Gets my Goat!

[simpleman]

AFAICS nobody is accusing you of anything about females of any age; no one in the forum thinks anything like this about you.

I kind of did this before.... this is not the first time PD comes with this topic to the forums, it is actually a very frequent topic of him... on one of those occasions I took him to the task, and I made a couple of more than clear questionings about this... after that, I think he does not like me that much, though I have ignore his posts in the topic... last time I even joke about it, telling him that he just like to brag about this...

Fwiw I think the topic is one worthy of consideration, if handled with care, but then you and GOM clash exactly on the central moral issue that is contentious:
Do children have agency? If they have, should that result in different social practices?

Starting to see my point of not engaging in moral debates? lol

You bring some examples of cultures where the answer is yes, GOM answers from a culture where the answer is a definite no; a no-no, even.

His examples are crap... all his examples are actually points for the opposite of what he is advocating for... an 8 years old can be exploited for labour, hence she can take other forms of exploitation? Is that the teaching of the story? How is this superior to what there is in US? The mom is so sick she can't do any home work, but she is not that sick to keep having babies? where is/are the fathers? how does this compare as better than the accusation that in US society is being destroyed by lazy irresponsible women that do nothing but have dozens of fatherless kids???

I can go on and on, with this example and all the other giving examples, actually... as I say, his examples are crap...

Another excellent point. Include the debates on pornography and on video games, and you have the whole slippery slope.

Yup, all of this are thought crimes... however so far the only one that have made it to legislation is the sexual fantasies with minors... but I see that as an open door where constantly other tough crimes are trying to get through...


Anyway... to the general debate as it is going....

************************************************** ****

Kids are horny is hardly an excuse for anythign...

We do know kids are horney, Freud wrote about that in his Libido work, If I recall correctly from the moment of birth to the age of 3 the libido is bocal, at 3 the libido is anal and I don't remember now... at 12 or so it is sexual...

Here the wiki for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development

Here a quote from the link to the anal stage:

"The anal stage is the second stage in Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychosexual development, lasting from age 18 months to three years. According to Freud, the anus is the primary erogenous zone and pleasure is derived from controlling bladder and bowel movement."

There is actually documented cases of people that had anal sex with 3 YOs arguing that they are sexual that way... none of them are successful, for the same reason that people having sex with 12 YOs are not successful... legally.

The fact that the kid have sexual stimulation is meaningless, it is part of the development of the personality, yet personality is not fully formed... Adults should stay with adults, and kids are to be let alone to develop healthy through their different phases of development, and exploration of their bodies and all that stuff... yes they are horny, it is normal, let them alone.

People maybe don't understand this, but there is a a lot of science and research behind this topics, it is not just arbitrarily "my culture is superior"... it actually is, and there is a big body of documentation to prove it...

[Mifune]

The law actually is worded especifically against this... so a person might be consider to be judge as an adult, for a crime, and at the same time this will not be acceptable excuse for an adult to have sex with said person... I don't know the details about this... maybe someone tried it out thinking it was a loophole, or something...

The law differentiates different amount of responsibility for different offenses committed by adolescents. We often try a 14 year old as a juvenile for petty offenses, but as an adult for something serious like murder. We're not going to try adults as juveniles because their crimes are against juveniles. It's entirely appropriate for adults to be tried as adults at all times barring some kind of serious mental deficiency. Nobody is suggesting that there should be some loophole for adult behavior towards minors. But, we do in some special circumstances essentially treat adults as having less than 100% agency.

Where the law says it is... LOL.

Absolutely.....in the legal arena. But as a philosophical argument that statement is absurd. If your premise is that something is moral simply because it's enshrined in law, then any change to the law would be by definition a violation of that moral premise. The law is, at best an approximation of society's morality with large variations for previously enshrined law that hasn't been adjusted to "catch up" and moderate leanings toward the groups with the loudest voice.

