>this thread
Gotlucky: Oh God, not this bullshit again. Customary law is the only form of law that reflects the will of the majority all the time. By definition. Statutory law at best is superflous or it does not reflect the will of the majority. Please do not continue with this bullshit that you want the will of the majority to become law.
I will amend my statement to say: a majority of the elected representatives in whatever legislative body is considering the issue. I do think politicians often care about getting re-elected though which means they have an incentive to listen to their constituencies.
Gotlucky: I just want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that people can not consent to sex until age 25 in your opinion?
Unless there's some degree of variance in the age at which the brain is fully developed (which there probably is,) yes.
The problem is that that standard would place a serious burden on this issue and that could be frustrating and it would likely not find mass appeal. Because I'm not bound by any set principle on this I would always be willing to look for a compromise but I do think a fully developed brain is crucially important for making decisions and evaluating options that could have some very serious life long consequences. Rearing children is no small task in this world.
I started having sex at 18 and my values and living situation have both completely changed over the last 8 years. I can't imagine what it would be like to be stuck with a child or a disease or whatever at this age. But at the time I was 18 I had no inkling of what the real world was going to be like. When I was 12 I sure as hell didn't know.
Gotlucky: I am aware of age variances, but I have never heard of the variance that wide regarding 12 year olds. I have seen articles or heard on the radio of kids who are within 1 year apart getting screwed by the state.
Well I found this chart a while back. To my knowledge it's still current but it may not be. Some states list a minimum age of the victim (below which no sex can be consensual) and every state has a legal age of consent (above which all sex is viewed as consensual) and not all states have age differentials as part of their laws, some states have a minimum age of defendant to prosecute. Alabama appears to be the only state which lists the minimum age of the victim as 12. They allow a 2 year age differential but they also don't appear to prosecute people below 16 which would technically mean the age window is really 4.
I'm not sure of the case you're referencing.
Gotlucky: Well the point of running away is that the kid doesn't want to be with the parents. It's not really about the parents.
But you gotta pay to play the legal game unless you're taken into state custody. Hiring an attorney can be very expensive and unless there's some really compelling evidence (such as child abuse) against the parent I'm personally inclined to care more about what the parent thinks than the child.
Gotlucky: No. It is not a consistent reason. No one can percieve all possible consequences of any action, sex or whatever.
The reason doesn't have to be entirely consistent or morally right it just has to be compelling enough to spur political action. If people feel they know better than someone else they might be inclined to act even if it might be against the person's will and particularly when that other person has very few means to seek recourse.
Gotlucky: I know the statutory punishment doesn't have to be death. That was not my point. My point was the logical punishment for not obeying a statute is death, unless you are willing to accept the punishment.
I see. Well the cops could conceivably kill them. It seem unlikely but it's possible.
Gotlucky: But I thought you stayed away from morals. Unless it has to do with God. Who you have no idea what he thinks. Confusing.
Oh I know what I think is right. I really do believe in objective morals and I believe they're derived from God's authority but I can't exactly substantiate that claim as there appears to be literally no scientific evidence of God whatsoever.
Gotlucky: Okay. Two people agreeing is not law in any society except for the 2 person society. What's your point?
My point is that in my society the politician's opinions matter too, not just the people.
Gotlucky: What's unlikely? That two 12 year olds who have had consensual sex might resist arrest and get murdered by the police? Maybe.
Yes I think so.
Gotlucky: Not that many 12 year olds have sex relative to the population anyway.
I haven't been able to find any data so I can't be sure. It seems likely that you're right though.
bloomj31: I will amend my statement to say: a majority of the elected representatives in whatever legislative body is considering the issue. I do think politicians often care about getting re-elected though which means they have an incentive to listen to their constituencies.
I see no reason why this is necessarily a good thing. Why should we have rulers? Most people who talk about elected representatives talk about them as people who actually represent their beliefs, at least in theory. The whole point of having representatives is that it is more practical than having everybody vote (well, before the internet it was considered more practical). But you just blatantly want them to be rulers. But if the whole point of listening to their constituencies is so that they can represent the will of the majority, then you are just pulling the same crap again and pretending it's different.
bloomj31: Unless there's some degree of variance in the age at which the brain is fully developed (which there probably is,) yes. The problem is that that standard would place a serious burden on this issue and that could be frustrating and it would likely not find mass appeal. Because I'm not bound by any set principle on this I would always be willing to look for a compromise but I do think a fully developed brain is crucially important for making decisions and evaluating options that could have some very serious life long consequences. Rearing children is no small task in this world. I started having sex at 18 and my values and living situation have both completely changed over the last 8 years. I can't imagine what it would be like to be stuck with a child or a disease or whatever at this age. But at the time I was 18 I had no inkling of what the real world was going to be like. When I was 12 I sure as hell didn't know.
Well, there really isn't much to say to such a ridiculous belief. If humans had waited until age 25 to start having sex, then humanity wouldn't have lasted past 4000 years ago. The life expectancy was something like 25 years old. At most. That you think people can't truly consent to anything until around age 25 is just fucking stupid.
bloomj31: Well I found this chart a while back. To my knowledge it's still current but it may not be. Some states list a minimum age of the victim (below which no sex can be consensual) and every state has a legal age of consent (above which all sex is viewed as consensual) and not all states have age differentials as part of their laws, some states have a minimum age of defendant to prosecute. Alabama appears to be the only state which lists the minimum age of the victim as 12. They allow a 2 year age differential but they also don't appear to prosecute people below 16 which would technically mean the age window is really 4. I'm not sure of the case you're referencing.
