read or you're just not bothering to. You said that a 27 year old can have a full understanding of the risks, and that they'd be able to state their full understanding of the risks. So what would they say as a statement of their full understanding of the risks? You are a fucking endless fountain of stupidity. I swear... Just put on a straight jacket.. sit in your rubber room... and bang your head against the wall... endlessly asking stupid questions. - "What is sex?... What means risk?.... What is understanding?... What is responsibility?... What is sex?...What means risk?... What is understanding?...What is...." Edit: Here... Let's just end this shit now... Answer this question: Do you believe that an 8-year old could ever have the mental capacity to give full consent to have sex with an adult?
The crux of the matter in a nutshell... which is taking you 3 fcking days to get to....
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 12:38:03 GMT
I don't know if you can't read or you're just not bothering to. You said that a 27 year old can have a full understanding of the risks, and that they'd be able to state their full understanding of the risks. So what would they say as a statement of their full understanding of the risks? You are a fucking endless fountain of stupidity. I swear... Just put on a straight jacket.. sit in your rubber room... and bang your head against the wall... endlessly asking stupid questions. - "What is sex?... What means risk?.... What is understanding?... What is responsibility?... What is sex?...What means risk?... What is understanding?...What is...." Edit: Here... Let's just end this shit now... Answer this question: Do you believe that an 8-year old could ever have the mental capacity to give full consent to have sex with an adult?
The crux of the matter in a nutshell... which is taking you 3 fcking days to get to.... How are you defining "full consent"? It's impossible to answer if we don't know what that's referring to. If you know what it's referring to it should be a simple matter to explain it, in a straightforward way, in some detail. Part of the problem we're having conversationally, by the way, is that I actually have very little interest in the idea sex with minors. What I'm interested in is the logic of argumentation, the logic of justification, the ways that people try to rationalize something that's purely emotional, and I'm particularly interested in that when it comes to things that have a control upshot--that is, where the ideas are presented as a justificational support of controlling others, including incarcerating them. But you're only interested in outrage over the idea of adult-minor sex. I couldn't care less about that. I care about how people reason and the ways that they try to control other people with respect to their reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 8, 2018 12:49:57 GMT
You are a fucking endless fountain of stupidity. I swear... Just put on a straight jacket.. sit in your rubber room... and bang your head against the wall... endlessly asking stupid questions. - "What is sex?... What means risk?.... What is understanding?... What is responsibility?... What is sex?...What means risk?... What is understanding?...What is...." Edit: Here... Let's just end this shit now... Answer this question: Do you believe that an 8-year old could ever have the mental capacity to give full consent to have sex with an adult?
The crux of the matter in a nutshell... which is taking you 3 fcking days to get to.... How are you defining "full consent"?
It's impossible to answer if we don't know what that's referring to. If you know what it's referring to it should be a simple matter to explain it, in a straightforward way, in some detail. FUCK OFF!!! More dumbass questions?? THE ANSWER IS "NO"... IT WILL ALWAYS BE "NO". The rest is you just being a dumbass trying to justify you being a moron.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2018 13:14:07 GMT
How are you defining "full consent"?
It's impossible to answer if we don't know what that's referring to. If you know what it's referring to it should be a simple matter to explain it, in a straightforward way, in some detail. FUCK OFF!!! More dumbass questions?? THE ANSWER IS "NO"... IT WILL ALWAYS BE "NO". The rest is you just being a dumbass trying to justify you being a moron. Just curious if you went to university. Your manner is amusing, but it doesn't seem like the manner of someone oriented towards intellectual inquiry. It reminds me of a good friend of mine who couldn't wait to get out of high school so he could work as a carpenter.
|
|