Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Gets my Goat!

  1. #11
    Administrator Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pacific North West
    Posts
    5,073
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    That was exactly my intent, Mifune. I thought it was obvious. Thank you for understanding. Words cannot explain how offensive his accusations were, to someone who has been married 42 years and has never so much as flirted with another woman of any age. I cannot stay anywhere where a man like that is in charge. Thanks to everyone but him.
    My accusation is that no matter what your intent was, the post can be abused by anyone who comes here and reads it. Then your qualified statement at the end solidifies that possibility. Are you such a child you can't see a problem on a board like this? Wo is me, GOM said I was interested in 8-12 year old children when in fact I (GOM) never said that! You lost the plot.

    You come on this forum and throw ages such as 8 or 12...you are simply spamming our boards with shit that is poison to what we are doing here
    Now please tell me "what kind of man you think I am?"
    ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
    virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

    It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
    AVFM Mission Statement

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    I think I made my position clear.
    i agree with 16 also. but i dont think his post was all that inflammatory is what im saying. girls ARE sexual. they very young throw themselves at men. its a fact. him SAYING so..isnt wrong. and it should be talked about/ in fact its a problem in our society that its NOT talked about.
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    where were you before you put yourself last?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

  3. #13
    Administrator Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pacific North West
    Posts
    5,073
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    i agree with 16 also. but i dont think his post was all that inflammatory is what im saying. girls ARE sexual. they very young throw themselves at men. its a fact. him SAYING so..isnt wrong. and it should be talked about/ in fact its a problem in our society that its NOT talked about.
    Read my other posts on the problem with the OP.

    I've seen this type of argument many times and inevitably it degenerates and is prime for quote mining. I'm here to protect the forums and AVFM, right or wrong that is what I'm going to do within my ability. I very well could have locked this thread down/deleted it as opposed to putting it in a non membership area and make it clear the Admin does not support the assertions of the posts and make my position clear.

    Note added: The only conversation to have on promiscuous children is how we as adults protect them from exploitation.
    ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
    virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

    It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
    AVFM Mission Statement

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    That was exactly my intent, Mifune. I thought it was obvious.
    Yes, but you know what they say about good intentions.
    Who is to say that no posting can get better with a little editing?

    Words cannot explain how offensive his accusations were, to someone who has been married 42 years and has never so much as flirted with another woman of any age.
    AFAICS nobody is accusing you of anything about females of any age; no one in the forum thinks anything like this about you.
    And AFAICS, neither does GOM. What he is concerned about, and rightly so, is the danger of broaching topics that are damaging to the forum.
    That is also what he wrote in his first reaction. I see no accusation of impropriety wrt. females there.
    Some subjects are so sensitive that even mentioning them requires the utmost care; protection of kids is one of them.

    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?
    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.

    It is perhaps an area where we have to accept theoretically inconsitent ways, like whether or not a foetus is "alive" or "a person". There is the right to abortion on the one hand, and the prosecution of any third party who harms a foetus in the womb on the other hand; so we manage a "yes, but no" in some cases already.
    Perhaps kids have agency, but we don't base laws like age of consent on our views on this. This means, I think, that the forum may be open to a general discussion or analysis of underlying principles, especially to the degree that they cast light on other, more or less related issues, while one is well advised to stay away from disussing the practical implications and applications of these principles in e.g legislation, in favour of waiting for the general popular consensus to change first.

    Speaking of agency, can a 15 year old have an abortion?

    I cannot stay anywhere where a man like that is in charge.
    As per above, I fear that you are misreading him, and so your hurt and anger could be slightly misdirected.
    Do what you need to do to regain your peace of mind (walk on the beach/ Mescal Slammers), and continue your contributions to the forum.
    Please.

    M

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    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.

    We are actually seeing an extension of this same legal approach, with the whole sex robots debate... the criminalization of having sexual fantasies with women does not sound so much of an overreach if we consider that society is already OK with the criminalization of fantasies with underages. But this is a ball that will keep rolling out of the pedophilia sphere and try to be used to penalize all sort of fantasies... hence true legally worded "crime though".
    Another excellent point. Include the debates on pornography and on video games, and you have the whole slippery slope.

    M

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    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...

  7. #17
    Senior Member Mifune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Mid Atlantic
    Posts
    2,192
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    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.
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    where were you before you put yourself last?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    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

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Mifune View Post
    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...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •