Member Discussions

Muir wrote:
> Tsk, tsk. No redefining terms :) Objective is objective
> regardless of whether it's also meaningful or not. If you
> mean something else, you'll need another term.

It may come as a surprise to you, but there are multiple concepts that fit a particular term. Age was given and discarded and I gave my reasoning for it. Doesn't mean the conceptual umbrella I'm using needs to be discarded.

> Unless you're saying that absolutely all restrictions on sex
> should be removed, then you do want a subjective scale.

I never once said that absolutely all restrictions should be removed. I'm not even talking about removing the restrictions. I'm merely asking for folks to provide the reasoning behind them. That is all. That so many people are confusing my request for justification as an attack against the fundamental restrictions themselves is ludicrous.

Genteel wrote:
> So where's the line between retarded, and a slow learner?
> Since it's completely objective, that line is easily
> distinguished, right?

I said that the intellectual hinderance was an objectively observable phenomena. It is. Again, I am asking for the objective reasons behind why this line is drawn. Please refer to the dictionary on the term objective:

3. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Tyche wrote:
> Because the consensus is that it is meaningful, relevant
> and is a workable proposition.

There must be some reason for this consensus based on observation of specific traits that are distinguished amongst the young and not-so-young, of course.

> Those wishing to sodomize 10-year old boys and impregnate
> 12-year old girls will just have to continue to operate
> outside the law at a high risk to their freedom.

Yes, because anybody asking for the reasoning behind age restrictions is just one step away from sodomizing 10-year old boys and impregnating 12-year old girls. My construction of the sacrificial altar is almost complete. I've decided on a name for it: The bloody altar of love.

On a side note, it's becoming more and more difficult to wash the blood out of my jeans.

> There must be some reason for this consensus based on
> observation of specific traits that are distinguished
> amongst the young and not-so-young, of course.

Yes, there are numerous reasons. Taken collectively they are the reason behind the consensus; while each on their own within a selective context does not satisfy a particular person(s). You might wish to go back to basics and investigate the purpose of sexual intercourse first.


(Comment added by Tyche on Sun Jul 11 11:43:17 2004)

"does not" should be "may not"

> Yes, because anybody asking for the reasoning behind age
> restrictions is just one step away from sodomizing
> 10-year old boys and impregnating 12-year old girls.

Yeah it does happen.

It may come as a surprise to you, but there are multiple concepts that fit a particular term. Age was given and discarded and I gave my reasoning for it. Doesn't mean the conceptual umbrella I'm using needs to be discarded.

No, it wouldn't, but you're not using the term correctly; you're attaching an additional meaning -meaningfulness- to it so that the opposing parties are, in fact, arguing different things though the concept is supposedly the same.

I also offered a rebuttal attempting to establish age as an objective quality from an a posteriori point of view.

Objective:

1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind [objective reality] [our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff] -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena [objective awareness] [objective data]

Vulgarly, objectivity then means independence of the observer; surprisingly enough this actually is what most people understand it to be.

I said that the intellectual hinderance was an objectively observable phenomena.

There is no quantitative way of measuring small variance in intelligence -generally a severely mentally retarded person is distinguishable from normally developed ones but not always. Additionally it could be said that it's not certain that all people will think someone's less intelligent than others; and sometimes people with very high knowledge (and thus good test success) are extremely unintelligent.

It's conceivable that intelligence could be measured accurately enough for the purposes mentioned here but being mostly smart people here we know intelligence isn't all that matters: social skills and emotional development are equally important in such a scale and almost completely immeasurable.

Age is the best abstraction available as it will result in the least amount of 'false positives' with minimal intervention; exceptions exist but only at a minuscule level.

.

> No, it wouldn't, but you're not using the term correctly;
> you're attaching an additional meaning -meaningfulness- to
> it so that the opposing parties are, in fact, arguing
> different things though the concept is supposedly the same.

Of course I'm expecting that responses would be meaningful. I don't think that is at all a perversion of my request like you bizarrely think it is.

> you're attaching an additional meaning -meaningfulness- to
> it

I'll sum up your argument:

Goodness sakes! He's atached an adjective to a noun. This can not be so!

Those wishing to sodomize 10-year old boys and impregnate 12-year old girls will just have to continue to operate outside the law at a high risk to their freedom.
Alright, those who want to sodomize 20 year old males and impregnate 30 year old woman can do it freely... Yay, rape season!