Keep your eyes peeled. Every so often something like it pops up in the news or on talk radio.
bloomj31: But you gotta pay to play the legal game unless you're taken into state custody. Hiring an attorney can be very expensive and unless there's some really compelling evidence (such as child abuse) against the parent I'm personally inclined to care more about what the parent thinks than the child.
Well that really doesn't have much to do with my point. Most children don't run away from home. When they do, they have a reason. It doesn't matter what you think of that reason.
bloomj31: The reason doesn't have to be entirely consistent or morally right it just has to be compelling enough to spur political action. If people feel they know better than someone else they might be inclined to act even if it might be against the person's will and particularly when that other person has very few means to seek recourse.
No. I will say it again, "Just because someone cannot understand the possible consequences is no reason to assert that that person cannot engage in a certain activity. No person can ever know all the possible consequences of any given action." Nobody has any way of knowing all the possible consequences of their actions.
bloomj31: I see. Well the cops could conceivably kill them. It seem unlikely but it's possible.
Cops do kill people for resisting arrest. They even kill people who aren't resisting arrest and claim they were. There was a video by Reason TV on this forum a couple months ago citing 3 such cases. If 12 year olds are so incompetent, maybe they will resist arrest and get executed.
bloomj31: Oh I know what I think is right. I really do believe in objective morals and I believe they're derived from God's authority but I can't exactly substantiate that claim as there appears to be literally no scientific evidence of God whatsoever.
So what you think is right is morally objective? Ha! I've never heard that one before from people. /sarcasm
bloomj31: My point is that in my society the politician's opinions matter too, not just the people.
Wouldn't it just be easier to say that?
Gotlucky: I see no reason why this is necessarily a good thing. Why should we have rulers? Most people who talk about elected representatives talk about them as people who actually represent their beliefs, at least in theory. The whole point of having representatives is that it is more practical than having everybody vote (well, before the internet it was considered more practical). But you just blatantly want them to be rulers.
It isn't necessarily a good thing. I think it's good for me because I do not think my standard of living would necessarily improve in a free society. Also I do find that my beliefs are generally well represented by the people in the Republican party. Not entirely but enough for me to be satisfied.
Gotlucky: Well, there really isn't much to say to such a ridiculous belief. If humans had waited until age 25 to start having sex, then humanity wouldn't have lasted past 4000 years ago. The life expectancy was something like 25 years old. At most. That you think people can't truly consent to anything until around age 25 is just fucking stupid.
This is argumentum ad consequentiam, something I am often criticized for. And saying my opinion is "just fucking stupid" isn't a very compelling criticism lol.
Anyways, just because we've done something a certain way for a very long time and perhaps gotten a favorable result from it in the past doesn't necessarily make it right or correct now. Particularly when talking about reproduction, a function which we are all pre-programmed to be able to do with or without any sort of rational calculation beforehand. Our sex organs can be said to have "minds of their own" because they can work without our conscious control.
If we are our gene's survival machines as the orthodox theory of evolution would have us believe then it stands to reason that our predilection for reproduction may have very little to do with any kind of conscious motive on the parts of the machines. Just because we're programmed to want sex at a certain age doesn't make sex at any age right or good. To suggest otherwise would be a naturalist fallacy.
In the environment in which we evolved, it may not have been necessary for our ancestors to make complex rational calculations about the long term consequences of sex other than considerations of whether or not the children would survive to go on to reproduce as well. Survival was a much dicier game and so both males and females who carried genes that gave them the ability to pass on their genes rather quickly (reach sexual maturity early in life) would've likely been selected over males and females who possessed genes that caused them to reach sexual maturity later in life because the second group were more likely to die before they could ever reproduce. We are obviously the descendants of people who, on average, could make more partial copies of themselves early in life, this does not mean we have to act this way in our modern world where the average life expectancy is something like 78 and where re-populating isn't a drastic concern.
Now if the human brain takes 25 years to fully develop, and if the last parts of the brain to develop are exactly the parts of the brain designed to aid in rational decision making and abstract reasoning and if the decision to bear and raise children in the modern world involves complex calculations based on a complex understanding of the world into which the children will be born and an abstract intertemporal understanding of the potential costs and risks of said act, how can we say that people under the age of 25 are acting with their full potential rational powers when deciding to engage in an activity that could result in child bearing?
Now, you might say: well they can always get an abortion and it's true that they can. Perhaps contraception is the answer to this riddle. Perhaps it doesn't matter what age people start having sex because they can always choose to abort the fetus. But obviously there are other dangers associated with sex such as communicable disease, some of which can't be cured.
You might also say: well some people are going to have sex anyways and ofcourse this is true. It's very difficult to completely eradicate any behavior completely, particularly one with such a strong evolutionary/biological basis. But just because something is inevitable to a certain degree doesn't mean we can't punish people for doing it anyways if we decide we don't like it and want to try to lessen the degree to which it occurs. Humans do seem to respond to incentives. This is the same reason why we don't have to tolerate murder even though it's inevitable or rape or any other act really. No act has to be tolerated even if it's inevitable to some degree.
As I said before though I'm not dead set on getting the age of consent changed to 25. It's just not going to happen. There's not the political will and I'm very open to compromise. 16 seems low but I guess it's ok. I'd prefer 18 with a small variance (2 or 3 years at most) because in most states I've looked at so far, the minimum age for marriage seems to range between 16 and 18 (usually 18) and marriage seems to still be the best defense against a sex offense charge.
