Europe-Closed on Sunday

Padraig Breathnach writes:

You try that trick from time to time: you're not going to provoke me
into doing unpaid work.

They don't exist, as I've said.

You had no problem with "unpaid work" when it came to mentioning the
list; odd that it suddenly becomes a burden when you are asked for
further substantiation.

Not everything is a yes/no matter, or amenable to a simple measuring
system.

Then why impose an age of consent ... which is strictly yes/no?

People.

Which people? I have no trouble with it.

Social norms. They're something like standards, including being
difficult to boil down to simple rules.

They are easy enough to boil down, when they concern victimless crimes:
they are the imposition of the moral standards of a minority on the
majority.

I advocate the abstinence option for
those below the appropriate age (and yes, there is place for debate on
that); over that age, they can choose either approach.

Why do you make this distinction?

They exist. That makes them important. One baby is a lot.

That's what abortion is for.

No. Nor does the skin colour of the slave make any difference to my
attitude.

Why are you unwilling to accept slavery, but willing to accept the
suspension of minors' rights?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

You try that trick from time to time: you're not going to provoke me
into doing unpaid work.

They don't exist, as I've said.

You had no problem with "unpaid work" when it came to mentioning the
list; odd that it suddenly becomes a burden when you are asked for
further substantiation.

Not odd at all. I'm happy to say that reasons exist for holding a
position or taking a course of action. It's more effort to spell them
out and explain them.

You get a certain amount of work from me in pursuing this debate. I
set the limit on how much effort I put into it, and I particularly
choose not to deviate from what I see as the core of the argument.

Not everything is a yes/no matter, or amenable to a simple measuring
system.

Then why impose an age of consent ... which is strictly yes/no?

Because that's the way we do things. I'm not saying that all social
and legal arrangements are perfectly-suited to all circumstances; we
get through the best way we can.

People.

Which people? I have no trouble with it.

You, on your own, are not people.

Social norms. They're something like standards, including being
difficult to boil down to simple rules.

They are easy enough to boil down, when they concern victimless crimes:
they are the imposition of the moral standards of a minority on the
majority.

Have you numbers to support your implication that laws on the age of
consent are imposed by a minority?

I advocate the abstinence option for
those below the appropriate age (and yes, there is place for debate on
that); over that age, they can choose either approach.

Why do you make this distinction?

Because there is an appropriate age at which a female can make a
mature choice about engaging in sex. The only difficulty is deciding
what that age is.

They exist. That makes them important. One baby is a lot.

That's what abortion is for.

Abortion is a bigger deal than, say, taking an aspirin for a headache
or bandaging a cut finger. One abortion is a lot. On pregnancy is a
lot of pregnancies for the individual.

No. Nor does the skin colour of the slave make any difference to my
attitude.

Why are you unwilling to accept slavery, but willing to accept the
suspension of minors' rights?

You pose the wrong question, as you presume that a pubescent has a
right to engage in sex. I think you need first to establish if the
physical capacity for sex in itself confers a right to engage in sex,
and then if that right is general or properly subject to restriction.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Padraig Breathnach writes:

Because that's the way we do things.

That doesn't answer the question. My parents tried "because we say so"
when I was little, when they had no other rationale for something. It
never worked.

You, on your own, are not people.

What am I? Who or what did you have in mind when you said "people"?

Have you numbers to support your implication that laws on the age of
consent are imposed by a minority?

Just look at all the people violating them. Just like Prohibition.

Because there is an appropriate age at which a female can make a
mature choice about engaging in sex.

Define a "mature choice."

The only difficulty is deciding what that age is.

What in a human being changes, precisely, that suddenly makes a "mature
choice" possible, and exactly at what age does this magic change occur?

Abortion is a bigger deal than, say, taking an aspirin for a headache
or bandaging a cut finger.

Why?

One abortion is a lot. On pregnancy is a
lot of pregnancies for the individual.

Abortion is far less stressful than pregnancy.

You pose the wrong question, as you presume that a pubescent has a
right to engage in sex.

You don't believe in fundamental human rights? Or you don't think that
young people are human beings?

I think you need first to establish if the physical capacity
for sex in itself confers a right to engage in sex ...

What reason is there to assume that it wouldn't? Indeed, why is
engaging in sex a right that must be conferred by anything or anyone?
Is this true for eating and elimination as well? Why or why not?

... and then if that right is general or properly
subject to restriction.

First things first. Explain why sex is a right that must be
"conferred." Nature doesn't seem to reason that way, since it makes
everyone able and willing to engage in sex at puberty. Explain why you
feel that nature is wrong, and why you feel entitled to override it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

Because that's the way we do things.

That doesn't answer the question. My parents tried "because we say so"
when I was little, when they had no other rationale for something. It
never worked.

It does answer the question. It's just that you don't like the answer.

You, on your own, are not people.

What am I? Who or what did you have in mind when you said "people"?

I'm quite happy to acknowledge, lacking any reason to think otherwise,
that you are a person. People is a plural. I meant, and I am pretty
sure that you know that I meant, "people-in-general".

Have you numbers to support your implication that laws on the age of
consent are imposed by a minority?

Just look at all the people violating them. Just like Prohibition.

Dogging, I think you call it -- watching people at it.

I don't know the numbers, although I believe that many people below
the legal age of consent are at least sometimes sexually active.

Because there is an appropriate age at which a female can make a
mature choice about engaging in sex.

Define a "mature choice."

Again, you ask me do to a lot of work, more than I feel inclined to
undertake (but see below, for a small bit of free work)

The only difficulty is deciding what that age is.

What in a human being changes, precisely, that suddenly makes a "mature
choice" possible, and exactly at what age does this magic change occur?

I do not think that a typical five-year-old can make a mature choice
about engaging in sex, but I think that a typical twenty-five-year-old
can. Somewhere in the years between those ages, maturation occurs.
It's a process rather than an event, involving a number of stages.
There are physical components involved, particularly hormonal changes
which commence at puberty, but the psychological changes which
commence in association with puberty can take a long time (years
rather than months) to complete. How long it takes can be influenced
by the time of onset of puberty, the rate at which the physical
process proceeds, the social environment, the family environment,
chance events in an individual's life, possibly by the individual's
general intelligence, and more.

With so many variables, it is not possible to fix with precision an
age of maturation. There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer. But society
struggles to address concerns about protecting the immature (and
protecting others from them), and does so by setting minimum ages for
a range of things. Those ages can not be precise for all individuals,
as individuals vary so much. They are judgements of what constitutes a
typical or reasonable minimum age at which the individual is deemed
likely to be ready for certain things (including sex, driving, voting,
drinking, military service). It's crude, I know, but can you suggest a
better system which is workable?

Abortion is a bigger deal than, say, taking an aspirin for a headache
or bandaging a cut finger.

Why?

One abortion is a lot. On pregnancy is a
lot of pregnancies for the individual.

Abortion is far less stressful than pregnancy.

In the case of unwanted pregnancy, that's probably true for most
people, but probably not true for all. And it's still the lesser of
two evils, when not becoming pregnant in the first place is a better
situation.

You pose the wrong question, as you presume that a pubescent has a
right to engage in sex.

You don't believe in fundamental human rights?

Of course I believe in fundamental human rights. They can be a bit
difficult to codify.

Or you don't think that
young people are human beings?

Sometimes I wonder! Yes, they are human beings, but they can be
immature human beings. Certain rights might be appropriately
restricted to mature humans.

I think you need first to establish if the physical capacity
for sex in itself confers a right to engage in sex ...

What reason is there to assume that it wouldn't? Indeed, why is
engaging in sex a right that must be conferred by anything or anyone?
Is this true for eating and elimination as well? Why or why not?

My answer to that is derived from my answer to the challenge you pose
in your final paragraph, and you may use you capacity for inference --
I'm getting tired of keyboarding.

... and then if that right is general or properly
subject to restriction.

First things first. Explain why sex is a right that must be
"conferred." Nature doesn't seem to reason that way, since it makes
everyone able and willing to engage in sex at puberty. Explain why you
feel that nature is wrong, and why you feel entitled to override it.

I don't feel that I have an individual entitlement to override nature,
but human society involves a great deal of overriding of nature
(abortion and contraception are overriding nature and you seem to
regard them as acceptable, so I could throw your challenge right back
at you).

We are, it seems, the only species on this planet who can change the
nature of our environment to a significant degree, who have evolved
ways of doing things which far exceed our individual physical
capacities, who have the temerity even to wonder why we are here.

It seems to me that it follows that the society we create can --
probably needs to -- similarly depart from the restrictions of nature.

Remember, if we follow nature, we should bond long-term with our
sexual partners, have unprotected sex, no abortions, and lots of
babies. And no usenet in which to discuss such things.

Mx, you're going to have to do some thinking without my assistance,
because my behaviour is more on-topic than this post. Today I pack my
bags, and tomorrow morning I head to Bologna, and I'm not going to
look for internet cafés. So I will not be "here" for a few days.

In the meantime, don't nurture any lascivious sentiments about
14-year-olds.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Padraig Breathnach writes:

Dogging, I think you call it -- watching people at it.

I believe that is a peculiarly British hobby.

I don't know the numbers, although I believe that many people below
the legal age of consent are at least sometimes sexually active.

As I recall, most people engage in sex for the first time before they
reach the age of consent.

I do not think that a typical five-year-old can make a mature choice
about engaging in sex, but I think that a typical twenty-five-year-old
can.

Define a "mature choice."

Somewhere in the years between those ages, maturation occurs.

It's called puberty, but it affects mainly the body, not the mind.

There are physical components involved, particularly hormonal changes
which commence at puberty, but the psychological changes which
commence in association with puberty can take a long time (years
rather than months) to complete.

Which changes?

How long it takes can be influenced
by the time of onset of puberty, the rate at which the physical
process proceeds, the social environment, the family environment,
chance events in an individual's life, possibly by the individual's
general intelligence, and more.

Then how can it be associated with an arbitrary, fixed chronological
age?

With so many variables, it is not possible to fix with precision an
age of maturation.

Then why is there an age of consent?

Those ages can not be precise for all individuals,
as individuals vary so much.

Which means that such arbitrary, fixed age limits are unfair to
essentially everyone, since the chances of an age limit being
appropriate for a specific individual are extremely small.

It's crude, I know, but can you suggest a
better system which is workable?

Allow consent at puberty, if a limit must be imposed.

Of course I believe in fundamental human rights. They can be a bit
difficult to codify.

Why do you deprive minors of the right to make their own decisions,
then?

Yes, they are human beings, but they can be
immature human beings.

Define maturity.

Certain rights might be appropriately
restricted to mature humans.

Which ones, and why?

I don't feel that I have an individual entitlement to override nature,
but human society involves a great deal of overriding of nature
(abortion and contraception are overriding nature and you seem to
regard them as acceptable, so I could throw your challenge right back
at you).

Abortion and contraception don't infringe on anyone's rights.

Remember, if we follow nature, we should bond long-term with our
sexual partners, have unprotected sex, no abortions, and lots of
babies.

Human beings do not appear to be inherently monogamous.

Mx, you're going to have to do some thinking without my assistance ...

So what has changed?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Exactly the attitude I'd expect from someone who professes little
affection or interaction for his fellow man and even less for the women
he picks up when the mood strikes him. Sex ideally is an expression of
love; to you just a physical act equivalent to taking a crap. No wonder
you are so ineffectual, even in your own self-cloistered little 'me'
world.

Tim K

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Padraig Breathnach writes:

Dogging, I think you call it -- watching people at it.

I believe that is a peculiarly British hobby.

I don't know the numbers, although I believe that many people below
the legal age of consent are at least sometimes sexually active.

As I recall, most people engage in sex for the first time before they
reach the age of consent.

I do not think that a typical five-year-old can make a mature choice
about engaging in sex, but I think that a typical
twenty-five-year-old
can.

Define a "mature choice."

