|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 10, 2018 15:19:31 GMT
I'm not interested in doing conversations like this that way. And I'm not interested in second-guessing your motivations. If you have a point to make, just make it. If you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't expect others to play your semantic games. My point is always exactly what I type.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 10, 2018 21:42:09 GMT
And I'm not interested in second-guessing your motivations. If you have a point to make, just make it. If you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't expect others to play your semantic games. My point is always exactly what I type. You typed this: I typed this: Both claims are factually correct and cover the mental/emotional and physical. What is incorrect about these claims? What about a two year old, or a twelve year old?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 10, 2018 21:47:05 GMT
My point is always exactly what I type. You typed this: I typed this: Both claims are factually correct and cover the mental/emotional and physical. What is incorrect about these claims? What about a two year old, or a twelve year old? Are you going to discuss this systematically, or are you just going to get emotional, insulting and run away again? I'd be more than happy to discuss it systematically (time permitting--I'm going to have to run before too long, but we could pick it up again later)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 22:11:33 GMT
The actor that has the ability to make the action happen has power over the victim who is defenseless to prevent the action from happening. In the context of child molestation, there's physical power in the sense of a greater ability to exercise physical force in order to impose their will, psychological power of persuasion. So the victim of child molestation only has ineffectual power in the face of a stronger and more intelligent adult authority. For bringing the child into existence in the first place, the power would be capability and the fact that the person who is going to be the victim doesn't exist yet and therefore cannot take any action (no matter how ineffectual) to prevent the action from taking place. Your definition of power is "ability to make an action happen"? In the context of not talking about physical force, how are we determining the quantification of power per that definition? There's no way to quantify it as a precise figure, but it's fairly obvious that more adults have coerced young children into having sex than the other way around and generally have more cunning and authority in order to do so (and have the advantage of being able to use brute force, when none of the other methods of coercion are successful).
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jun 10, 2018 22:14:24 GMT
And I'm not interested in second-guessing your motivations. If you have a point to make, just make it. If you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't expect others to play your semantic games. My point is always exactly what I type. But it isn't. You never actually state what your point is, because you know we will judge you, and rightly so. You love to play word games; you love to turn around every question asked of you, back at the questioner, without answering anything. Right and wrong is not subjective in all instances. There are things that we, as human beings, recognise as being wrong. Harming children is one of the main ones. Sex with children is wrong, period. I know you will answer this by asking me questions that will only prove what I say is right. So don't bother to reply. Get help.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 10, 2018 22:25:03 GMT
You typed this: I typed this: Both claims are factually correct and cover the mental/emotional and physical. What is incorrect about these claims? What about a two year old, or a twelve year old? Are you going to discuss this systematically, or are you just going to get emotional, insulting and run away again? I'd be more than happy to discuss it systematically (time permitting--I'm going to have to run before too long, but we could pick it up again later) You mean on your terms? Not necessarily. I can understand people posting as detached from a topic in a 'Devil's Advocate' kind of way, butt as others have pointed out you don't do that. You yourself are emotionally attached to YOUR version of debate and you delude yourself that you are debating unemotionally and that YOUR way is superior and no-one else understands. It is fundamental to any argument about the safety health and wellbeing of 'children' that we both share the same basic premise that human parents are here to protect their offspring from harm. In our society there is an acceptance of 'parental responsibility' as a fundamental responsibility. If you are going to carry on about the freedom of the child to consent to everything, then this argument won't get very far. Children are in the care of their 'legal guardians'/parents and this is the reason that we have secular laws such as 'age of consent'. There is a fundamental presumption under the law that children need 'protection and cannot legally enter into contracts of any kind until they reach an arbitrary age. Sex is not the same as a child 'consenting' to a game of football, or taking up ballet classes. On a sliding scale it is an unsuitable activity for immature persons as it is aimed biologically towards maturity and procreation of the species. You call this stance emotional, and I call it physical biology and psychology. There is really not much more to be said, especially as you have taken the higher ground of faux unemotional debate. There is no such thing.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 10, 2018 22:28:01 GMT
