Nambla

[Tom201]

Adalbertus

On the "Right of Speech". There is a good saying that the one's Freedom ends where the Freedom of the others begins.
In this sense Pedophilia is a crime and no law can change this. A group advocating to legalize Pedophilia is the same as one trying to legalize murder or rape.

I agree with the first setence.
But I dont see how the speech about murder or rape legalisation is violating the rights of others? IMO you should be allowed to say/write whatever you want, no matter how dumb it is or whatever. I opose the concept of thought crime.
I see no reason why there are the various censorship laws in Germany against neonazi books, writings, etc. It is even counterproductive. Many neonazi theoris are based on conspiracy theories, if you then come up with censorship while you claim to be the free democratic country, the conspiracy theories are getting more reliably.


nationalist

The majority of 15 year old don't even have a sense of self identity that is separate from their parents yet.

???
I had a pretty good sense of a seperate identity from my parents since I was 10/11. Most teenagers have their revolting time against parents at that age. Actually I was free to do whatever I want since I was 12 with my parents as optional advicers. With 15 I was very far from thinking of me and my parents as the same identity. Same goes for everyone I knew at the same age at that time....

[Tom201]

@DinoDoc
Define a child, or give an age limit, and you may get some response

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Sprayber
And Ozzy, just how young do you think it should be legal for men to have sex with children. What is too young for you? Is there such a thing as too young in your book?

I don't like to just pick numbers. I would need to really observe some TCS children to get a good sense of them at 5 and 6. While I do have a good impression of teenagers I lack an honest impression of young children and thus I can't make an honest judgement of their abilities and reason. TCS says even very young children match adults in reason, I need to see this for myself.

While I am open minded to the idea of no age is too young, until I can get truly first-hand experience on this matter my cut off point would be puberty. The cut off point that existed for thousands of years of human history is good enough for me. They say the age of the onset of puberty is changing recently, well thats fine with me too. A 6 year old probably wouldn't have the physical capacity to enjoy sex, or have any reason to engage in it. A 10 year old (from my own experience) would indeed desire sex, so depending on puberty is perhaps the best indicator.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
What on earth are you talking about? My entire point was to show that the lateness of sex now is a historical anomoly. If i have proven that people are having sex later now, I think i have succeeded in my goal to prove that people were having sex earlier before.

You've changed your point, then. Your original point that I questioned:

If you want to look at human history people have been having sex at much younger ages since the beginning of time.

You have failed to substantiate this, and have in fact substantiated the opposite claim.

I am just as cognitive and developed and rational and intelligent as I was at 15.

That was the definition of "mature" that I was intending, and now I see where you're coming from. I've matured in leaps and bounds since I was 15, which is why I disagree with you that 15-year-olds are just as emotionally and mentally competent as 20-year-olds or 25-year-olds. I've certainly become more emotionally and mentally competent in the last six years, and based on past trends I expect to continue to increase in mental and emotional competence for years to come (although it seems as though the process is beginning to slow, i.e. the change in mental states between the ages of 18 and 19 was more severe than the change in mental states between 19 and 20, which was more severe than the change between 20 and 21).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sprayber
My question to all of you is this. If it was legal would you all just say "well, it is legal for them to do it, so I suppose it's ok"

No, I'd almost certainly elect the next government based on a single-issue platform: reinstating the old laws.

What they're doing now isn't okay; I wouldn't take part, and if they ever had a chance of succeeding then I'd join an opposing pressure group. However, sending in the thought police to jackboot their asses into jail isn't okay either, from my point of view.

[KrazyHorse]

And why pedophiles only? Neo-Nazis are the direct descendents of the most successful genocidal group in history. Should we pull what the Euros have done and outlaw them? Maybe the Communists; look at what happened under Mao and Stalin. How bout everybody we just plain disagree with?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger
You've changed your point, then. Your original point that I questioned:

If you want to look at human history people have been having sex at much younger ages since the beginning of time.