I only mentioned the law to show that society at large doesn't believe that adolescents have no agency. The discussion is theoretical / philosophical question of how much agency should be ascribed to children and adolescents at which points in their development. I don't think the question is even remotely taboo until you bring sex into it. And even then it should be possible to discuss agency and responsibility for adolescents while simultaneously having a value system that condemns adults for certain ways of interacting (i.e. sex) with those adolescents.

Tragic I agree, that was the actual word I used in the deleted answer... I don't see the "inspiring" part of it anywhere... just tragic.

You honestly can't see anything inspiring about someone surviving and at the same time caring for the survival of others in odds that most of us would assume she wouldn't even be able to do the former? Overcoming adversity isn't inspiring simply because the adversity itself is so tragic? Maybe instead of caring for her family at such a young age she should just lay in the corner and cry about how unfair it all is and let herself and everyone else die.

We don't... that girl should be going to school, and playing with friends...

Of course she should. But she's not. That's the tragic part. No one's arguing we should force adversity on children. No one's arguing that the level of adversity PD describes is even necessarily a positive. All I'm doing is pointing out the disparity in the amount of agency people in the "West" ascribe to children and the amount of responsibility they're able to bear when it becomes a necessity that PD's post describes. It's simply the opening of a question:

Do we as a general rule shelter children, and particularly adolescents too much in the "West"? I haven't even entered a conclusion or really an argument toward that question. All I've done is claim that it should be okay to ask the question.

PD, is wrong in pretty much everything he says about the legal system in US... the laws are not in place to discourage girls from having sex... the laws are in place to discourage adults to having sex with kids... the idea that girls are sentenced "almost" as hard as men is basically... silly.

You missed his point entirely. He never claimed the US law was intended to prevent teenage girls from having sex. He expressed a concern that absolving teenage girls of responsibility encourages them to have sex and increases the likelihood of teenage pregnancy and many of the social ills that accompany it. It may or may not be true, but as a question it's worth exploring.

All this said, I think US society have a wrong legal approach to pedophilia... in the sense that it is proven that a person can't control the sexual desires, what a person can control is what they do with the desires.... for instance if act out on them or not...

To give a contrast example... a person might think on stealing some money from the boss... the person per se can't decide to want or don't want to do this... but the person can decide if he will actually take the money or not... all legal doctrines explain that the person is not a criminal for thinking or desiring the crime, if at the end the person does not commit the crime. Otherwise we will be punishing people for stuff they imagine and not for stuff they actually do... the way pedophilia have being worded in the law, it indicates that imagination, in this case, constitute a crime... and that is a very dangerous line for the law to cross.

Agreed. No one should be punished for their thoughts. Only actions.

[TheNarrator]

Kids are horny is hardly an excuse for anythign...

We do know kids are horney, Freud wrote about that in his Libido work, If I recall correctly from the moment of birth to the age of 3 the libido is bocal, at 3 the libido is anal and I don't remember now... at 12 or so it is sexual...
.

no one said its an excuse for anything

and you are delusional if you think our society is not in denial about kids and sexuality. our society imagines people becomes sexual over night at their 18th birthday.

our laws are written as such. and our populace lives their lives as such.

not that i expect you to grasp anything

[Manalysis]

I kind of did this before....

Yeah, sry, a little touch of hubris there, my little mind-reader act.

this is not the first time PD comes with this topic to the forums, it is actually a very frequent topic of him...

Perhaps modern, youth-centred and simultaneously moral-panic-stricken society affords him many opportunities for observation and reflection on it.
It need not be anything more sinister than that, if one does not want to.

on one of those occasions I took him to the task, and I made a couple of more than clear questionings about this... after that, I think he does not like me that much, though I have ignore his posts in the topic... last time I even joke about it, telling him that he just like to brag about this...

I know you make enemies like a craftsman, and I do in fact admire each of your individual oeuvres; but even you should know that your jokes don't go over well with _anyone_ here. Well, with a few exceptions.

Starting to see my point of not engaging in moral debates? lol

Indeed.
OTOH, I was merely commenting from the sidelines; meta-debating, so to speak.

His examples are crap... all his examples are actually points for the opposite of what he is advocating for... an 8 years old can be exploited for labour, hence she can take other forms of exploitation? Is that the teaching of the story? How is this superior to what there is in US? The mom is so sick she can't do any home work, but she is not that sick to keep having babies? where is/are the fathers? how does this compare as better than the accusation that in US society is being destroyed by lazy irresponsible women that do nothing but have dozens of fatherless kids???

I agree that to get to the gist of the argument, one has to give him something of a charitable reading.
But no one's worse off for doing that, if you do not count a less bulky pouch of rhetorical ammo.

AFAICS he's not holding up any 'good' examples, but rather criticizing the mindset of certain circles in the US.
But I agree with GOM, he has chosen an approach that leaves many angles of attack.

I can go on and on, with this example and all the other giving examples, actually... as I say, his examples are crap...

Agreed; badly chosen. That in itself doesn't invalidate any points anyone might make, though.

Kids are horny is hardly an excuse for anythign...
/.../ yes they are horny, it is normal, let them alone.

The one thing we all agree on.

People maybe don't understand this, but there is a a lot of science and research behind this topics, it is not just arbitrarily "my culture is superior"... it actually is, and there is a big body of documentation to prove it...

Yes. Still, it is also a legel-political issue. Science may support a choice on an issue, and it is good if it does; but it has to be _our_ choice.

M

[simpleman]

The law differentiates different amount of responsibility for different offenses committed by adolescents. We often try a 14 year old as a juvenile for petty offenses, but as an adult for something serious like murder. We're not going to try adults as juveniles because their crimes are against juveniles. It's entirely appropriate for adults to be tried as adults at all times barring some kind of serious mental deficiency. Nobody is suggesting that there should be some loophole for adult behavior towards minors. But, we do in some special circumstances essentially treat adults as having less than 100% agency.

Probably I expressed it in a confusing way... Going to try again...

The fat that a minor can be try as an adult for some crimes does not mean that a minor can consent... I remember seeing laws worded for this specific situation, I guess someone tried it?

Absolutely.....in the legal arena. But as a philosophical argument that statement is absurd. If your premise is that something is moral simply because it's enshrined in law, then any change to the law would be by definition a violation of that moral premise. The law is, at best an approximation of society's morality with large variations for previously enshrined law that hasn't been adjusted to "catch up" and moderate leanings toward the groups with the loudest voice.

Well, I don't know... I guess somewhere they have to put the mark that separates adult form child... It looks like thy go for anywhere between 16 to 21?... I don't make laws and I don't enforce them neither...

The whole moral argument totally escapes me, I don't waste time in that.

I only mentioned the law to show that society at large doesn't believe that adolescents have no agency. The discussion is theoretical / philosophical question of how much agency should be ascribed to children and adolescents at which points in their development. I don't think the question is even remotely taboo until you bring sex into it. And even then it should be possible to discuss agency and responsibility for adolescents while simultaneously having a value system that condemns adults for certain ways of interacting (i.e. sex) with those adolescents.

Then again.... I think the whole thing about "consent" is artificial... nobody really consent or... disconsent?...

You honestly can't see anything inspiring about someone surviving and at the same time caring for the survival of others in odds that most of us would assume she wouldn't even be able to do the former? Overcoming adversity isn't inspiring simply because the adversity itself is so tragic? Maybe instead of caring for her family at such a young age she should just lay in the corner and cry about how unfair it all is and let herself and everyone else die.

Yup, I don't see anything inspiring in this...

Of course she should. But she's not. That's the tragic part. No one's arguing we should force adversity on children. No one's arguing that the level of adversity PD describes is even necessarily a positive. All I'm doing is pointing out the disparity in the amount of agency people in the "West" ascribe to children and the amount of responsibility they're able to bear when it becomes a necessity that PD's post describes. It's simply the opening of a question:

Do we as a general rule shelter children, and particularly adolescents too much in the "West"? I haven't even entered a conclusion or really an argument toward that question. All I've done is claim that it should be okay to ask the question.

Mexico is part of the west culture...

[simpleman]

I know you make enemies like a craftsman, and I do in fact admire each of your individual oeuvres; but even you should know that your jokes don't go over well with _anyone_ here. Well, with a few exceptions.

I don't think you can make real enemies through the internet... If anything some people I disagree with, more often than usual.

Agreed; badly chosen. That in itself doesn't invalidate any points anyone might make, though.

When the point was sustained mostly by the examples.... yeah kind of invalidate the point...

Yes. Still, it is also a legel-political issue. Science may support a choice on an issue, and it is good if it does; but it has to be _our_ choice.

M

Maybe I went a little bit emotional there... calling psychoanalysis... science... is not my proudest moment... LOL.

[Mifune]

Probably I expressed it in a confusing way... Going to try again...

The fat that a minor can be try as an adult for some crimes does not mean that a minor can consent... I remember seeing laws worded for this specific situation, I guess someone tried it?

Why are you repeating to me something you already said that I already pretty much agreed with. Let's recap:

The law differentiates different amount of responsibility for different offenses committed by adolescents. We often try a 14 year old as a juvenile for petty offenses, but as an adult for something serious like murder. We're not going to try adults as juveniles because their crimes are against juveniles. It's entirely appropriate for adults to be tried as adults at all times barring some kind of serious mental deficiency. Nobody is suggesting that there should be some loophole for adult behavior towards minors. But, we do in some special circumstances essentially treat adults as having less than 100% agency.

Also:

And even then it should be possible to discuss agency and responsibility for adolescents while simultaneously having a value system that condemns adults for certain ways of interacting (i.e. sex) with those adolescents.

I don't understand what you're arguing against. I've stated at least twice that adolescents having agency doesn't negate the actions of adults toward them. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear than that.

Well, I don't know... I guess somewhere they have to put the mark that separates adult form child... It looks like thy go for anywhere between 16 to 21?... I don't make laws and I don't enforce them neither...

Of course. But that doesn't negate any discussion on how much agency / responsibility adolescents have as they approach that line. It's clearly not that people are 0% responsible for anything that they do until they cross then line and then become instantly 100% responsible. It doesn't work that way. As evidenced by the way the law is applied

The whole moral argument totally escapes me, I don't waste time in that.

Which is probably why you elevate "law" as though it's moral in it's own right. It saves you from having to consider any of the principles or arguments involved.

Yup, I don't see anything inspiring in this...

Well, then I'll just leave you to reflect on the following quote:

[simpleman]

Which is probably why you elevate "law" as though it's moral in it's own right. It saves you from having to consider any of the principles or arguments involved.

I think there is a moral element on the law... but in general terms i agree with this...

I am a moral relativist... so for me there is nothing truly good or truly bad... though I am not an antisocial, I understand that for me to live in this society I should obey their laws... I also accept it that I don't understand the reasons behind many laws out there, but never the less i still obey them.

THe part that you refer too as the philosophical argument, in my case is mostly a casual curiosity, nobody really care what my opinion is about pretty much anythign... so what are my opinions on the law and society and... everything... are pretty muse useful for online forums, for everything else... nothing.

Well, then I'll just leave you to reflect on the following quote:

Serves to show the power of good propaganda... any piece of trash, nonsense "wisdom" looks better if presented in the appropriate format...

.

[simpleman]

By the way... I posted a video, few days ago... I can't find it now...

[Manalysis]

By the way... I posted a video, few days ago... I can't find it now...

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...ings-and-stuff ?

M

[Grumpy Old Man]

Then there are the pragmatists!