Children and adults

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Phlogiston wrote:

As soon as you say a crime or harm can't be commited then I don't have an argument.

I did not say "a crime can't be commited." I said, "Absent a crime or harm being commited (someone's life interfered with against their wishes)..."

By this what I meant was that until such time as a person has been aggressed against, there is no need, reason nor justification for interference in the choices and actions of others.

It doesn't make sense to put everyone in cages on the chance that someone at some time may cause harm.

Even if we can statistically know with certainty that such harm will occur (as we do), it makes no sense, for the caging of all of the populace is a far greater harm than those other harms for which it is an excuse to act as the aggressor by caging them.

This, to me, displays the manifestation of fear. Out of the fear that something, sometime may happen to me, I seek to control all possiblities so as to preclude that happening. My fear is not a valid claim upon your life and your choices. My fear is my own problem, and when I act on your life because of my own fear I have become a criminal and deserve sanction.

- NonE

Phlogiston · Subject: Re: Children and adults Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:01 pm

NonEntity wrote:

Phlogiston wrote:

As soon as you say a crime or harm can't be commited then I don't have an argument.

I did not say "a crime can't be commited." I said, "Absent a crime or harm being commited (someone's life interfered with against their wishes)..."

- NonE

I meant that if we are talking about the absence of, then what we are talking about is not where these things take place. They can't be commited in the realm of our discussion.

You have furthur defined harm now to only apply to others. Our disscussion is related to age and free consent.
Certainly no one has perfect judgement. I think we agree that ultimately a sound person with all relevent knowledge of a situation should be allowed to make a decision. That must be a point of commonground from which to start.
A 1 year old child decides to go out in the street not knowing the car will run him over. It is the childs decision to do so and there is no way to talk to them about the potential dangers. The child should be stopped against its wishes. If you agree to this you are already accepting that there is a point we can judge for others. All that is left is deciding when.
Either we all decide for ourselves when we can interfere or judge for others or some arbitrary means has to be imposed.
It could be argued that there are 2 limits which are not arbitrary. When I judge I have less understanding than you I cannot interfere. When I judge I have more understanding I can interfere to prevent you from doing harm you do not wish to yourself or harm to others. Even assuming perfect judgement this seems controversial.
Since I feel I definitely can stop and probably should stop the 1 year old, I am stuck taking this controversial position. All this means is that I prefer not to be stopped by others who judge wrong about when they should stop me. I have been glad when they judged right and pulled me back from walking out in front of a car. Also others will feel the same when I judge and do this to them.

Alex · Subject: Re: Children and adults Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:11 pm

[quote="NonEntity"]

ExyPhylo wrote:

I find this a bizarre (and yet most common) idea. Do you seek a permit to breath? Must someone give you a license befiore you are allowed to shift from crawling to walking? How about from walking around your home to walking over to the neighbor's house? Who is it that has this power to decide what you may and may not peacefully do? And where did they get this power from?

Just a quick aside (or center?) but it seems to me that the question here is: At what age (if any) is a caretaker no longer more responsible for their charge then the youth is for themselves?

Surely an infant is less responsible for their actions (that affect others or bring sig. changes to their own condition (ie: hand in fire)) than their parent or guardian is. So I ask you, @ what age is a person entitled to their own responsibility?

If a parent does not have the power to supersede the will of the child, to a certain age (or mental capacity, whatever), the child is doomed from the get-go. Homo sapiens sapiens is an extremely K-selected species. We are 10 years in the womb, just that 9 of them are, well, out of the womb.

So I don't think you can simply bypass this grey line by declaring children as people. It must be faced squarely.

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Phlogiston wrote:

Since I feel I definitely can stop and probably should stop the 1 year old, I am stuck taking this controversial position. All this means is that I prefer not to be stopped by others who judge wrong about when they should stop me. I have been glad when they judged right and pulled me back from walking out in front of a car. Also others will feel the same when I judge and do this to them.

I agree with your point about pulling the 1 year old from in front of the car, or at least I agree with protecting that child from the car. I'm not sure that this gives license to what a lot of parents will do, however. Take for example, the harried parent at wit's end who screams at the child when the child is heading across the lawn, grabs the child by the arm and drags him back all the while scolding him severely. I'm not sure this is better than a potential near miss from a car. I'm not blaming the parent here, as I can see where the insanity of life might end up producing this result, yet similarly I cannot say that protecting the child from the car at any cost is a good trade off, if you follow my thinking.

There is a big difference between nurturing and controling. And I think the point that I am leaning towards is that it appears to me that "we" have very much leaned towards using the goal of protecting others as a license for control. And I don't think it a beneficial path to follow.

As I look back on my life and recognize all of the insane things I've done which could have killed or maimed me many times over, I would not change a one of them. But if I had been my parent, I would have prevented most of them I'm sure. We learn by doing, we grow through experience. To deprive a person of that experience seems to me to be the height of arrogance. As I look back at the crazy shit my dad did when he was young, maybe he knew what I was getting into and consciously chose to let me make those mistakes. He died long ago from smoking, one of his own mistakes, so I cannot ask him.