Can't people notice those things are horrible in whatever age the victim is? People wont take it lightly just because they're 30. The best you can say is that a 30 years old will probably have more means to defend him/herself.

I'm tired of ranting about the same thing over and over.

What a minute! Sodomy can be quite fun! Well, except the animals and the homo part. Sodomy doesn't imply anything about consent, same goes for impregnation.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I am a sodomite, more like a sodo-maybe.

:-)

Can't people notice those things are horrible in whatever age the victim is? People wont take it lightly just because they're 30. The best you can say is that a 30 years old will probably have more means to defend him/herself.

Well sure. But you can't deny there's something extra special about a guy who claims a six-year old was coming on to them because they flashed their underwear at them, jumped on their lap, and started kissing them. I've talked to such people and worse.

Call it irrational and an emotional argument.
I don't have the luxury of reason. I'm a parent.

> you're attaching an additional meaning -meaningfulness- to
> it

I'll sum up your argument:

Goodness sakes! He's atached an adjective to a noun. This can not be so!

You sum up wrong. Based on this statement of yours:

You guys are confusing my use of the term 'objective'. While age meets one of the definitions of objective, I already made it clear in a previous reply that it is also meaningless. It is meaningless because its only purpose is to serve as an abstraction behind the real reason behind the restriction. Most of you know this already, since you've been justifying the age restrictions for many posts. This reasoning is what I'm after, not an endless torrent of idiots telling me that age is objective too.

You're redefining objectivity to be something that is also meaningful (in your subjective qualification).

Even if age were meaningless -which it isn't, it's a fairly accurate parallel to 'maturity' or whatever we're really trying to measure here- it's still an objective measure as it's independent of any observer and similarly applicable to any entity.

To paraphrase: you're using the term 'objective' incorrectly because to you it means something different than the commonly accepted definition which I reproduced in the previous post.

.

What a minute! Sodomy can be quite fun! Well, except the animals and the homo part. Sodomy doesn't imply anything about consent, same goes for impregnation.

I think this discussion should be moved to the 'Morality of Negative Actions' thread, it's more on topic there.

.

To paraphrase: you're using the term 'objective' incorrectly because to you it means something different than the commonly accepted definition which I reproduced in the previous post.

IMO, the reason the redefinition is vital is to capture the quasi-scientific high ground in a moral debate, as in "I'm being objective and you're not." ;-)

> You're redefining objectivity to be something that is also
> meaningful (in your subjective qualification).

Do you know how adjectives work? They modify nouns. That is their purpose. They do not redefine them. They take something that exists, and they change it a bit in the current context.

You need to go take reading comprehension lessons with Genteel. I never said that age wasn't objective. If I did, why would I have stated that "age meets one of the definitions of objective" in the above post that you quoted but failed to comprehend? And if I think age is objective, well, by golly that means I must not be in your bizarro world.

> To paraphrase: you're using the term 'objective'
> incorrectly because to you it means something different
> than the commonly accepted definition which I reproduced
> in the previous post.

To paraphrase: You can't read.

> Even if age were meaningless -which it isn't, it's a fairly
> accurate parallel to 'maturity' or whatever we're really
> trying to measure here-

Welcome back to Statistics 101, where Professor Unifex educates Muir once again that correlation does not equal causation. Stay tuned next week, where Professor Unifex joins Muir in English class, and teaches him how to use adjectives.

Ah why don't you just offer an objective alternative (by whatever definition, as if it mattered) that reasonable or unreasonable men might agree is better.

Ah why don't you just offer an objective alternative (by whatever definition, as if it mattered) that reasonable or unreasonable men might agree is better.

Well to do that, it would certainly be pragmatic to first research current conventional wisdom by polling the audience on what they feel is the reason behind the current practice.

Well to do that, it would certainly be pragmatic to first research current conventional wisdom by polling the audience on what they feel is the reason behind the current practice.

That was a really roundabout way of saying 'I can't, so I'm going to throw up a screen.'


But really, I think Tyche summed up the whole of Yui's argument with this quote:

IMO, the reason the redefinition is vital is to capture the quasi-scientific high ground in a moral debate, as in 'I'm being objective and you're not.' ;-)


The term for it is egotism, and that *is* indicative of a young age ;)


I think muir explained the rest quite well.

Do you know how adjectives work? They modify nouns. That is their purpose. They do not redefine them. They take something that exists, and they change it a bit in the current context.

When acting like an ass, always remember to be accurate. An adjective qualifies nouns.

I never said that age wasn't objective.

Did too.

You guys are confusing my use of the term 'objective'. While age meets one of the definitions of objective, I already made it clear in a previous reply that it is also meaningless.

You use the term 'objective' to mean something it in common usage does not stand for and use this to disqualify it. I don't have trouble with reading comprehension; writing comprehension, yes.

Welcome back to Statistics 101, where Professor Unifex educates Muir once again that correlation does not equal causation. Stay tuned next week, where Professor Unifex joins Muir in English class, and teaches him how to use adjectives.

I'm not certain how statistics figures in here, Professor. Elaborate?

Those who can't, teach?

You haven't bothered answering any of my stupendously excellent arguments in favour of age, either; what's with that?

Oh, and the basis for the current practice is abuse prevention. Or, I suppose it could be said that the basis was something arbitrary but it fits well in this modern society and is being upheld in order to prevent abuse.

.

Genteel wrote:
> That was a really roundabout way of saying 'I can't, so I'm
> going to throw up a screen.'

Unlike you, I feel one should do a great deal of research before spewing out rules that one intends millions of people to abide their lives by.

> But really, I think Tyche summed up the whole of Yui's
> argument with this quote:

Not only can you not read, but you also can't form your own arguments. Muir's idiotic claims have been refuted quite soundly.

Muir wrote:
> When acting like an ass, always remember to be accurate.
> An adjective qualifies nouns.

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 2adjective
Function: noun
: a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages and typically serving as a modifier of a noun...

From Dictionary.Com:
ad·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jk-tv)
n. Abbr. a. or adj.

1. The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting, qualifying, or specifying and distinguished in English morphologically by one of several suffixes, such as -able, -ous, -er, and -est, or syntactically by position directly preceding a noun or nominal phrase.

muir
n.

1. Moron.

I wrote:
> I never said that age wasn't objective.

Muir replied:
> Did too.

And quoted my statement:
> You guys are confusing my use of the term 'objective'.

And then wrote:
> You use the term 'objective' to mean something it in
> common usage does not stand for and use this to disqualify
> it.

"My use" includes the modifiers to which I'd applied to it. You're a moron if you think that I redefine every term I use. You are furthermore ignoring that I specifically stated that age qualified in the very next statement. You're not just being dense now. Your ommissions are intellectually dishonest.

> I'm not certain how statistics figures in here, Professor.
> Elaborate?

Because statistics is amongst the places where you learn that correlation does not equal causation.

> You haven't bothered answering any of my stupendously
> excellent arguments in favour of age, either; what's with
> that?

I didn't bother answering because variations of your poor arguments have already been put forth and shot down by myself several times. Age is an abstraction, and does not cause the behavior that we are considering. Nobody commits a crime because they are 12, or 20, or 34. Another example: Most rapists drink water. But drinking water does not cause one to become a rapist. Like I said to Tyche, which you obviously didn't read:

> There must be some reason for this consensus based on
> observation of specific traits that are distinguished
> amongst the young and not-so-young, of course.

Well to do that, it would certainly be pragmatic to first research current conventional wisdom by polling the audience on what they feel is the reason behind the current practice.

Common sense wisdom is you wait until the apples are ripe before you pluck them, and you can't take them from another man's orchard without his permission before he's prepared them to enter the market. That apples think they know when they are ripe and ready for market just adds a little drama. The reason there's a law setting a time is so all sides know the score and to prevent murder, mayhem, and despoiled apples. It's pretty damn simple, and doesn't take much research or a genious to figure it all out.

Unlike you, I feel one should do a great deal of research before spewing out rules that one intends millions of people to abide their lives by.

Yes, quite unlike me. I don't believe in 'spewing out rules', as it doesn't bother me that people don't live how I think they should live.

ie, I don't have control issues


muir
n.

1. Moron.

This is getting ridiculous Yui. Drop the attacks, they're not needed. You need to find a way to feel better about yourself without belittling other people.

----

Ok, now I have to admit that I'm a little confused, so perhaps you can clear this up for me Yui.


We're discussing the concept of what's objective. Let me quote you:


I said that the intellectual hinderance was an objectively observable phenomena. It is. Again, I am asking for the objective reasons behind why this line is drawn. Please refer to the dictionary on the term objective:

3. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Note that the definition that you posted is using objective as an adjective(which is how everyone else has been using it also).


Now let me quote you again, a few posts later(spelling mistakes left intact)

> you're attaching an additional meaning -meaningfulness- to
> it

I'll sum up your argument:

Goodness sakes! He's atached an adjective to a noun. This can not be so!

Now this is where I'm confused. We're referring to the term objective(by your own admission), which is an adjective. So which noun are you modifying to make your argument meaningful?

objective criteria
objective thought
objective observations


I didn't bother answering because variations of your poor arguments have already been put forth and shot down by myself several times. Age is an abstraction, and does not cause the behavior that we are considering. Nobody commits a crime because they are 12, or 20, or 34. Another example: Most rapists drink water. But drinking water does not cause one to become a rapist. Like I said to Tyche, which you obviously didn't read:

It's obvious to me that you somehow missed reading parts of his post(I imagine the cat jumped on your keyboard, pressing space, causing your browser to scroll down, and when you scrolled back up, you mistakenly found your place several lines down from where you were previously, or something to that effect)

How the mistake happened isn't important. What's important is that we rectify that mistake, so allow me to quote Muir.

First some context

Yui
The intellectual hinderance that a retarded child experience is most certainly an objectively observable phenomena.

Genteel
So where's the line between retarded, and a slow learner? Since it's completely objective, that line is easily distinguished, right?

Yui
I said that the intellectual hinderance was an objectively observable phenomena.

Now, at this point I think Muir realized that you didn't understand my question. Here is his quote, which explained it quite well


There is no quantitative way of measuring small variance in intelligence -generally a severely mentally retarded person is distinguishable from normally developed ones but not always.

Now, let me expand on that a bit. When there are large differences, then yes, the phenomena is observable. However, it's when the differences aren't so pronounced that causes the problem. In hopskotch, you know what side of the line you're on. How do you determine what side of the line of retarded that you're on? When, exactly, do you slip from being a slow learner, into being just barely retarded?

Thank You,
Genteel

I don't have the luxury of reason. I'm a parent.

*applause*

Okay so like - we get rid of the "15 is too young to know what's good for them" stuff. Where do you suppose we draw the line?

If your 8 year old sister meets up with a man (of any or no particular age) who convinces her that it's nice to touch him in his secret spots..or that it's nice for him to touch her in hers...and she consents because she believes him...

Does that make it alright and morally ethic and not something anyone should be concerned about?

What if she's 11, and has already started menstruating? Physiologically she is capable of having a baby - so by some standards in this thread, that makes her capable of making adult decisions and people should leave her alone.

But - she's 11 years old. Or is that a "but?" Are some people here suggesting that it doesn't matter that she's 11 years old? If it does matter - then how about 12? That's only 1 year away from 11 and still not even high school age. If 12 is iffy - how about 13? Not old enough to work outside the family business in any state in the USA - not old enough to drive a car, not old enough to fight/die for one's country, not old enough to watch R-rated movies without parental supervision...

Should we just get rid of all the age limits on everything and return to days when kids who don't know better are forced to work for no pay, because mommy wants a new pair of shoes?

Or - do we set up a standard - oh, let's call it 18, for most things..and call that the "age of majority." Unfortunately though many 18 year olds are still in high school and it is just way too easy for them to get booze to their under-age buddies..and they're in contact with their younger friends more than they are their own parents - so any other things that 18 year olds can do - those underage kids will be doing too. So let's set up a secondary age of majority - 21 is about right...

Problem solved.

And that is exactly why there exists "arbitrary" legal ages. Because you have to set SOME standard and come up with SOME number that will offer the protection to those who need it the most, while at the same time not stifling those who don't need it. You can't please everyone - so when dealing with the mental, emotional, and physical lives of human beings, you err on the side of caution.

Okay, My point was to not have standards for certain things, not to go wildly free of responsability. Even without standards or legal ages, you sill have a certain thing called responsability (at least some of are conscious about it).

I wrote:

Well to do that, it would certainly be pragmatic to first research current conventional wisdom by polling the audience on what they feel is the reason behind the current practice.

Tyche replied:

It's pretty damn simple, and doesn't take much research or a genious to figure it all out.