Gotlucky: When they do, they have a reason. It doesn't matter what you think of that reason.
Not me personally but it does matter what the people with power think and I can ofcourse vote for people who share my opinion.
Gotlucky: "Just because someone cannot understand the possible consequences is no reason to assert that that person cannot engage in a certain activity. No person can ever know all the possible consequences of any given action." Nobody has any way of knowing all the possible consequences of their actions.
It's true. Life is inherently uncertain. Still if I believe that someone doesn't understand have even the slightest concept of the potential risks involved in an activity I will try to stop them (or support people who I believe will attempt to stop them on my behalf) from engaging in it. With force if necessary. Perhaps they'll hate me, or the people I support, for it but I understand that risk. Maybe they'll thank me/them later. I spent the first 20 years of my life resenting my authoritarian father and the last 6 years of my life thanking him for being so authoritarian with me.
Gotlucky: So what you think is right is morally objective? Ha! I've never heard that one before from people. /sarcasm
Moral conviction is not uncommon in man. Yet I do feel that I am right and I fear God's eternal wrath even more than I fear men so I am willing to risk the ire of men if I feel that it may bring me the love of God.
Gotlucky: Wouldn't it just be easier to say that?
Yes I suppose so.
Gotlucky: Keep your eyes peeled. Every so often something like it pops up in the news or on talk radio.
I'll keep an eye out.
bloomj31: It isn't necessarily a good thing. I think it's good for me because I do not think my standard of living would necessarily improve in a free society. Also I do find that my beliefs are generally well represented by the people in the Republican party. Not entirely but enough for me to be satisfied.
Well, unless you are upper class or you or your parents are employed by the state in a career that would not exist in a free market, then you would be better off in a free society.
bloomj31: This is argumentum ad consequentiam, something I am often criticized for. And saying my opinion is "just fucking stupid" isn't a very compelling criticism lol.
I did not use a logical fallacy. Humanity would not be here today if we did not have sex until age 25. This is not a logical fallacy. It is a statement. Statements are either true or false. They cannot be logically valid or invalid. I've said it before, but I really think you should consider studying logic at some point.
bloomj31: Anyways, just because we've done something a certain way for a very long time and perhaps gotten a favorable result from it in the past doesn't necessarily make it right or correct now. Particularly when talking about reproduction, a function which we are all pre-programmed to be able to do with or without any sort of rational calculation beforehand. Our sex organs can be said to have "minds of their own" because they can work without our conscious control. If we are our gene's survival machines as the orthodox theory of evolution would have us believe then it stands to reason that our predilection for reproduction may have very little to do with any kind of conscious motive on the parts of the machines. Just because we're programmed to want sex at a certain age doesn't make sex at any age right or good. To suggest otherwise would be a naturalist fallacy. In the environment in which we evolved, it may not have been necessary for our ancestors to make complex rational calculations about the long term consequences of sex other than considerations of whether or not the children would survive to go on to reproduce as well. Survival was a much dicier game and so both males and females who carried genes that gave them the ability to pass on their genes rather quickly (reach sexual maturity early in life) would've likely been selected over males and females who possessed genes that caused them to reach sexual maturity later in life because the second group were more likely to die before they could ever reproduce. We are obviously the descendants of people who, on average, could make more partial copies of themselves early in life, this does not mean we have to act this way in our modern world where the average life expectancy is something like 78 and where re-populating isn't a drastic concern. Now if the human brain takes 25 years to fully develop, and if the last parts of the brain to develop are exactly the parts of the brain designed to aid in rational decision making and abstract reasoning and if the decision to bear and raise children in the modern world involves complex calculations based on a complex understanding of the world into which the children will be born and an abstract intertemporal understanding of the potential costs and risks of said act, how can we say that people under the age of 25 are acting with their full potential rational powers when deciding to engage in an activity that could result in child bearing? Now, you might say: well they can always get an abortion and it's true that they can. Perhaps contraception is the answer to this riddle. Perhaps it doesn't matter what age people start having sex because they can always choose to abort the fetus. But obviously there are other dangers associated with sex such as communicable disease, some of which can't be cured. You might also say: well some people are going to have sex anyways and ofcourse this is true. It's very difficult to completely eradicate any behavior completely, particularly one with such a strong evolutionary/biological basis. But just because something is inevitable to a certain degree doesn't mean we can't punish people for doing it anyways if we decide we don't like it and want to try to lessen the degree to which it occurs. Humans do seem to respond to incentives. This is the same reason why we don't have to tolerate murder even though it's inevitable or rape or any other act really. No act has to be tolerated even if it's inevitable to some degree. As I said before though I'm not dead set on getting the age of consent changed to 25. It's just not going to happen. There's not the political will and I'm very open to compromise. 16 seems low but I guess it's ok. I'd prefer 18 with a small variance (2 or 3 years at most) because in most states I've looked at so far, the minimum age for marriage seems to range between 16 and 18 (usually 18) and marriage seems to still be the best defense against a sex offense charge.
Look, at any age, people engage in decision making. It's called action. People with fully developed brains make choices and hold beliefs that are entirely at odds with many other people who also have fully developed brains. Just look at Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Both have fully developed brains, and they both have come to entirely different conclusions about pretty much everything. Look at all the societies with different norms and laws from our own. They too have people with fully developed brains.
