Lutheran pedophiles

[pErvinalia]

Why should the law come down on the older person and not the younger person? In supporting such laws you are implicitly saying that young people are incompetent to make decisions about their lives and that older persons are obligated to deny young people what they want and are requesting in order to infantilize our youth more and more and more.

We aren't infantilising them more and more in this regard. The laws on underage sex have been the same my whole life, as far as I know. And probably going back much longer than that too. The point we keep trying to make to you is that you have to draw a line somewhere. YOu might argue that 16 is too high, and that's fine to attempt that argument. But your argument seems to be that there shouldn't be a line at all (or perhaps the line should be puberty). If the latter, then you are making the same argument as us, but with a slightly different interpretation. "Young" people aren't as competent as older people to make decisions. That fact isn't up for debate. The only debate should be where the line of "young" is drawn for the varying things in society we want to protect young people from.

I mean really. We have nitwits suggesting that the age of majority should be TWENTY FIVE. Sheesh.

I've never heard that. But it is true that the male brain doesn't fully develop until about the age 25. There's a lot of good reasons to restrict what highly risky activities males (and females for the sake of equality) should be able to engage in before that age. The main one's I consider are drinking alcohol and driving cars. Not that they shouldn't be allowed to do these things, but greater restrictions should be put on them.

I vote for the good old days when you were a man at 15, or whenever you could toss a bale on the wagon by yourself, and you were a woman when you became capable of having babies. It leads to a better, more responsible and more mature society than infantilizing adults the way we do today.

Yeah, we know what sort of barbaric world you want. Yawn. Take it to the "adapt or die" thread.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

The basis of Libertarian philosophy is that no one can have power over you that you do not voluntarily grant them. If you grant that power unwisely or imprudently, then it's your lesson to learn and society has no obligation to protect you from the consequences of your actions.

The only objection Libertarianism has is to the initiation of force (and that can be direct physical force or coercive force, so you're wrong...again) and fraud. Imprudence, mistake, error or simple negligence are not problems that society is under any obligation to protect you from perpetrating against your own interests. Libertarianism assumes that you are old enough to make the decision, you are old enough to take responsibility for that decision.

Even granting this point of view (and I would have many objections to it), it would be very unwise to assume that an adolescent is "old enough to make the decision". Sure, it is a variable thing, but, on average, making decisions that are genuinely free, without subtle coercion from older people with their own self-interest is something that takes time to develop. A society needs to make an arbitrary cut-off point in age as an estimate of the time where such decision making is reasonable.

But that exists in everything, Jim. You are still granting sex special status. I can manipulate young people into doing all sorts of things. The question is, should sex be special? Philosophically I say no. But I accept that pragmatically it is special in our societies and needs to be treated specially in the legal system.

The pragmatic reasons are quite sufficient, IMO...

[Seth]

No, I just hate it when the only argument you ever have is "adapt or die". And there's no logic behind it. It's just a conservative moral judgement.

There's plenty of logic involved, you just don't agree with my reasoning. The only moral judgment involved is the one that hold that people should accept responsibility for their actions and not try to shift the burden of the consequences onto others without their consent. That is a form of initiating fraud, which cannot be tolerated.

The logic is quite simple: Allowing people to escape the consequences of their actions is bad public policy because it excuses and perpetuates bad decision making and it makes people careless about the impacts of their actions on others. This encourages the initiation of force and fraud by those who as a result come to believe themselves entitled to escape consequences. When this happens on a large, society wide scale the results are devastating to the entire social structure and economy, as we see in the horrible effects of the welfare state in the US prior to 1994, which chained poor minorities into generational economic bondage and dependence and destroyed the family structure that gives children a chance of exiting the dependent class.

That narcissistic prick in California who murdered people because he couldn't get laid is a prime example of someone who never learned about consequences because he was privileged and likely excused from his bad behavior by over-indulgent parents. See what happens when kids don't learn early that bad decisions lead to unpleasant consequences?

When a child burns her fingers on a hot stove, she quickly learns not to make bad decisions like that in the future. It's no different for sex.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

The basis of Libertarian philosophy is that no one can have power over you that you do not voluntarily grant them. If you grant that power unwisely or imprudently, then it's your lesson to learn and society has no obligation to protect you from the consequences of your actions.

The only objection Libertarianism has is to the initiation of force (and that can be direct physical force or coercive force, so you're wrong...again) and fraud. Imprudence, mistake, error or simple negligence are not problems that society is under any obligation to protect you from perpetrating against your own interests. Libertarianism assumes that you are old enough to make the decision, you are old enough to take responsibility for that decision.

Even granting this point of view (and I would have many objections to it), it would be very unwise to assume that an adolescent is "old enough to make the decision". Sure, it is a variable thing, but, on average, making decisions that are genuinely free, without subtle coercion from older people with their own self-interest is something that takes time to develop. A society needs to make an arbitrary cut-off point in age as an estimate of the time where such decision making is reasonable.

But that exists in everything, Jim. You are still granting sex special status. I can manipulate young people into doing all sorts of things. The question is, should sex be special? Philosophically I say no. But I accept that pragmatically it is special in our societies and needs to be treated specially in the legal system.

The pragmatic reasons are quite sufficient, IMO...

One doesn't develop the skills needed to make such judgments by not making such judgments. Obviously the starting point is clear and truthful parental guidance with respect to sexual decision making, which ought to include education on the subtleties of seduction.

The fine movie "An Education" is an excellent example of how the judgement-actions-consequences sequence works to the girls ultimate advantage.

"Protecting" kids from their due consequences too much doesn't protect them, it harms them and leaves them vulnerable to more serious and irrevocable consequences in the future. If their bad judgements aren't going to kill, maim or permanently disfigure them, in the vast majority of cases it's better to let them suffer a little now rather than leaving them unprepared to make good decisions as full adults.

[pErvinalia]

No, I just hate it when the only argument you ever have is "adapt or die". And there's no logic behind it. It's just a conservative moral judgement.

There's plenty of logic involved, you just don't agree with my reasoning. The only moral judgment involved is the one that hold that people should accept responsibility for their actions and not try to shift the burden of the consequences onto others without their consent. That is a form of initiating fraud, which cannot be tolerated.

The logic is quite simple: Allowing people to escape the consequences of their actions is bad public policy because it excuses and perpetuates bad decision making and it makes people careless about the impacts of their actions on others.

So you agree that it is moralising. Thanks for supporting my case. And you erect a further libbo false assumption - that being that humans are rational actors. They aren't. Punishing people for acting irrationally, despite that being exactly what humans do, is stupid.

[Seth]

No, I just hate it when the only argument you ever have is "adapt or die". And there's no logic behind it. It's just a conservative moral judgement.

There's plenty of logic involved, you just don't agree with my reasoning. The only moral judgment involved is the one that hold that people should accept responsibility for their actions and not try to shift the burden of the consequences onto others without their consent. That is a form of initiating fraud, which cannot be tolerated.

The logic is quite simple: Allowing people to escape the consequences of their actions is bad public policy because it excuses and perpetuates bad decision making and it makes people careless about the impacts of their actions on others.

So you agree that it is moralising. Thanks for supporting my case. And you erect a further libbo false assumption - that being that humans are rational actors. They aren't. Punishing people for acting irrationally, despite that being exactly what humans do, is stupid.

I find moralizing about people harming other people to be completely appropriate and reasonable. Why don't you?

Allowing people to suffer the consequences of their actions is not "punishing" them by any stretch of the imagination, or by any recognized definition of the word.

[pErvinalia]

Allowing them to suffer.

[Seth]

Allowing them to suffer.

That's how they learn to make better decisions. What does not kill them, makes them strong.

[pErvinalia]

You're a bot, aren't you? Can you not follow a simple line of reasoning?? You are essentially punishing them (by consciously allowing them to suffer potentially greatly) for being what humans are - that is, irrational. You deal in idiotic inane soundbites - "Adapt or die", "What doesn't kill them, makes them strong". Can't you construct an actual rational argument??

[JimC]

You're a bot, aren't you? Can you not follow a simple line of reasoning?? You are essentially punishing them (by consciously allowing them to suffer potentially greatly) for being what humans are - that is, irrational. You deal in idiotic inane soundbites - "Adapt or die", "What doesn't kill them, makes them strong". Can't you construct an actual rational argument??

Typically, though, he takes something that has a grain of psychological truth to it, then twists it to breaking point to fit his rigid ideology. It is important for adolescents to be exposed to a certain level of difficulty and pain, particularly issues that are a consequence of their own actions, as a learning experience. Keeping kids in cotton wool is not the best solution.

However, neither is not giving a fuck about whether they get messed up by the Rolf Harrises of this world...

[pErvinalia]

Yep.

[Seth]

You're a bot, aren't you? Can you not follow a simple line of reasoning?? You are essentially punishing them (by consciously allowing them to suffer potentially greatly) for being what humans are - that is, irrational. You deal in idiotic inane soundbites - "Adapt or die", "What doesn't kill them, makes them strong". Can't you construct an actual rational argument??

I make a perfectly rational argument, you just don't like it because you're a simpering liberal/Marxist panty-waist apologist who leeches off of others and doesn't want to be forced to suffer the consequences of your own bad judgments. My argument cuts too close to the bone for you because you recognize your own failings and are afraid of the consequences you are having to face as a result. You want society to bail you out so you don't have to suffer, which is understandable, but not something society is obliged to do.

I've made a detailed argument which you have conveniently edited down so you can attack me personally rather than having to actually address the issue, which you are uncomfortable with because you know that you can't make a sound case for coddling people and relieving them of the consequences of their bad behavior and poor decisionmaking. So you, as usual, resort to ad hom as a poor substitute for reason.