Falling is love almost certainly leads to devastating pain at some point. This does not mean that we should be protected from it. Or, let me rephrase that, since I don't like the word "should," we will live lives that will be the lessor for having been protected from experience.

The drug addict or alcoholic generally only really determines to clean up their act when they "hit bottom" and actually recognize for themselves that they are the only ones who can choose to be responsible for their lives. Any help by do-gooders is generally harmful in the end, it is only the person him or herself who ultimately can make the meaningful choices in his life.

I think the point that I am sensing and which I am trying to convey here is that there is a big difference between the mental perspective of "knowing better than another and being determined to protect them from themselves," and understanding that life is hazardous and wanting to be helpful and nurturing in someone's path when it is not against their wishes for you to do so.

We cannot learn, we cannot grow, if we are prevented from making mistakes. That is the utilitarian view. The philosophical view is that as long as it is voluntary it is no one's business but the people involved.

- NonE

Phlogiston · Subject: Re: Children and adults Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:42 pm

Drawing from this I get every act that prevents a mistake inhibits growth. Only mistakes that actual kill prevent growth. Therefore to help someone against their wishes is to hinder them in most situations. Involuntary help is not help when the future of the person is concerned.

There seems to be something essential that is missing. I have to think about it.

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Alex wrote:

NonEntity wrote:

I find this a bizarre (and yet most common) idea. Do you seek a permit to breath? Must someone give you a license befiore you are allowed to shift from crawling to walking? How about from walking around your home to walking over to the neighbor's house? Who is it that has this power to decide what you may and may not peacefully do? And where did they get this power from?

Just a quick aside (or center?) but it seems to me that the question here is: At what age (if any) is a caretaker no longer more responsible for their charge then the youth is for themselves?

Surely an infant is less responsible for their actions (that affect others or bring sig. changes to their own condition (ie: hand in fire)) than their parent or guardian is. So I ask you, @ what age is a person entitled to their own responsibility?

If a parent does not have the power to supersede the will of the child, to a certain age (or mental capacity, whatever), the child is doomed from the get-go. Homo sapiens sapiens is an extremely K-selected species. We are 10 years in the womb, just that 9 of them are, well, out of the womb.

So I don't think you can simply bypass this grey line by declaring children as people. It must be faced squarely.

Stewart asked the question earlier. (with regard to sexuality and pedofillia)
an answer was "age is an artificial contstruct"
Perhaps if we use age as a measure of average ability/knowledge/development etc. we might get some where.
Blanket statements such as "children are human beings" and "as long as it's voluntary" over simplify the very nature of our species.
I agree as you say Alex..It must be faced squarely.......

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

ExyPhylo wrote:

Stewart asked the question earlier. (with regard to sexuality and pedofillia)
an answer was "age is an artificial contstruct"
Perhaps if we use age as a measure of average ability/knowledge/development etc. we might get some where.
Blanket statements such as "children are human beings" and "as long as it's voluntary" over simplify the very nature of our species.
I agree as you say Alex..It must be faced squarely.......

I think it is wise to recognize that we don't have all the answers. So even when we attempt to "face squarely" the issues, we will not be able to come up with clear answers. If you agree that this might be the case, then the question which follows is, "how do we deal with those issues where we don't have an answer?"

Would you rather live in a world where everything is reduced to it's least common denominator. Is the individual merely fodder for the group? Or is the individual valuable just for him or herself?

Children ARE human beings. The very young years of live are extremely important in the formation of the person, and to seek to control the experience of the child for our own vision of what we see as the proper way to live a life is not the kind of thinking that I can be comfortable with.

I think that to think there can be clear cut rules which apply across the board and be codified is to render humanity little more than cattle. There ARE hard questions, and I cannot see any better means of dealing with them than one on one, depending upon the factors in play at the moment, and based upon sound principles. It is those principles which I seek to find. Not rules.

I have found nothing more clear so far in my life and my quest than the concept of free choice in consenting interactions. This will not address many problems which crop up, but I cannot (yet, at least) imagine any other way that will fairly handle a majority of the issues that humans ask about life in social settings.

- NonE

Admin · Admin Number of posts: 131 Registration date: 2007-07-21

i agree with the responses here: the list of criteria that you presented can fit a whole lot of people who are not pedophiles, Stef doesn't meet some of the criteria, and way stronger evidence is needed for a claim that is obviously about a very loaded issue.

i understand that you might be interested in discussing this question, but with a topic like this i think the basis of evidence to even bring up the discussion has to be a lot stronger.

Finally, I feel uncomfortable with having a topic title with the words 'Molyneux' and 'pedophilia' in the LiMi FDR section. If the title had also included 'stefan' then I would have changed the title because people might Google for Stefan and then hit upon a page with this title, which is no good at all.

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Perhaps a title change, and then let the conversation proceed?