Look at all the people who drive drunk or high. Whether or not what they are doing is right or wrong, many of them have fully developed brains. Now look at everyone else who has a fully developed brain who does not drive drunk or high. What about the people who go skydiving? I've never done it, and I don't plan to do it. But there are plenty of people who have fully developed brains who think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
You are just taking sex as a special issue because you feel very strongly about it. Great. Okay. Get over it. Debt is a greater problem for 18 year olds than sex. There are far more 18 year olds planning on taking on debt that will follow them for about 10 years on average than there are 18 year olds having sex (or younger). Our society fucking encourages these 18 year olds to go into this massive amount of debt.
The fact of the matter is that people behave in ways that you may find to be irrational, but that does not make it so. Punishing kids with violence for having sex at age 14 or whenever is disgusting.
You are just picking arbitrary ages for people to have sex. 12, 16, 18, 25, whatever. You are just picking random ages. Why not 16.5 years old? That's what we do for driving? Why not 21? That's what we do for alcohol? Why not 18? That's what we do for voting? These are all just arbitrary ages. But none of them address the core issue that everyone makes decisions and they cannot know what all of the consequences are.
bloomj31: It's true. Life is inherently uncertain. Still if I believe that someone doesn't understand have even the slightest concept of the potential risks involved in an activity I will try to stop them (or support people who I believe will attempt to stop them on my behalf) from engaging in it. With force if necessary. Perhaps they'll hate me, or the people I support, for it but I understand that risk. Maybe they'll thank me/them later. I spent the first 20 years of my life resenting my authoritarian father and the last 6 years of my life thanking him for being so authoritarian with me.
Yeah. I'm sure you actually practice what you preach.
bloomj31: Moral conviction is not uncommon in man. Yet I do feel that I am right and I fear God's eternal wrath even more than I fear men so I am willing to risk the ire of men if I feel that it may bring me the love of God.
This is entirely meaningless. You have stated in the past that you do not know what God thinks. For all you know, God could completely agree with me. Stop bringing up God if you have no way of knowing what he thinks. It's just a bunch of meaningless statements.
The god-baiting is particularly pathetic :P
Gotlucky: Well, unless you are upper class or you or your parents are employed by the state in a career that would not exist in a free market, then you would be better off in a free society.
I'm from the upper middle class and I hope to work for the state one day.
There are various policy changes that could limit government that wouldn't necessarily effect me negatively and I'm more interested in those than I am the conversion to a completely free society.
Gotlucky: Humanity would not be here today if we did not have sex until age 25. This is not a logical fallacy. It is a statement. Statements are either true or false. They cannot be logically valid or invalid. I've said it before, but I really think you should consider studying logic at some point.
I took your statement of fact to be implying that because we're here that what got us here must be good or right. You didn't actually say that though. But then what was the point of the statement?
Gotlucky: Look, at any age, people engage in decision making. It's called action. People with fully developed brains make choices and hold beliefs that are entirely at odds with many other people who also have fully developed brains. Just look at Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Both have fully developed brains, and they both have come to entirely different conclusions about pretty much everything. Look at all the societies with different norms and laws from our own. They too have people with fully developed brains.
Right. And?
Gotlucky: Look at all the people who drive drunk or high. Whether or not what they are doing is right or wrong, many of them have fully developed brains. Now look at everyone else who has a fully developed brain who does not drive drunk or high. What about the people who go skydiving? I've never done it, and I don't plan to do it. But there are plenty of people who have fully developed brains who think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
That's true. But there might be other reasons to want to punish those people.
Gotlucky: You are just taking sex as a special issue because you feel very strongly about it. Great. Okay. Get over it.
No I don't think I will.
Gotlucky: Debt is a greater problem for 18 year olds than sex. There are far more 18 year olds planning on taking on debt that will follow them for about 10 years on average than there are 18 year olds having sex (or younger). Our society fucking encourages these 18 year olds to go into this massive amount of debt.
That is a worthy issue too imo, I am bothered by it as well.
Gotlucky: The fact of the matter is that people behave in ways that you may find to be irrational, but that does not make it so. Punishing kids with violence for having sex at age 14 or whenever is disgusting.
It makes it so for me. Now the question is: can I actually do anything about it? In this society....not really, not yet, probably not ever. I'm a nobody, I have no power. I probably never will. But I can support people with power who promise to do something about it which is what I try to do. I'm not really interested in punishing the younger person, just the older person taking advantage of the younger person. If you find that disgusting then frankly I don't care.
Gotlucky: You are just picking arbitrary ages for people to have sex. 12, 16, 18, 25, whatever. You are just picking random ages. Why not 16.5 years old? That's what we do for driving? Why not 21? That's what we do for alcohol? Why not 18? That's what we do for voting? These are all just arbitrary ages. But none of them address the core issue that everyone makes decisions and they cannot know what all of the consequences are.
As I said before I have no problem with arbitrary decisions or reasons, I'm focused on getting things done as I want them to be done. As long as the reasons are compelling enough to help to accomplish the ends I have in mind, I'm personally satisfied. In this system moral/legal justifications are all about convincing the people who ultimately make the decisions and in this system rules are often based on arbitrary values rather than completely consistent philosophies. My standard may not be any more popular than yours or Rothbard's. What sticks will probably be something in between though hopefully leaning more towards my preferred standard.
Gotlucky: I'm sure you actually practice what you preach.
I try to. Do you?
Gotlucky: For all you know, God could completely agree with me. Stop bringing up God if you have no way of knowing what he thinks. It's just a bunch of meaningless statements.