Human beings don't become less irrational if they don't learn from their mistakes, and they don't learn from their mistakes if they don't have to suffer unpleasant consequences of making bad judgments and engaging in careless or bad behavior. I prefer a society made up of people who understand that actions have consequences, some of which are permanent and grievous, because such a society will generally take much more care not to make those kinds of errors, which translates directly into a more responsible, more trustworthy, better behaved and more compassionate society.

[Seth]

You're a bot, aren't you? Can you not follow a simple line of reasoning?? You are essentially punishing them (by consciously allowing them to suffer potentially greatly) for being what humans are - that is, irrational. You deal in idiotic inane soundbites - "Adapt or die", "What doesn't kill them, makes them strong". Can't you construct an actual rational argument??

Typically, though, he takes something that has a grain of psychological truth to it, then twists it to breaking point to fit his rigid ideology. It is important for adolescents to be exposed to a certain level of difficulty and pain, particularly issues that are a consequence of their own actions, as a learning experience. Keeping kids in cotton wool is not the best solution.

However, neither is not giving a fuck about whether they get messed up by the Rolf Harrises of this world...

What makes you say that? I clearly stated that if coercion or force or fraud were involved in the negotiation for sexual congress then a complaint could be made and a judge or jury would consider all the relevant details and determine if the act was truly consensual, albeit perhaps ill-advised, or if some legal penalty is required for the initiation of force or fraud.

Your problem (and rEv's) is that you misinterpret what I write by making specious conclusions and extensions based on your own personal biases rather than objectively examining the statements I make and interpreting them fully and within the context of the reply.

Just because I say that people should suffer the consequences of their actions does not mean that I do not also have compassion and concern if those consequences are going to be permanently harmful or fatal. I'm merely pointing out that no one has a right to EXPECT or DEMAND that society bail them out of a bad situation. Society is of course free to do so as it deems necessary and reasonable, which is why we pull tiny babies out of well casings and rescue stupid teenagers in shorts, tee shirts and sneakers from the heights of one of the most daunting technical climbing areas in Colorado, the face of Longs Peak, by helicopter, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, for which he will not be billed.

But if he had used his cell phone to call the rangers and say "I'm stuck on a ledge and I demand that you come and rescue me!" I'd be all in favor of the rangers telling him to go fuck himself and that they will recover his body sometime next week.

I find it astonishing that I have to point out the difference between charitable and altruistic amelioration of particularly harmful consequences of stupid actions by society that leaves the transgressor with an adequately unpleasant set of consequences that will deter future stupid behavior and a mindset that rEv seems to have that teenage girls are entitled to be protected from the consequences of screwing someone for sexual pleasure in an irresponsible and unsafe manner. Having a baby is a potentially life-changing and painful experience, but it is most often not fatal or permanently harmful, and it's a great way to convince girls not to spread their legs for every Tom, Dick and Hairy that comes along promising them a good time.

They can always give the child up for adoption.

[JimC]

Society has a duty to protect adolescents from sexual predators, at least to the extent of punishing those who offend in that way as a deterrent to others. There is room for argument about ages and circumstances, rather than a one penalty fits all, but generally I support the laws as they exist, and an happy to see them applied to sleazy adult predators.

[pErvinalia]

You're a bot, aren't you? Can you not follow a simple line of reasoning?? You are essentially punishing them (by consciously allowing them to suffer potentially greatly) for being what humans are - that is, irrational. You deal in idiotic inane soundbites - "Adapt or die", "What doesn't kill them, makes them strong". Can't you construct an actual rational argument??

I make a perfectly rational argument, you just don't like it because you're a simpering liberal/Marxist panty-waist apologist who leeches off of others and doesn't want to be forced to suffer the consequences of your own bad judgments. My argument cuts too close to the bone for you because you recognize your own failings and are afraid of the consequences you are having to face as a result. You want society to bail you out so you don't have to suffer, which is understandable, but not something society is obliged to do.

I've made a detailed argument which you have conveniently edited down so you can attack me personally rather than having to actually address the issue, which you are uncomfortable with because you know that you can't make a sound case for coddling people and relieving them of the consequences of their bad behavior and poor decisionmaking. So you, as usual, resort to ad hom as a poor substitute for reason.

Human beings don't become less irrational if they don't learn from their mistakes, and they don't learn from their mistakes if they don't have to suffer unpleasant consequences of making bad judgments and engaging in careless or bad behavior. I prefer a society made up of people who understand that actions have consequences, some of which are permanent and grievous, because such a society will generally take much more care not to make those kinds of errors, which translates directly into a more responsible, more trustworthy, better behaved and more compassionate society.

JimC answered it perfectly. I don't need to do anything more than ridicule you for pumping out the same inane empty moralistic rhetoric over and over again. ALL your arguments in every topic ALWAYS come down to inane conservative moralising aka Social Darwinism. I take social darwinists as seriously as I take racists. I.e. not at all. If you want respect for your rhetoric then construct a rational argument in it's place.