Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
It absolutely does not "solidly falsify the common conclusion of the physchiatric field".
Actually, the study specifically used the common conclusion of the day as the hypothesis to question the foundation of that field, and falsified the hypothesis in the sense of showing no empirical validation for it, meaning that there is no scientifically sound basis for the field the report was questioning. Note that I've extrapolated beyond that one study in my own conclusions, which should be treated as seperate from what I'm saying about Rind et al, lest I go misrepresenting them (they've had plenty of that without me adding to it). They posed a critical question and showed a large field to be seriously, fundamentally flawed and exposed the weak position of science in politics etc., but they haven't stated the conclusion I have. Indeed, they have been exceedingly narrow and precise in what they have stated, to the point that most have made up their own interpretations. I draw on their study, among others, but I should be clear that any conclusions are my own synthesis.
quote:
You'll be aware, I hope, of the controversy surrounding the Rind study?
Yes. As far as I can tell, it's right up there with the controversy about evolution vs creationism.
Do you have anything to suggest a solid, non-refuted criticism on scientific grounds?
quote:
This is not true, and since you're a smart bloke, I've no doubt you'll want to retract. If you choose to maintain that it's been established "beyond a shadow of a doubt" then I call bullshit.
I can retract the degree of certainty. Some people have doubts. I'm not familiar with any well founded doubt, but that's nothing new. Feel free to present your doubts, but I would suggest reading the rest of this reply first, at least, and maybe checking my figures if you doubt those, as well.
quote:
Note you said "postpubescant" and then put "young adult" in parenthesis.
Yes, to clarify that I was talking about the intersection of two sets, because I didn't care to go digging deeply into the matter when nobody actually wants to know and anyone that does dig into it in an honest search for truth gets to be the next Galileo. I don't fancy being him when I don't have a horse in this race. Note that the AAAS actually did point out the Galileo thing, if memory serves.
quote:
Post pubescant is not - it has a medical definition so I hope you can understand how putting the two terms together could lead to a serious misunderstanding?
The history of the thread includes a bit about precocious puberty, etc., and I haven't given thought to kids prior to their teens in any context related to sexuality. That's not a slot they occupy in my view of the world. So I sought to clarify that I'm talking about using puberty as an objectively defined anchor because it leads to physical maturity (i.e. the point at which any objection must be of a moral nature, unless harm from the act per se is in evidence), but without getting into every single freaky case nature comes up with. Trying to address the core question of where to draw the line, rather than waving a finger about and pulling a number out of thin air, because we can define a well posed core question (not necessarily mine), collect the data, and decide on objective grounds. That doesn't seem to have been attempted in the history of humanity.
For instance, if you want to protect, you can collect data on the distribution of outcomes and set a threshold figure for acceptable impact after factoring in the other citizens that have to be protected as well (bear in mind that, biologically, attraction peaks between 14 and 24, so it's nontrivial to avoid catching regular people with perfectly honest intentions with a limit that isn't set too loosely to effect the protection you want).
quote:
I don't think your idea that the age of criminal culpability should apply holds much water.
It's not the age, but the linking of issues. Consent has to do with being able to be responsible, to assume responsibility. Indeed, you could say culpability rests on the capacity for consent, but the more accurate thing would be to say the both rest on the same thing, for which I don't know a good word. We could of course redefine the whole shebang ground up, but that's kind of beyond the scope of politicians and their blowjobs, isn't it?
quote:
What about the age at which you can die for your country? Smoke? drink? vote?
I don't know about yours, but all of those are fixed at 18 here, whereas culpability and consent are fixed at 15. I'm curious as to where the objection is, though. Because I've a mind to define these in the same sets of terms, if you intend to widen the scope. I'd like to think you can see where I'm going with this, but in case it's not clear, raising these objections registers like "but, look, we make other mistakes, too, so why can't we make this one?" to me.
quote:
That is exactly what the law tries to do!
I like to credit it with not trying very hard...
quote:
My parents did a pretty fucking good job, and at the age of 14 there was no fucking way on god's good earth that I had the judgement, wisdom, or sense of the consequences sufficient to drive a car, vote, buy alcohol, or have sex.
You're still here. Learn any lessons along the way, or did it just irretrievably ruin you as a person to make those mistakes?
Throw out voting and driving a car, and you're left with stuff which wasn't a problem. Voting and driving a car (or using a gun) is a set of activities that inherently involve responsibility for others beyond yourself. Getting drunk can quickly result in it, but doesn't inherently do so. Having sex inherently involves responsibility for yourself, which is also the extent of what you can fuck up: you, and whoever is in bed with you (and that person happens to be responsible for themselves already). Voting, I can't say "no, crazyml, I choose not to be part of your democracy." Driving, I can't say "no, crazyml, I'm such a great driver that you literally- physically- can't run into me from behind while I'm waiting at a red light in a busy intersection; I opt out of your accident." You having sex, however, won't affect me unless we both agree that I should be a party to it.