You brought up my belief in God in this thread. I was simply explaining how it effects my thinking on this. I do believe I am right and I believe you are wrong. I cannot know for sure so I can only act on faith. I'm not surprised that you find it meaningless and I'll bring up whatever I want to bring up though in this case you're the one who brought up God not me.
bloomj31: I'm from the upper middle class and I hope to work for the state one day. There are various policy changes that could limit government that wouldn't necessarily effect me negatively and I'm more interested in those than I am the conversion to a completely free society.
Well now I can see why you want to keep the status quo. Not only do you currently benefit from it, you aim to exploit it to your advantage in the future.
bloomj31: I took your statement of fact to be implying that because we're here that what got us here must be good or right. You didn't actually say that though. But then what was the point of the statement?
The point is that if we were to take your argument that people under the age of 25 should not be engaging in sex because you believe they cannot consent, then humanity would not even be here today. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that we wouldn't even be here today if it weren't for it. I am pointing out the absurdity of the idea that people cannot consent to sex before age 25.
People can consent to anything at any age if they agree to it. We are talking about legal consent. And if legal consent and actual consent don't line up, then you are just talking gibberish. You are saying to someone that they can't actually consent when they have already demonstrated that they can.
bloomj31: Right. And?
Well this was meant to lead into the next paragraph. But just so we are clear, are you disputing anything I wrote?
bloomj31: That's true. But there might be other reasons to want to punish those people.
My goodness. You want to punish kids who have sex? I thought you just wanted to protect them from themselves? You are very vindictive.
bloomj31: No I don't think I will.
That's too bad.
bloomj31: That is a worthy issue too imo, I am bothered by it as well.
Then maybe you should reconsider the idea that people 25 years and up are necessarily able to consider consequences properly.
bloomj31: It makes it so for me. Now the question is: can I actually do anything about it? In this society....not really, not yet, probably not ever. I'm a nobody, I have no power. I probably never will. But I can support people with power who promise to do something about it which is what I try to do. I'm not really interested in punishing the younger person, just the older person taking advantage of the younger person. If you find that disgusting then frankly I don't care.
Okay. I think you are a disgusting person.
bloomj31: As I said before I have no problem with arbitrary decisions or reasons, I'm focused on getting things done as I want them to be done. As long as the reasons are compelling enough to help to accomplish the ends I have in mind, I'm personally satisfied. In this system moral/legal justifications are all about convincing the people who ultimately make the decisions and in this system rules are often based on arbitrary values rather than completely consistent philosophies. My standard may not be any more popular than yours or Rothbard's. What sticks will probably be something in between though hopefully leaning more towards my preferred standard.
Your standard of 25 years of age? It's not much of a standard. A more accurate standard would be when a person's brain finished developing. You are just picking an average number. Not that I like that standard either.
bloomj31: I try to. Do you?
Sure. Though I doubt that you are sincere. I don't believe that you stop people from doing things by force.
bloomj31: You brought up my belief in God in this thread. I was simply explaining how it effects my thinking on this. I do believe I am right and I believe you are wrong. I cannot know for sure so I can only act on faith. I'm not surprised that you find it meaningless and I'll bring up whatever I want to bring up though in this case you're the one who brought up God not me.
Sure I did. It's true. And then I stopped talking about him and then you brought him up. I am simply requesting that you stop bringing him up. Regardless, any statements that you make regarding God and morality are entirely meaningless, as you have stated that you don't know what God thinks. You need to study logic. ASAP.
People like bloom make me lose faith in humanity.
...And its name is Jacob Bloom...Or is it Jeff Hackman?
Gotlucky: Well now I can see why you want to keep the status quo. Not only do you currently benefit from it, you aim to exploit it to your advantage in the future.
That's correct.
Gotlucky: The point is that if we were to take your argument that people under the age of 25 should not be engaging in sex because you believe they cannot consent, then humanity would not even be here today. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that we wouldn't even be here today if it weren't for it. I am pointing out the absurdity of the idea that people cannot consent to sex before age 25.
Well I'm not advocating using a time machine to go back in time to enforce these rules, so how is your observation relevant to the discussion of how one ought to think about the legal age of consent in the present and in the future?
Gotlucky: People can consent to anything at any age if they agree to it. We are talking about legal consent. And if legal consent and actual consent don't line up, then you are just talking gibberish. You are saying to someone that they can't actually consent when they have already demonstrated that they can.
I'm saying that for people under a certain age there seems to me to be little reason to trust in their ability to make decisions for themselves and that their values and choices needn't necessarily be given any serious consideration in legal matters where consent is an issue. EDIT: It seems entirely reasonable to me to believe that a person with an underdeveloped brain could come to vastly different conclusions if they actually had a fully developed brain, particularly when the issue involves inter-temporal decision making. So I think there's good reason for the law to be heavily disinclined to consider the will of a minor (which it generally seems to be,) particularly a minor under a certain age, which it comes to questions of consent.
I want the law to reflect that idea at least to some degree (and it does.)
An individual's ability to vocalize or otherwise demonstrate a "yes" or "no" shouldn't be the guiding criterion (and it's not currently) in deciding whether or not to treat their will as legally relevant. The guiding criterion should be (and usually is) whether or not the people in charge (the state) have any reason to believe the individual in question understood the choice they were making at the time, EDIT: at least to the degree that they find satisfactory.
Because this is an arbitrary evaluation there will be discrepancies between where different states place their respective bars which is one of the reasons why statutory rape laws vary from state to state.