You have failed to substantiate this, and have in fact substantiated the opposite claim.

Ok, I think there is just a misunderstanding over my wording. I meant since as in people have been having sex at young ages since the beginning of time and only now have changed. Not that people are now having sex at ages younger than at the beginning of time. I know my wording was tricky and I hope its been cleared up.

Originally posted by loinburger
That was the definition of "mature" that I was intending, and now I see where you're coming from. I've matured in leaps and bounds since I was 15, which is why I disagree with you that 15-year-olds are just as emotionally and mentally competent as 20-year-olds or 25-year-olds. I've certainly become more emotionally and mentally competent in the last six years, and based on past trends I expect to continue to increase in mental and emotional competence for years to come (although it seems as though the process is beginning to slow, i.e. the change in mental states between the ages of 18 and 19 was more severe than the change in mental states between 19 and 20, which was more severe than the change between 20 and 21).

Well there is a lifelong process of learning that all people go through. I certainly don't claim that your average 15 year old now has as much experience and knowledge as your average 30 year old. But of course your average 30 year old doesn't have as much experience and knowledge as your average 60 year old.

This brings up a few interesting points. Based on nothing else than world experience and the benifit that gives reasoning ability does it not stand to reason an age barrier is just as justified at 40 then at 18? All those under 40 year olds lack far more experience than their elders. So perhaps a general "life experience" standard is insufficent.

We must instead look at what level of experience and knowledge would be required to function independently in our society. A 70 year old may have much greater knowledge and experience of WW2 than a 40 year old, but is that the type of knowledge that is important to live in our society? No.

Determining what kind of knowledge is needed is dependent on our society and our place in history. Tribal cultures that advanced very slowly and relied greatly on tradition would put a premium on age. Those who have the greatest connections to the past are the most prized. Most able to pass down the ancient stories and ancient ways. This is why you see most tribal cultures with a "council of elders" or something like that, those who are the oldest in this society are the ones who rule.

As technology and change sped up this old way of leadership died out. In the 20th century people weren't as concerned with "the old ways" or "traditional lifestyles" as they were with new technology and new methods of life. So in this rapid changing world the elderly who cling to outdated ways of life are no longer the leaders they are the dinosaurs who are put out to pasture in retirement communities. Middle age people become the leaders because they are most in touch with the world around them and they possesed the knowledge and experience most needed to function in society.

Things are still changing though. Technology is developing at an astounding rate, life now is radically different than life 10 years ago. This kind of rapid change changes age roles as well. Right now the Internet and computers power this world, and who among us are most proficient with this new technology? The young, 10-20 in most cases know more about technology than thieir parents and certainly more than their grandparents. Parents have to go to their children to have them set the VCR or set up their Internet. This is not bizarre, this is just how people respond to rapidly changing technology. So in this world where 13 year olds can hack into Pentagon computer systems who posseses the knowledge and experience most needed to function? I think I have a strong argument to say that the young do.

Do I want to see a world in which you are shipped off to a retirement home at 30? Heavens no. But I think it is time we recognize the true value and knowledge our young possess, and not oppress them out of fear of loosing our place, but rather share power as equals.

[Velociryx]

I run a website for artists, and now and then, an artist will post something that's offensive to some of the regular readers of the site. My position on that has always been quite clear: I support the artist's right to post anything on the site that does not violate current laws or other agreements I have with some of my service providers, even if what I wind up supporting makes me squemish.

Why?

Because it has a right to BE. It has a right to exist, according to our view on free speech.

People who take offense to some of the stuff that's posted always get the same answer from me. If you don't like it, don't read/look at it.

There's no such thing as a "thought crime." I can think how lovely it would be to lob a few nukes in the general direction of France and kill off mass millions of innocent people. I can think that all day long and it doesn't make it illegal.

I can even start up a website advocating that the US government take steps to ensure France's destruction in that very manner. That's not illegal either.

If I begin to act on it. If I hold a fund-raiser and start buying the materials needed to make my own arsenal of nuclear weapons....then law enforcement agencies can step in and shut me down, putting me under the jail for my illegal behavior.

It's true....thought can lead to action. The thoughts themselves, nor the expression of those thoughts, are not illegal. That should not even be up for debate.

I personally think that the most responsible thing to do, given that what the group advocates is currently illegal, is to monitor the site, monitor the activity of site members and IF AND WHEN they begin to behave in ways that break current laws, go after them.

They've organized. That gives them advantages in communication. It also gives advantages to law enforcement, as they now know where to go to look for these guys. It's like a gigantic neon sign on the internet pointing the way.

They can advocate whatever they like til they're blue in the face, but if we care about protecting the right of free speech, there's nothing we can do about it until they DO something illegal.

-=Vel=-

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Well there is a lifelong process of learning that all people go through. I certainly don't claim that your average 15 year old now has as much experience and knowledge as your average 30 year old. But of course your average 30 year old doesn't have as much experience and knowledge as your average 60 year old.

Yes, but going off of Kohlberg's stages of moral development (I'm sure there are others who have done work on this, like Piaget, but I'm most familiar with Kohlberg), your average person is every bit as morally developed at age 30 as he/she is at age 60, but your average person still has several stages of development to go through between age 15 and age 30--your average 15-year-old is not as rational about some things as your average 30-year-old. This is also demonstrated in Fowler's stages of faith development--your average 15-year-old is far more irrational/gullible/pigheaded than your average 30-year-old.

I have experience working with gifted 12 and 13-year-olds as a summer camp counsellor, and can attest to the fact that they are more prone to jumping to erroneous conclusions, using logical fallacies, and being downright pigheaded than people who are ten years their senior. To most 12 and 13-year-olds, the question "Why did you (insert stupid action here)," as in "Why did you punch Bobby in the face," is still often answered by something equivalent to "Because I wanted to!" or, more commonly, "**** you!"

So in this world where 13 year olds can hack into Pentagon computer systems who posseses the knowledge and experience most needed to function? I think I have a strong argument to say that the young do.

Have you ever read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card? Ender's an absolute genius of a kid who can think circles around most adults, but when you get down to it he is still behind in moral and emotional development. It's not just a matter of gaining more experience or power, it's also a matter of psychological development. A 13-year-old who can hack into the Pentagon is pretty skilled at computers, but ask him "How can you tell right from wrong" or "What is the meaning of life" and you'll get a 13-year-old's answer to the question.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sprayber

Let me ask another question>

Of those that support the right of this group to do what they are doing, who actually has a child? Could this make a difference? I think it might.

I do not think any parent who are mentally healthy and law-abiding, would advocate free speech for pedophiles. They would react emotionally with this issue, and say "hell no, they should not have free speech!"

And who could blame parents for reacting emotionally with an issue that concerns children?

[Ramo]

And why pedophiles only? Neo-Nazis are the direct descendents of the most successful genocidal group in history. Should we pull what the Euros have done and outlaw them?

"[Their goals don't] seem to bother [him]."

My question to all of you is this. If it was legal would you all just say "well, it is legal for them to do it, so I suppose it's ok"

Morality is the last thing I would associate with our laws.
I would definitely try to get a party that opposes these laws into power; I'd might even make a tactical vote for a Republicrat.

What I find supremely immoral is taking away one's freedom because one isn't a "right-thinking" person.

[Az]

I never liked the "slippery slope" argumentation. could you bring me anything else but that? I think we're mature enough to draw boundries , and respect them.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo

What I find supremely immoral is taking away one's freedom because one isn't a "right-thinking" person.

But I hope you're not seriously advocating that pedophiles should have the freedom to exploit, manipulate, and abuse children for sexual pleasure.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
But I hope you're not seriously advocating that pedophiles should have the freedom to exploit, manipulate, and abuse children for sexual pleasure.

He's opposed pedophilia from the start of this thread.

[MrFun]

ok, then