Somewhere in the years between those ages, maturation occurs.

It's called puberty, but it affects mainly the body, not the mind.

There are physical components involved, particularly hormonal
changes
which commence at puberty, but the psychological changes which
commence in association with puberty can take a long time (years
rather than months) to complete.

Which changes?

How long it takes can be influenced
by the time of onset of puberty, the rate at which the physical
process proceeds, the social environment, the family environment,
chance events in an individual's life, possibly by the individual's
general intelligence, and more.

Then how can it be associated with an arbitrary, fixed chronological
age?

With so many variables, it is not possible to fix with precision an
age of maturation.

Then why is there an age of consent?

Those ages can not be precise for all individuals,
as individuals vary so much.

Which means that such arbitrary, fixed age limits are unfair to
essentially everyone, since the chances of an age limit being
appropriate for a specific individual are extremely small.

It's crude, I know, but can you suggest a
better system which is workable?

Allow consent at puberty, if a limit must be imposed.

Of course I believe in fundamental human rights. They can be a bit
difficult to codify.

Why do you deprive minors of the right to make their own decisions,
then?

Yes, they are human beings, but they can be
immature human beings.

Define maturity.

Certain rights might be appropriately
restricted to mature humans.

Which ones, and why?

I don't feel that I have an individual entitlement to override
nature,
but human society involves a great deal of overriding of nature
(abortion and contraception are overriding nature and you seem to
regard them as acceptable, so I could throw your challenge right
back
at you).

Abortion and contraception don't infringe on anyone's rights.

Remember, if we follow nature, we should bond long-term with our
sexual partners, have unprotected sex, no abortions, and lots of
babies.

Human beings do not appear to be inherently monogamous.

Mx, you're going to have to do some thinking without my assistance
....

So what has changed?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
directly.

Tim Kroesen writes:

Exactly the attitude I'd expect from someone who professes little
affection or interaction for his fellow man and even less for the women
he picks up when the mood strikes him.

I don't pick up women at all.

Sex ideally is an expression of love ...

No, sex is a biological activity that has nothing to do with love. One
ignores this reality at one's own peril, and there is much grief for
those who confuse the two.

... to you just a physical act equivalent to taking a crap.

Exactly.

No wonder you are so ineffectual ...

What leads you to believe I'm ineffectual, and in what domain do you
believe me to be so?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

You're ineffectual in *this* domain to be sure.

You have made past claims here to only approaching and socializing with
Women when you want sex. Do I need to rub your nose in the quote?

'Sex has nothing to do with love'... well of course you're only speaking
for yourself now; why not say so explicitly and save the debate? I'd
bet in reality most of your seed goes down the drain just like your
crap; hence your confusion.

Tim K

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Tim Kroesen writes:

Exactly the attitude I'd expect from someone who professes little
affection or interaction for his fellow man and even less for the
women
he picks up when the mood strikes him.

I don't pick up women at all.

Sex ideally is an expression of love ...

No, sex is a biological activity that has nothing to do with love.
One
ignores this reality at one's own peril, and there is much grief for
those who confuse the two.

... to you just a physical act equivalent to taking a crap.

Exactly.

No wonder you are so ineffectual ...

What leads you to believe I'm ineffectual, and in what domain do you
believe me to be so?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
directly.

Tim Kroesen writes:

You're ineffectual in *this* domain to be sure.

Which domain is "this" domain?

You have made past claims here to only approaching and socializing with
Women when you want sex. Do I need to rub your nose in the quote?

Please backquote exactly what I actually said.

'Sex has nothing to do with love'... well of course you're only speaking
for yourself now; why not say so explicitly and save the debate?

No, I'm stating an objective reality.

I'd bet in reality most of your seed goes down the drain just like your
crap; hence your confusion.

I'm not a gardener.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On 13/04/04 20:04, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Tim Kroesen writes:

Exactly the attitude I'd expect from someone who professes little
affection or interaction for his fellow man and even less for the women
he picks up when the mood strikes him.

I don't pick up women at all.

At 72 I have truoble picking myself up out of a chair.

Earl