My point is always exactly what I type. But it isn't. You never actually state what your point is, because you know we will judge you, and rightly so. You love to play word games; you love to turn around every question asked of you, back at the questioner, without answering anything. Right and wrong is not subjective in all instances. There are things that we, as human beings, recognise as being wrong. Harming children is one of the main ones. Sex with children is wrong, period. I know you will answer this by asking me questions that will only prove what I say is right. So don't bother to reply. Get help. I don't know how you'd think you know what's in my mind better than I do. My point is really exactly what I type all the time. For example, my points just now were "I don't know how you'd think you know what's in my mind better than I do " and "My point is really exactly what I type all the time." Right and wrong really are subjective in all instances. Human beings "recognizing" something is a subjective phenomenon. That occurs in your head. Hence it's subjective. My points there were "Right and wrong really are subjective in all instances,"Human beings 'recognizing' something is a subjective phenomenon," "That occurs in your head" and "Hence it's subjective." And so on.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 10, 2018 22:30:30 GMT
Are you going to discuss this systematically, or are you just going to get emotional, insulting and run away again? I'd be more than happy to discuss it systematically (time permitting--I'm going to have to run before too long, but we could pick it up again later) You mean on your terms? Not necessarily. I can understand people posting as detached from a topic in a 'Devil's Advocate' kind of way, butt as others have pointed out you don't do that. You yourself are emotionally attached to YOUR version of debate and you delude yourself that you are debating unemotionally and that YOUR way is superior and no-one else understands. It is fundamental to any argument about the safety health and wellbeing of 'children' that we both share the same basic premise that human parents are here to protect their offspring from harm. In our society there is an acceptance of 'parental responsibility' as a fundamental responsibility. If you are going to carry on about the freedom of the child to consent to everything, then this argument won't get very far. Children are in the care of their 'legal guardians'/parents and this is the reason that we have secular laws such as 'age of consent'. There is a fundamental presumption under the law that children need 'protection and cannot legally enter into contracts of any kind until they reach an arbitrary age. Sex is not the same as a child 'consenting' to a game of football, or taking up ballet classes. On a sliding scale it is an unsuitable activity for immature persons as it is aimed biologically towards maturity and procreation of the species. You call this stance emotional, and I call it physical biology and psychology. There is really not much more to be said, especially as you have taken the higher ground of faux unemotional debate. There is no such thing. I didn't say or make any claims about anything being unemotional. What I said was " just get emotional" etc. There's a difference. At any rate, I have to answer the rest of your post later. It took you awhile to respond and I've got to run already. I'm not sure if I'll be able to look at the board again later today. If not, I'll respond to the rest tomorrow.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 10, 2018 22:37:26 GMT
I'm really getting tired of this
A child of two can not read A child of six can read simple words/sentences A child of ten can read more complex books However in general they can not understand a brief history of time by Stephen Hawkings.
A child of 1 is uncoordinated a child of 5 can learn the basics of dancing / sports a child of ten or twelve can perfom dances / play sports
A two month old has no teeth can not tear into steak with his gums his body is not ready a child of 4 still will have difficulties with stringy meat because baby teeth are not adult teeth
A child below 5 in general does not understand the finality of death.
Children take time to develop and grow physically and mentally.
Until puberty children's bodies do not produce sperm and eggs and are not fertile.
Puberty is not an overnight conversion, it takes years.
The mind isn't fully developped until the early to mid 20's.
Children and adults are not the same and can not be viewed or treated as the same.
Children have no sense of danger, they stick they hands in power sockets, they touch fire, they swallow marbles or magnets, they jump on staircases or from roofs thinking they are superman or spiderman.
They do not understand the difference between reality and fiction, santa, tooth fairy.
Children are gullible again santa tooth fairy.
A child learns as it grows, it understands as it grows.
Supervision is needed for children, guidance to learn not necessarily about right and wrong but about actions and consequences.
No one ever stops learning, however as an adult you have had ample opportunities to learn those and thus have the freedom to chose your actions and suffer their consequences.
However as a child you have not yet had these opportunities, guidelines have been set up to protect you from the consequences of actions you may think you understand, but do not.
Yes age of consent is abritrary but it is not just out of the blue, it is the lowest age that societies (and societies have different standards) have decided to "let go" and let a child (because they are still children at those ages) and let them learn on their own from then on, having given them the basic knowledge they need to make somewhat informed choices.
Actually right now we have gone too much into overprotecting mode and are insulating children from too much emotion and dealing with life in general, hard ball, meds for anything, participation medals, etc... that even the 16 year old age of consent is too low because children are not learning to deal with life anymore. Children are taking LONGER to mature now then they did when that age limit was put into effect.
We have 9 year olds suiciding because of bullying and mass shootings because of rejections.
Before the age of consent can be lowered (not removed, because like it or not people will take advantage of children no matter the society the are raised in) the way children are raised would have to change drastically.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 10, 2018 23:25:07 GMT
Are you going to discuss this systematically, or are you just going to get emotional, insulting and run away again? I'd be more than happy to discuss it systematically (time permitting--I'm going to have to run before too long, but we could pick it up again later) You mean on your terms? Not necessarily. I can understand people posting as detached from a topic in a 'Devil's Advocate' kind of way, butt as others have pointed out you don't do that. You yourself are emotionally attached to YOUR version of debate and you delude yourself that you are debating unemotionally and that YOUR way is superior and no-one else understands. It is fundamental to any argument about the safety health and wellbeing of 'children' that we both share the same basic premise that human parents are here to protect their offspring from harm. In our society there is an acceptance of 'parental responsibility' as a fundamental responsibility. If you are going to carry on about the freedom of the child to consent to everything, then this argument won't get very far. Children are in the care of their 'legal guardians'/parents and this is the reason that we have secular laws such as 'age of consent'. There is a fundamental presumption under the law that children need 'protection and cannot legally enter into contracts of any kind until they reach an arbitrary age. Sex is not the same as a child 'consenting' to a game of football, or taking up ballet classes. On a sliding scale it is an unsuitable activity for immature persons as it is aimed biologically towards maturity and procreation of the species. You call this stance emotional, and I call it physical biology and psychology. There is really not much more to be said, especially as you have taken the higher ground of faux unemotional debate. There is no such thing. BANG!! Couldn't have said it better myself.... (I would have had waaayy more profanity)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 9:22:02 GMT
Are you going to discuss this systematically, or are you just going to get emotional, insulting and run away again? I'd be more than happy to discuss it systematically (time permitting--I'm going to have to run before too long, but we could pick it up again later) You mean on your terms? Not necessarily. I can understand people posting as detached from a topic in a 'Devil's Advocate' kind of way, butt as others have pointed out you don't do that. You yourself are emotionally attached to YOUR version of debate and you delude yourself that you are debating unemotionally and that YOUR way is superior and no-one else understands. It is fundamental to any argument about the safety health and wellbeing of 'children' that we both share the same basic premise that human parents are here to protect their offspring from harm. In our society there is an acceptance of 'parental responsibility' as a fundamental responsibility. If you are going to carry on about the freedom of the child to consent to everything, then this argument won't get very far. Children are in the care of their 'legal guardians'/parents and this is the reason that we have secular laws such as 'age of consent'. There is a fundamental presumption under the law that children need 'protection and cannot legally enter into contracts of any kind until they reach an arbitrary age. Sex is not the same as a child 'consenting' to a game of football, or taking up ballet classes. On a sliding scale it is an unsuitable activity for immature persons as it is aimed biologically towards maturity and procreation of the species. You call this stance emotional, and I call it physical biology and psychology. There is really not much more to be said, especially as you have taken the higher ground of faux unemotional debate. There is no such thing. There are multiple things to address there. In order to talk about this systematically, we can't address them all at the same time. So I'll start with this: Let's assume that we agree that parents should have an overarching goal to protect their children from harm, and that we feel there should be laws to bolster that effort. Okay, so unless you have very unusual views relative to the norm about what parents should and shouldn't allow their kids to do, you can't mean by "harm" just any (threat of) physical injury or mental/emotional distress, and you can't mean by "protecting them from" that you're prohibiting any increased chance of physical injury or mental/emotional distress. You must mean some more limited subset of "harm" and possibly "protection from." What is the more limited subset you mean? Or alternatively, is it that you are advocating very unusual views relative to the norm re what parents should/shouldn't allow their kids to do?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 9:38:07 GMT