Gotlucky: Well this was meant to lead into the next paragraph. But just so we are clear, are you disputing anything I wrote?
No. I agree that people with fully developed brains can disagree with one another or still do things that I might find stupid.
Gotlucky: My goodness. You want to punish kids who have sex? I thought you just wanted to protect them from themselves? You are very vindictive.
No I was saying I want to punish people who drive drunk or high. That's why I quoted what you said. And yes I can be extremely vindictive.
Gotlucky: Then maybe you should reconsider the idea that people 25 years and up are necessarily able to consider consequences properly.
Why? EDIT: I'm re-reading this statement over and over and something bothers me about the use of the word "properly." It's not that people with fully developed brains will necessarily consider consequences perfectly or properly it's that they're at least working with a full deck from the start. They're not impaired in the same way that people without a fully developed brain or people under the influence are. Their decisions are based on a fully functioning, fully developed system rather than a partially developed or otherwise impaired one. This is the crucial distinction. Impairedness also would seem to exist on a spectrum. So an 18 year old male may have a far more developed brain than he did at 12 but he's still got a ways to go before his brain is fully developed at (let's say for the sake of argument) 25. In the same way, someone passing out from alcohol use is more impaired than someone who's just a little tipsy. Both are impaired but to different degrees.
Gotlucky: Okay. I think you are a disgusting person.
Ok I don't like you very much either.
Gotlucky: A more accurate standard would be when a person's brain finished developing. You are just picking an average number. Not that I like that standard either.
Does it actually matter what standard you or I like? Isn't what really matters, at least in this system, what you can sell to the public and, more importantly, to the politicians?
Gotlucky: Sure. Though I doubt that you are sincere. I don't believe that you stop people from doing things by force.
I usually don't because I'm relatively small and I have no political power. I instead try to support people who will do what I would want to be able to do myself.
Gotlucky: I am simply requesting that you stop bringing him up. Regardless, any statements that you make regarding God and morality are entirely meaningless, as you have stated that you don't know what God thinks.
Well I don't take orders from you.
My statements about God are only meaningless to people who don't believe in what I believe in. I doubt that if you felt that same way that I do about God that you'd find statements about what God thinks meaningless.
Gotlucky: You need to study logic. ASAP.
I'm actually more interested in studying the human brain right now.
Serpentis-Lucis: People like bloom make me lose faith in humanity.
That's funny I feel the same way about libertarians.
Gotlucky: You need to study logic. ASAP. I'm actually more interested in studying the human brain right now.
Comic genius.
bloomj31: Gotlucky: Well now I can see why you want to keep the status quo. Not only do you currently benefit from it, you aim to exploit it to your advantage in the future. That's correct. ---- Does it actually matter what standard you or I like? Isn't what really matters, at least in this system, what you can sell to the public and, more importantly, to the politicians? ----- Gotlucky: Sure. Though I doubt that you are sincere. I don't believe that you stop people from doing things by force. I usually don't because I'm relatively small and I have no political power. I instead try to support people who will do what I would want to be able to do myself.
----
-----
You remind me of Henry Kissinger
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I've never studied Kissinger, perhaps I should.
To be clear I don't study logic because I don't think it's as important to my understanding of the world and the people in it as is evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience, two subjects I never actually went to school for (I majored in law in college before I dropped out.) This means it takes a lot out of me to try to understand these subjects because I'm having to simultaneously build the mental framework for understanding them while I study them. It's an exhaustive process sometimes.
Nevertheless I've put evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience as my top priorities for the last few weeks. Clayton got me into evo psych with Blank Slate and I'd already had an interest in cognitive neuroscience but I'd never known how to think about it until I started learning about evo psych. I've been reading 2-4 books a week on these subjects. I'm highly motivated because I want to understand human behavior but I don't think questions about human action can really be convincingly answered until I understand the thing causing the action. The rationalist philosophies seem to focus more on what we're consciously aware of but the science I'm learning about seems to indicate that a great deal of the impetus for action isn't under the individual's conscious control at all or even things that the individual could be made aware of through introspection. The evidence seems to unanimously point to the human brain as the source of action but the "self" is itself a construct of the brain, one of many functions it performs. So until I understand how the human brain works and how it evolved to work the way it does, I'm not really interested in other subjects and I really don't have the time either way.
To what end are you planning to apply those fields?
bloomj31:To be clear I don't study logic because I don't think it's as important to my understanding of the world and the people in it as is evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience, two subjects I never actually went to school for (I majored in law in college before I dropped out.)
I guess evolutionary psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and law have nothing whatsoever to do with logic, amirite?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: I guess evolutionary psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and law have nothing whatsoever to do with logic, amirite?
I would say definitely not to the degree that moral philosophy does. I don't think a formal study of logic is required to understand them. I can catch up on the formal study of logic later if I ever feel the need to.
Aristippus: To what end are you planning to apply those fields?
Ultimately I think I want to apply their teachings to the study, practice and development of the law within the state.
Bloom, I'll just refer you to my last post.
I thought you were a computer programmer or some such thing not a lawyer?
You're not a lawyer either. What's your point?
Not yet no. What do you know of the study of law though?
Dear bloomj31,
Logic is applicaple to everything. Language, truth and reason, chemistry, psychology, economics, etc. You should probably backtrack and just admit that logic is a prerequisite of knowledge in general.
TRIVIUM = LANGUAGE
Grammar is concerned with the thing as-it-is-symbolized, Logic is concerned with the thing as-it-is-known, and Rhetoric is concerned with the thing as-it-is-communicated
In. That. Order.
You cannot understand anything without logic (save simple symbols; i.e non complex concepts like, rock or dog). Not even the order of words.
What do you know of the study of law though?
I know that it has a helluva lot to do with "rhetoric" which you cannot understand without having first been exposed to logic.
I don't see why you think any of this necessitates the formal study of logic.
Aristophanes: You cannot understand anything without logic (save simple symbols; i.e non complex concepts like, rock or dog). Not even the order of words.
Are you sure that children require instruction in logic to learn spoken language? Are you sure that the understanding of grammar isn't to some degree innate?
Aristophanes: I know that it has a helluva lot to do with "rhetoric" which you cannot understand without having first been exposed to logic.
I don't think political arguments have to be based on anything necessarily logical or rational. They just need to emotionally resonate within the audience. Look at how Obama structures his speeches. He doesn't always talk about how he often just talks about what. People like what they hear because they think it will be good for them. They are programmed to show deference to authority figures so they believe what they're told.
Legal arguments are formed around legal questions, not logical or moral principles. Answering the question involves citing precedent, tradition, statutory law whatever. But in the end it's all up to the judge. If you study the history of the Supreme Court, for example, you will find that judges are often heavily influenced by their own personal feelings on issues. Not to say this is good but it is what it is.
Um. To understand the use of language, yes. "Given enough literacy to work their machines, but to little to read." Grammar probably is innate to a degree; I'm not willing to try and refute Chomsky right now. But to understand that, "interest rates drop due to increased savings" you must understand logic.
You really shouldn't parade that kind of ignorance. Just read this. It is short.
Aristophanes: But to understand that, "interest rates drop due to increased savings" you must understand logic.
So what?
That doesn't mean I necessarily need to formally study logic.
I'm not interested in economics, I'm interested in understanding and manipulating human behavior, something which may not be based on any kind of consciously rational process whatsoever. To understand why this is I think it's important to understand how reason and logic are only sort of program running in the human brain and how there are many others which the "conscious self" is not aware of. That's why the studies of cognitive neuroscience and evo psych are so important.
To manipulate and persuade and control one must first understand what it is one is attempting to manipulate persuade and control. Human brains weren't designed by evolution to understand themselves, they were designed to facilitate survival in an environment that no longer exists.
Human beings are using an outdated system to think about completely unfamiliar problems, there's weakness there.
So what? That doesn't mean I necessarily need to formally study logic. I'm not interested in economics, I'm interested in understanding and manipulating human behavior, something which may not be based on any kind of consciously rational process whatsoever.
I'm not interested in economics, I'm interested in understanding and manipulating human behavior, something which may not be based on any kind of consciously rational process whatsoever.
You are an idiot.
You think you can just jump into understanding things of which you admit that there may not be a "consciously rational process whatsoever." So, what the fuck could you possibly take away from it?
If there is no rational process, it cannot be understood. It will change everytime. There are an infinite number of possibilities each of which is equally valid. Two words: TRUTH TABLE.
Correlation/Causation is a mini application of a truth table for god's sake.
YOU NEED TO STUDY LOGIC. You are not a scientist and you will be laughed out of a University if you say things like that to a professor. Or, if you were my student I'd recommend you switch majors to physical therapy or children's lit.
Yeah, kid. You've got it all figured out on the mises.org forums. Where is your nobel prize or your pulitzer?
Aristophanes: If there is no rational process, it cannot be understood. It will change everytime. There are an infinite number of possibilities each of which is equally valid. Two words: TRUTH TABLE.
Oh there is a rational (for a reason) process, just not a rational process driven by the "actor" itself. The human brain wasn't evolved to understand itself.
Aristophanes: You are an idiot.
Well I think you're an idiot. You're just another hysterical crackpot libertarian. I have no reason to listen to you.
bloomj31:So what? That doesn't mean I necessarily need to formally study logic. I'm not interested in economics, I'm interested in understanding and manipulating human behavior, something which may not be based on any kind of consciously rational process whatsoever. To understand why this is I think it's important to understand how reason and logic are only sort of program running in the human brain and how there are many others which the "conscious self" is not aware of. That's why the studies of cognitive neuroscience and evo psych are so important. To manipulate and persuade and control one must first understand what it is one is attempting to manipulate persuade and control. Human brains weren't designed by evolution to understand themselves, they were designed to facilitate survival in an environment that no longer exists. Human beings are using an outdated system to think about completely unfamiliar problems, there's weakness there. [Emphasis added.]
Human beings are using an outdated system to think about completely unfamiliar problems, there's weakness there. [Emphasis added.]
And you say you're not a psychopath.
You're just another hysterical crackpot libertarian.
You're a 16 year old kid that thinks he is a scientist that is going to go out into the world and control people because they "do not understand their own brain." But you do...you understand everything. And you don't even need logic to do it.
You're a loser, kid. Read books, don't think you know it all.
Autolykos: And you say you're not a psychopath.
I'm not.
People play these games with each other every day and have done so for as long as humans have existed. We're just animals after all. You (or anyone) could be consciously passing moral judgment on other people and then participate in the activity yourself and not necessarily make the connection or find fault in yourself.
We all seek to manipulate one another to our own selfish ends all the time everywhere. That people like you may have rationalized your own means and ends to be some sort of holy quest for an egalitarian society or freedom or whatever just shows how delusional and ignorant human beings can be about their own condition.