You asked me to offer an objective alternative to the age criteria that I am merely questioning the reasoning behind. Your analogy only covers the reason why it exists, not the reason for the specific lines that it draws. So yes, the reason why it exists is simple enough to answer and does not take much research or a genius to understand. But don't confuse this as the method for determining what actions spoil an apple, which is what you asked of me. They are two wholly different things.

Genteel wrote:

This is getting ridiculous Yui. Drop the attacks, they're not needed.

Nor is the idiotic reasoning needed, but no one is bringing muir to task for his countless inane mis-observations that I've refuted.

Genteel, wearing his psychiatrist hat, wrote:

You need to find a way to feel better about yourself without belittling other people.

OK mr. pseudo-psychiatrist. Whatever you say.

Genteel wrote:

Now this is where I'm confused. We're referring to the term objective(by your own admission), which is an adjective.

You're correct, that was indeed a mistake. That should be:

Goodness sakes! He's attached an adjective to an adjective. This can not be so!

Genteel wrote:

Now, let me expand on that a bit. When there are large differences, then yes, the phenomena is observable. However, it's when the differences aren't so pronounced that causes the problem.

First, let me give the two criteria from the definition of objective that I posted:
1) Must be based on observable phenomena.
2) Must be presented factually.

(Please note that the age criteria is indeed objective under these criteria.)

Genteel continued:

Now, let me expand on that a bit. When there are large differences, then yes, the phenomena is observable. However, it's when the differences aren't so pronounced that causes the problem. In hopskotch, you know what side of the line you're on. How do you determine what side of the line of retarded that you're on? When, exactly, do you slip from being a slow learner, into being just barely retarded?

And you originally wrote:

So where's the line between retarded, and a slow learner? Since it's completely objective, that line is easily distinguished, right?

You're missing my point. I simply can't tell you that particular line, because I'm not an expert in the field you're querying me about. The lines that have been drawn may or may not be arbitrary. You believe that I want something subjective because a small distance from that line on either side is not observable and thus not objective, but this is not the reality of my request. I'll reiterate: My request is for the objective reason behind why this line is drawn where it is. This means I'm looking for the observable parts that we can present factually, not the subjective parts that make up the small distances in between. The line is clearly not drawn there because the state of existing for 15 years causes a lack of wisdom.

I very well understood your question. The problem was you did not understand my question.

Tyche wrote:

Well sure. But you can't deny there's something extra special about a guy who claims a six-year old was coming on to them because they flashed their underwear at them, jumped on their lap, and started kissing them. I've talked to such people and worse.

Call it irrational and an emotional argument.
I don't have the luxury of reason. I'm a parent.

This is a non-sequitor coming from the scenario you described above. The older person in your example is obviously the person that has not made a rational argument, not the parent of the younger.

(Comment added by unifex on Tue Jul 13 6:43:12 2004)

Mistyped, the above should be: "He's attached an adverb to an adjective".

[Adjectives]

You are incorrect: an adjective is 'the word class that qualifies nouns'; it is, however, sometimes classified as a modifying token. See these fine resources:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjective
http://www.wordiq.com/dictionary/Adjective.html
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/adjective
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/adjective
http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/vocab1.html

Furthermore, it's logically incorrect to say that an adjective modifies a noun: a helicopter is a helicopter regardless of its colour.

On the topic of objectivity, one last time:

"My use" includes the modifiers to which I'd applied to it.

Precisely. You did not, however, indicate the use of these modifiers until later, which lead to incomprehension. I'm certain that what was projected was not what you meant, but trust me when I say that that's how everyone else read it, and it's not just because we're a bunch of raving idiots.

Because statistics is amongst the places where you learn that correlation does not equal causation.

Ah, obviously. For the purposes of this debate, Logic 101 might have been the more, ah, logical choice?

Age is an abstraction, and does not cause the behavior that we are considering. Nobody commits a crime because they are 12, or 20, or 34. Another example: Most rapists drink water. But drinking water does not cause one to become a rapist.

Superficially smooth but your analogy is fundamentally flawed: I'm not saying that someone commits a crime because they're 12 (or whatever). I'm saying that someone does not commit a crime because they're not 12 (or whatever), which is an entirely different matter.

I'm worried about you, you always get so riled up about this topic (and not any others)! :)

.