I'm really getting tired of this A child of two can not read A child of six can read simple words/sentences A child of ten can read more complex books However in general they can not understand a brief history of time by Stephen Hawkings. A child of 1 is uncoordinated a child of 5 can learn the basics of dancing / sports a child of ten or twelve can perfom dances / play sports A two month old has no teeth can not tear into steak with his gums his body is not ready a child of 4 still will have difficulties with stringy meat because baby teeth are not adult teeth A child below 5 in general does not understand the finality of death. Children take time to develop and grow physically and mentally. Until puberty children's bodies do not produce sperm and eggs and are not fertile. Puberty is not an overnight conversion, it takes years. The mind isn't fully developped until the early to mid 20's. Children and adults are not the same and can not be viewed or treated as the same. Children have no sense of danger, they stick they hands in power sockets, they touch fire, they swallow marbles or magnets, they jump on staircases or from roofs thinking they are superman or spiderman. They do not understand the difference between reality and fiction, santa, tooth fairy. Children are gullible again santa tooth fairy. A child learns as it grows, it understands as it grows. Supervision is needed for children, guidance to learn not necessarily about right and wrong but about actions and consequences. No one ever stops learning, however as an adult you have had ample opportunities to learn those and thus have the freedom to chose your actions and suffer their consequences. However as a child you have not yet had these opportunities, guidelines have been set up to protect you from the consequences of actions you may think you understand, but do not. Yes age of consent is abritrary but it is not just out of the blue, it is the lowest age that societies (and societies have different standards) have decided to "let go" and let a child (because they are still children at those ages) and let them learn on their own from then on, having given them the basic knowledge they need to make somewhat informed choices. Actually right now we have gone too much into overprotecting mode and are insulating children from too much emotion and dealing with life in general, hard ball, meds for anything, participation medals, etc... that even the 16 year old age of consent is too low because children are not learning to deal with life anymore. Children are taking LONGER to mature now then they did when that age limit was put into effect. We have 9 year olds suiciding because of bullying and mass shootings because of rejections. Before the age of consent can be lowered (not removed, because like it or not people will take advantage of children no matter the society the are raised in) the way children are raised would have to change drastically. As with goz's post, there is too much there to systematically address it all at the same time. I'm a nutshell though, no one is saying that there's not physical and mental (using that traditional bifurcation) development, and no one is saying that every x (of whatever qualifiers) are the same. (And in fact re the latter point; I specified in some detail that I'm not saying that about anything. I'm a nominalist.) The idea is rather this. If no two year old can read, then if we have a requirement that to qualify to do x, one must be capable of reading, then no two year old would qualify to do x. Likewise, if there's a requirement that to qualify to do x, one must be able to understand y, then one wouldn't qualify to do x unless one can demonstrate that one understands y. We are not making the qualifications ages there. We're making them abilities. That of course doesn't imply that any arbitrary person of any age has the ability in question. An important aspect of this that we're overlooking/not addressing is this: if we're going to have something like an understanding requirement, then we need to be able to specify the requirement, including specifying just what will count as a demonstration of understanding. Otherwise we'd not be able to know if anyone, of any age, including middle-aged folks, senior citizens, etc., actually meets the requirement. And we can't try to "sneak in" an understanding requirement by correlating it to age and making it an age requirement instead without specifying just what counts as a demonstration of understanding, because if we do that, our requirement is vacuous.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 9:54:26 GMT
Your definition of power is "ability to make an action happen"? In the context of not talking about physical force, how are we determining the quantification of power per that definition? There's no way to quantify it as a precise figure, but it's fairly obvious that more adults have coerced young children into having sex than the other way around and generally have more cunning and authority in order to do so (and have the advantage of being able to use brute force, when none of the other methods of coercion are successful). More Fs have coerced Gs than Gs have coerced Fs. Therefore, Fs have more power than Gs. That doesn't actually follow without more work (and this is ignoring whether we actually know the premise). We'd have to at the very least explain a supposed necessary relationship between coercion and power in the vein of supporting that "If F coerces G, then necessarily F has more power than G."
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 11, 2018 10:39:02 GMT
The idea is rather this. If no two year old can read, then if we have a requirement that to qualify to do x, one must be capable of reading, then no two year old would qualify to do x. Likewise, if there's a requirement that to qualify to do x, one must be able to understand y, then one wouldn't qualify to do x unless one can demonstrate that one understands y. We are not making the qualifications ages there. We're making them abilities. That of course doesn't imply that any arbitrary person of any age has the ability in question. An important aspect of this that we're overlooking/not addressing is this: if we're going to have something like an understanding requirement, then we need to be able to specify the requirement, including specifying just what will count as a demonstration of understanding. Otherwise we'd not be able to know if anyone, of any age, including middle-aged folks, senior citizens, etc., actually meets the requirement. And we can't try to "sneak in" an understanding requirement by correlating it to age and making it an age requirement instead without specifying just what counts as a demonstration of understanding, because if we do that, our requirement is vacuous. And again there are seeming contradictions in your views. What you are advocating here, is far more invasing and controlling then the system in place. And how would a society function if everyone you meet in every situation you meet had to have a license / contrat to prove to you they could do x or y but not z?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 10:45:56 GMT
The idea is rather this. If no two year old can read, then if we have a requirement that to qualify to do x, one must be capable of reading, then no two year old would qualify to do x. Likewise, if there's a requirement that to qualify to do x, one must be able to understand y, then one wouldn't qualify to do x unless one can demonstrate that one understands y. We are not making the qualifications ages there. We're making them abilities. That of course doesn't imply that any arbitrary person of any age has the ability in question. An important aspect of this that we're overlooking/not addressing is this: if we're going to have something like an understanding requirement, then we need to be able to specify the requirement, including specifying just what will count as a demonstration of understanding. Otherwise we'd not be able to know if anyone, of any age, including middle-aged folks, senior citizens, etc., actually meets the requirement. And we can't try to "sneak in" an understanding requirement by correlating it to age and making it an age requirement instead without specifying just what counts as a demonstration of understanding, because if we do that, our requirement is vacuous. And again there are seeming contradictions in your views. What you are advocating here, is far more invasing and controlling then the system in place. And how would a society function if everyone you meet in every situation you meet had to have a license / contrat to prove to you they could do x or y but not z? How would it be more controlling? You'd have to explain that. No one is talking about licensing or requiring a contract. As things are, when anything becomes a legal issue--when there's an accusation that a crime occurred, we look at individual details for that case. It's not as if we simply apply a rule in some blanket way without looking at individual details in each case. If the latter were true, we'd hardly need court systems.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 11, 2018 11:13:14 GMT
And again there are seeming contradictions in your views. What you are advocating here, is far more invasing and controlling then the system in place. And how would a society function if everyone you meet in every situation you meet had to have a license / contrat to prove to you they could do x or y but not z? How would it be more controlling? You'd have to explain that. No one is talking about licensing or requiring a contract. As things are, when anything becomes a legal issue--when there's an accusation that a crime occurred, we look at individual details for that case. It's not as if we simply apply a rule in some blanket way without looking at individual details in each case. If the latter were true, we'd hardly need court systems. But the law is the same for everyone. It is judged on an individual basis, but the law "no stealing" is the same for everyone. If you see someone stealing... law broken... arrest... trial If you see an adult having sex with a kid... ? following your script how do you know which kid can and which kid can't? And since you want this to apply to everything from driving to sex... well then how exactly would that logistic work in a society? And it is controlling, now you have a system that by a certain age you are an adult and can make your own decisions about things. You would have a system where all individuals (of all ages) must prove by providing "specific details" that they are ready for every single step of understand... from kissing to oral, to intercouse to anal, from beer, to whiskey to harder drinks.. sounds very convoluted to me.