This is why I've never found the argument for freedom very compelling. It's always sounded like a way of rationalizing some other more pressing desire. Evo psych and cognitive neuroscience are helping me to understand what those pressing desires probably are.
I'm not. People play these games with each other every day and have done so for as long as humans have existed. We're just animals after all. You (or anyone) could be consciously passing moral judgment on other people and then participate in the activity yourself and not necessarily make the connection or find fault in yourself. We all seek to manipulate one another to our own selfish ends all the time everywhere. That people like you may have rationalized your own means and ends to be some sort of holy quest for an egalitarian society or freedom or whatever just shows how delusional and ignorant human beings can be about their own condition. This is why I've never found the argument for freedom very compelling. It's always sounded like a way of rationalizing some other more pressing desire. Evo psych and cognitive neuroscience are helping me to understand what those pressing desires probably are.
You are a sociopath.
Glibness and Superficial Charm Manipulative and Conning They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. Grandiose Sense of Self Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Pathological Lying Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. Shallow Emotions When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. "
ALL of which you fit. And you embrace it.
Pitiful.
Aristophanes: You're a 16 year old kid that thinks he is a scientist that is going to go out into the world and control people because they "do not understand their own brain." But you do...you understand everything. And you don't even need logic to do it. You're a loser, kid. Read books, don't think you know it all.
I'm not 16, I'm 26 years old. I don't understand everything, but I'm trying to study the things that will help me get what I want from other people. A formal study of logic doesn't seem to be required.
I don't think I will necessarily be able to control people. But I do think they can be controlled and manipulated.
bloomj31:I'm not.
So you say. I see no reason to take you at your word. I won't even apologize for saying that. Now I predict your response to this will be some variant of "lol k".
bloomj31:We all seek to manipulate one another to our own selfish ends all the time everywhere.
Only a psychopath would believe that everyone is always lying to everyone else.
Aristophanes, psychopaths/sociopaths (they're really one and the same) typically embrace who and what they are, as they see themselves as superior to others.
Aristophanes: ALL of which you fit. And you embrace it. Pitiful.
Well if I am a sociopath, which I highly doubt, then there's no real cure for it. I wouldn't be able to do anything other than embrace it. It's a brain condition like schizophrenia, so I may as well just find a way to apply myself and get what I want.
I know, I just wanted to be specific. He's not a serial killer (yet).
I alos gonna post this again...
ALL of which you, bloomj31, fit. And you embrace it.
And sick.
It's a brain condition like schizophrenia, so I may as well just find a way to apply myself and get what I want.
You must not know any schizos. I do. It is not like being a sociopath. Being a politican or a Nazi scientist is not like being mentally deficient.
You have been presented with a textbook example of your own brain, which you say you cannot understand, which is utter rubbish, and you can do something about it. The problem for you is that it involves admitting that you are wrong.
Autolykos: Only a psychopath would believe that everyone is always lying to everyone else.
Not that they are necessarily lying (although deception and self deception appear to be universal human traits,) but they're all looking for ways to get what they want from other people and that in the real world they'll do whatever it takes to get what they want, even if it might be something they'd condemn in others. Particularly when they don't think anyone will notice or that they won't get caught. If they have reason to believe that cooperation is the best way to accomplish their goals that then that's what they'll do. If they have reason to believe that violence is the best way to accomplish their goals that then that's what they'll do. But people are first and foremost programmed to think of themselves and then in concentric circles about the people closest to them. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
(although deception and self deception appear to be universal human traits,)
So, you can know it about yourself.
But people are first and foremost programmed to think of themselves and then in concentric circles about the people closest to them. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
This is your case for it being a non issue that you want to 'manipulate" people? Because it is part of evolution? You are then an extreme social darwinist, no?
The research I've done on sociopaths leads me to believe they're far more common than one might initially expect and that most of them are not killers. The serial killers are just extreme cases.
They're frequently suggested to have utter disregard for the laws and social norms of a society but I find myself driven to uphold the law and social norms of the society. I view freedom as antithetical to modern norms. Most people I know simply don't profess an interest in freedom.
Sociopaths can function normally in society. They could be your banker, your lawyer, your state politician and you would never know it. In fact one can imagine how shrunken empathy could be useful in those professions.
There is no treatment, no cure for sociopathy. Not that I would want to cure something like that if I were a sociopath. I would think of it as a sort of gift, not a curse. But I don't think I'm a sociopath, but then perhaps I am. Makes no real difference to me tbh.
but I find myself driven to uphold the law and social norms of the society. I view freedom as antithetical to modern norms. Most people I know simply don't profess an interest in freedom.
So, you are what, casing the mises forums? Ask around a bit and you will find otherwise.
What society do you live in? The land of the free? The one with the declaration of independence as its founding philosophy? The one with the Statue of Liberty as its prime symbol?
They could be your banker, your lawyer, your state politician and you would never know it.
hahahahahhahahahahhhahahahahahahahahhahahahsahsahhahahahah
Two posts from you is all it took. We all notice. Especially in the case of bankers, lawyers, and politicians...you are not living in reality.
Not that I would want to cure something like that if I were a sociopath. I would think of it as a sort of gift, not a curse.
Wow, kid. I feel bad for any girl you mind fuck. If you like girls, they might not be strong, stoic, and unempathetic as you prefer. But, then again, there was Ayn Rand?!!
But I don't think I'm a sociopath, but then perhaps I am. Makes no real difference to me tbh.
Yeah, kowing that Ted Bundy and yourself have virtually identical personalities is no big deal.