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Admin · Admin Number of posts: 131 Registration date: 2007-07-21

good point. I just changed the title to 'children and adults' thinking that's neutral though informative enough. So no offense Tuesday, again I can understand you might want to discuss a topic like this, but given the before-mentioned reasons this seems better

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

ExyPhylo wrote:

Blanket statements such as "children are human beings" and "as long as it's voluntary" over simplify the very nature of our species.
I agree as you say Alex..It must be faced squarely.......

(emphasis mine)

I say right up front that this is a subjective perspective... What I see when you say "It must be faced squarely," is that you believe someone needs to decide situations in advance and dictate rules and penalties. To me this puts the cart before the horse in that there is nothing to judge until a crime (aggressive act instituted against another) has been commited.

I say this not in relation to this specific topic, but rather to the entire concept of dictating rules. As far as I can see, there is no reason to initiate any action unless a conflict has occured. It is sorta like the idea of "innocent until proven guilty," but maybe on a meta level.

I think it is impossible to define all of the possible relationships that various people might get engaged in and then to pre-determine which are harmful and which are not, and the level of that harm and so on. So it is back to the voluntary thing... if there has not been aggression there has been no harm.

- NonE

(P.S. I like the change in thread title. I was very uncomfortable with the prior incarnation, even as despicable as I find Stef, it was not nice and not fair.)

blackacidlizzard · Number of posts: 188 Registration date: 2008-05-21

NonEntity wrote:

Well this is very interesting. I am interested in discussing the nature of personal sovereignty and the concept of how age is or is not an issue, and all anyone else seems to want to do is to delve into abusive sexual issues. Very strange.

- NonE

I am still stuck on this post.

NonE, could you read the posts preceding the one quoted here and tell me if you stand by this analysis? I assure you it is incorrect. Everyone who posted more than one sentence was looking at the nature of sovereignty, free association, voluntary interaction, and how these all relate to the continuum of human development.

To me, this post came off as an assertion of some manner of superiority (something like: "everyone else is getting emotionally wound up while only I am focused enough to discuss the issue of the sovereignty of children without resorting to cliched hand wringing"), please correct me if I am wrong here.

I can think of at least one difference between your posts and the posts of others on this thread. The fact that you asserted a difference which is not present, I do find "very strange" indeed.

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

BAL,

Okay, I went back and looked over most of the prior posts, as per your request.

I admit a high level of frustration in that post. I think Exy's jumping from the concept of free choice and responsibility directly into "7 inch penis" was just so completely out line and offensive that I was just blown away by the attempt to twist the conversation into a hateful and inflamatory direction and away from the thoughtful discussion of ideas, choices, reponsiblities and such. Stewart then asked me what age group I was considering, which I didn't directly answer because I find it irrelevant in that putting a arbitrary definition on another's development is offensive to me and that is a big part of the point I was trying to make. I do not see how anyone can claim to make a judgement on others as a group. Each of us is an individual, and each circumstance is different.

So it appears that you think I'm acting 'holier than thou,' is that it? As I say, I feel a great deal of frustration when my words are twisted into perverse and offensive meanings. I don't know what more to say.

Perhaps if you can elaborate upon what it is that troubles you I might grasp your point a bit better.

- NonE

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

NonEntity wrote:

BAL,

I admit a high level of frustration in that post. I think Exy's jumping from the concept of free choice and responsibility directly into "7 inch penis" was just so completely out line and offensive that I was just blown away by the attempt to twist the conversation into a hateful and inflamatory direction and away from the thoughtful discussion of ideas, choices, reponsiblities and such. Stewart then asked me what age group I was considering, which I didn't directly answer because I find it irrelevant in that putting a arbitrary definition on another's development is offensive to me and that is a big part of the point I was trying to make. I do not see how anyone can claim to make a judgement on others as a group. Each of us is an individual, and each circumstance is different.

So it appears that you think I'm acting 'holier than thou,' is that it? As I say, I feel a great deal of frustration when my words are twisted into perverse and offensive meanings. I don't know what more to say.

Perhaps if you can elaborate upon what it is that troubles you I might grasp your point a bit better.

- NonE

I have to say NonE given your previous posts about sexuality and the unevil of it all ....It's a bit odd you would be offended by the word "7" inch penis, anus or vagina. (that is the reality of developement and the difference in age) The last time I had sex at least two were of those body parts were required. I don't find that shameful or disgusting. How would find that perverse? I don't appreciate your implying I was trying to turn the conversation as though it was a premeditated twist. It was a simple reaction to your posts one of which you labelled a teenager as horny and an adult as a mentor. It seems reasonable to me to believe in order for sex or "the event" (perhaps that is less perverse) to occur both the teenager and adult ("human beings") would need to be horny .

I am not sure how you find it perfectly ok to differentiate (horny teenager and mentor(adult)) in the above instance...not clarify an age per stewarts question...and then fuel your position with "we are all human beings". Then you think we should all know you are not talking about a 3 year old, a 7 year old, a 10 year old ....because age is an artificial construct.

I think you will be hard pressed for anyone to say it's okay as long as it's voluntary unless you set some sort of parameter.

The post...was about pedophillia....which by definition is > an obsession with children as sex objects.
It is not a love story....

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

forgettaboutit.....