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 11:22:22 GMT
How would it be more controlling? You'd have to explain that. No one is talking about licensing or requiring a contract. As things are, when anything becomes a legal issue--when there's an accusation that a crime occurred, we look at individual details for that case. It's not as if we simply apply a rule in some blanket way without looking at individual details in each case. If the latter were true, we'd hardly need court systems. But the law is the same for everyone. It is judged on an individual basis, but the law "no stealing" is the same for everyone. If you see someone stealing... law broken... arrest... trial If you see an adult having sex with a kid... ? following your script how do you know which kid can and which kid can't? And since you want this to apply to everything from driving to sex... well then how exactly would that logistic work in a society? And it is controlling, now you have a system that by a certain age you are an adult and can make your own decisions about things. You would have a system where all individuals (of all ages) must prove by providing "specific details" that they are ready for every single step of understand... from kissing to oral, to intercouse to anal, from beer, to whiskey to harder drinks.. sounds very convoluted to me. Laws wouldn't have to be the same for everyone--we can make the world any physically possible way that we'd like to make it. But this law would be the same for everyone regardless of that. So, someone has sex with someone else--again, this doesn't at all have to be a kid, it would include adults too--or, everyone, as this law applies to everyone, not just kids--and either that person or a caretaker, guardian, or whatever claims either "I didn't consent" or "I wasn't capable of consenting" or "that person was incapable of consent." In that situation, we investigate the incident to see whether there's evidence that the claimed victim either didn't consent or wasn't capable of consent. The same thing would go for any supposed consent violation. The claim is made that either consent wasn't given or wasn't possible, and then we investigate that. "You would have a system where all individuals (of all ages) must prove by providing "specific details" that they are ready for every single step of understand" I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. I'm not proposing a change to "innocent until proven guilty." If someone is claiming that a crime occurred, we have to demonstrate that a crime occurred, just like now (well, or maybe a bit more narrowly than now, as we'd never just go by verbal testimony in proving that a crime occurred).
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 11:34:00 GMT
I have not read through this entire thread yet, but on the contrary in regards to Terrapin Station and how he expresses himself, I find his posts very intelligent, stimulating and straight forward to the point, same as I do yours. It's just the disagreeance with the points being expressed that is the issue. He is not talking garbage— and he has been no more of a pollutant than those that engaged with him—and if anything, common sense goes out the door as soon as emotions DO take over. I think his point has been proven. Any one else smelling a dirty sock? Oh... I found it. It was under the bed.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 11:53:09 GMT
Any one else smelling a dirty sock? Oh... I found it. It was under the bed.
Are you on crack or something?
Somebody.... Explain this joke to him. It's like he didn't understand what was said... and just asked a meaningless question.....
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 11, 2018 12:12:13 GMT
Somebody.... Explain this joke to him. It's like he didn't understand what said... and just asked a meaningless question..... I wasn't aware you made one. Exactly.
|
|