I think you turned out just fine, by the way. I hope such is your impression of me, as well.
quote:
Let's start with drinking shall we... let's demonstrate that if you're old enough to commit a crime you're old enough to buy a beer before we argue that you should also be old enough to make a baby.
Never said make a baby. That aside, having babies worked out for a few billion people so far, and works for every other species.
We hardly have any unwanted pregnancies where I live, and that's with 15 as the age of consent.
The median debut for women in Norway is 16.8 years, meaning half have had sex by that age. The average is 17.3 years, which represents the fact that relatively fewer debut as minors as compared to as adults. For men, these figures are in the 18-19 years range. The standard deviation for debut is 2.2 years, which means 15% of women in Norway have their sexual debut by 12.6 years of age if the distribution is a normal curve. I couldn't find a histogram, sorry to say, but that corresponds well with 10% of 14 year olds reporting regular use of condoms (i.e. a majority of teenagers in Norway use condoms when having sex).
In spite of this, we have the highest standard of living available, and very low rates of most predicted adverse outcomes of early debut.
Rind should have had a look at Norway, methinks...
Would you like me to pull up the figures for alcohol and drugs, along with outcomes of that, or can we simply agree that getting drunk out of your mind as a youth is going to be more detrimental overall in terms of outcomes than is the case with sex (given that alcoholism has a genetic component, that the brain is still nowhere near fully developed at that age, and that statistics are clear that alcohol use prior to the age of 17 is a serious predictor of an adverse outcome)?
Bear in mind that we actually educate our kids about sex, both at home and at school, rather than preach abstinence.
I once queried my mother about having let my sister have her boyfriend sleeping over when home alone. She had a pretty simple answer. My sister knew everything that she needed to know to make a decision, including how to say no. She probably did say no. But in the event she didn't, it was a higher priority that her eventual debut- whether that was the time or not- be under safe circumstances, in a familiar environment, and with a condom. Because a parent has no real control over when it happens, but can have some control over how it happens. Also, the acceptance element is part of taking away the sense that one is in a hurry, as well as creating a supportive atmosphere that serves to be empowering and to reduce the risk of any adverse outcome.
And my sister also knew that if a boy failed to treat her right, the most adverse outcome would've been his... 
These days, she's happily married, has a villa, a career and a well adjusted son, by the way.
quote:
Yes, children are vulnerable, I want to protect them, I think that's the general thrust of age of consent legislation.
Good intentions. I share those intentions. The hardest thing about doing right by someone, however, is knowing when to step back and let them make their own mistakes, have their own learning experiences and mature into adults step by step. The one thing that children are most vulnerable to, aside from rejection, is being overprotected to the point where they don't learn responsibility and freedom, obligation and privilege, discipline and confidence; where they no longer have the experiences that build character and foster learning, foremost among them mistakes that don't ruin their lives. I think Rind, the Statistics and Census Bureau of Norway, the equivalent for other Scandinavian countries, and various other sources, have established that it doesn't ruin their lives to have sex once they're physically mature enough for it.
I want kids to turn into great adults. Protecting them is about making sure they live to see adulthood, and equipping them to face life along the way. One of the parts of equipping them thus is getting out of their way as much as is reasonable, which it is the task of parents to know the when and why of. Clearly, an adult should never have sex with a prepubescent. Their bodies aren't ready for it, so it inherently carries a risk of physical and mental harm that shouldn't be taken by either party.
And I can agree- mostly as a matter of pragmatism and compromise, though also as a matter of caution- that someone that can be responsible for others must have some additional responsibilities in regard to someone that is not, foremost consent. I'm placing the definition of the ability to be responsible outside the scope of my post; it's not the voting age, but rather voting is in principle contingent on this ability, so for convenience we can treat it as the same with the mutual understanding that "voting age" is a dangling concept here. Similarly, I've anchored the ability to consent to the ability to be responsible for oneself and one's own actions, which entails the potential for culpability as well. It is thus not the age of culpability that defines the ability to consent, but rather both rest on the ability to be responsible, and again we can for convenience treat that the same way with "age of culpability" as another dangling concept. To fully address the two would mean addressing much of the fabric of society, whereas it is sufficient for treatment of this one topic to address only the principled concerns that have direct bearing on the subject.
This is not a paper. It's just a first draft of some random musings. I trust I don't have to put in a whole bibliography, and I hope I have clarified some matters and furthered the argument I am presenting, in spite of the unedited stream-of-consciousness format. And, again, I want to be exceedingly clear that I'm not interested in hunting for jailbait, nor looking to condone pedophilia of any sort (in the strict definition of the term). I'm talking about defending the right of human beings to be recognized as capable and autonomous without living up to my standard in terms of their ability to comprehend the consequences of their actions (and quite frankly, if that standard were applied, most adults could neither consent nor vote), and without discrimination based solely on the number of years they have been breathing.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Resign hell, he should be arrested. - 
Profile
RE: Resign hell, he should be arrested. - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread