Nambla

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

You mean like having to go to war at 18 but not being able to drink a beer till 21 or run for president till 35?

While I may agree with you on this issue I don't think you really need to "fight for your right to party", eh? And who in their right minds would vote for someone under 35 anyway?

You mean being taxed at 14 but not being able to vote on those taxes till you are 18?

Are you refering to the deduction your parents get on their taxes for claiming their children as dependents? Oh, you wouldn't be familiar with that.

You mean being tried as an adult in court at 13 but not being able to serve on a jury till you are 18?

Hey pal, when big shots like you wanna start doing adult crimes the pony rides are over it's time to take off the kiddy gloves. Besides if you got kids doing adult crimes why in the hell would you be inclined to give them more rights when they can't even act as responsible citizens as it is?

Yea, I am the greedy one who wants all the good and none of the bad. Suuurre. Perhaps your senility has deteriorated your brain grandpa, you sure don't seem to be talking out of any rational conception of reality. Living in your own world perhaps?

If only we could all only go back to being 18 when we all knew everything.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by nationalist
Wow. That is one of the stupidest things that I have ever read. Wait five years and re-evaluate that statement. The majority of 15 year old don't even have a sense of self identity that is separate from their parents yet. Some 25 year olds may be on a 15 year old emotional level, but very few. Look at it this way: a 25 year old has possible finished grad school. A 15 year old is a sophomore in high school. I don't care how smart you think you are, your ability to reason is not as developed at 15 as it will be at 25. ou remind me of myself 4 or 5 years ago, and I'll give you the advice that I wish I could go back and give to myself: Grow up. 15 year olds are not adults.

You have anything to back this up besides your own closed-minded biggotry?

Check out www.tcs.ac, this is a group of parents (much more experienced with raising children than most people on this list) who from birth Take their Children Seriously. Which means they do exactly as I suggested, giving a 5 year old accurate information to make a decision and respecting his choice no matter what it is. And guess what, it works. These individuals raised in an atmosphere where they are respected as equals reason just as well as adults do. TCS isn't even about 15 year olds, they go much younger. They have proven that 10 year olds even reason just as well as adults if given information from which to base their decision.

I have spoken to many of these parents myself, and I have heard their personal stories that back it all up. Go to www.tcs.ac and sign up for their mailing list, they'd be happy to tell you lots of stories to prove you wrong.

Of course I doubt you'll do that, you'll prefer to live in your biggoted ignorance than actually seek out the truth when the truth is opposed to your narrow world view.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants

While I may agree with you on this issue I don't think you really need to "fight for your right to party", eh? And who in their right minds would vote for someone under 35 anyway?

Well that is what democracy is about. What are you afraid of? If a 20 year old runs for president and is some frat guy without a brain in his head then of course no one will vote for him. If that 20 year old has all the qualities to be an exceptional president, then why on earth not let him have the chance? Do you not have faith in democracy that voters will pick the best candidate and don't need things screened for them? If so then why do you bother to live in a democracy in the first place, move to China.

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Are you refering to the deduction your parents get on their taxes for claiming their children as dependents? Oh, you wouldn't be familiar with that.

I'm speaking of income tax, sales tax, capitol gains tax, you name it. Young people pay all forms of taxes, paying out millions and millions of dollars every year to a government that will gladly take their money but won't let them vote on what to do with it.

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Hey pal, when big shots like you wanna start doing adult crimes the pony rides are over it's time to take off the kiddy gloves. Besides if you got kids doing adult crimes why in the hell would you be inclined to give them more rights when they can't even act as responsible citizens as it is?

Ah all of a sudden things become adult crimes. This is certainly a logical way to think, when a person does something wrong he is told he is a mature, rational adult. When he tries to do something right (i.e. voting) he is told he is a stupid, irrational child. Gee, I'm glad society has figured out a good, common sense system to treat people fairly....

So you are saying is the only possible way a youth could ever prove themselves to be an adult in your eyes is if they commit a serious crime. If this is what you think adulthood is all about, murder, rape, and grand theft, then perhaps the adults are the ones whose rights should be taken away.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


You have anything to back this up besides your own closed-minded biggotry?

2 things: life experience and memory. You will develop those as well. I'll just have to take what you say with a grain of salt. BTW, I'm only 19 myself, and can clearly remember what it was to be 15. I am now wise enough to know that I have some more maturing to do. Most 15 year olds (take yourself as an example) do not have that level of wisdom yet.

[WhiteElephants]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OzzyKP


You have anything to back this up besides your own closed-minded biggotry?[?QUOTE]

Hey junior, the word I think you're looking for is agist, not bigot, but of course you probably already knew that.

Check out www.tcs.ac, this is a group of parents (much more experienced with raising children than most people on this list) who from birth Take their Children Seriously. Which means they do exactly as I suggested, giving a 5 year old accurate information to make a decision and respecting his choice no matter what it is. And guess what, it works. These individuals raised in an atmosphere where they are respected as equals reason just as well as adults do. TCS isn't even about 15 year olds, they go much younger. They have proven that 10 year olds even reason just as well as adults if given information from which to base their decision.

The point is, in case you haven't been listening, that you cannot -- I repeat, cannot -- just give 10 year olds the kind of information that adult possess. It not something you read in a book, or watch on television.

The only thing different between myself and you when I was your age, was that I wasn't as entirely arrogant as you. You're beginning to sound like those morons in the sixties who claimed you couldn't trust anyone older than thirty. Grow up.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

So you are saying is the only possible way a youth could ever prove themselves to be an adult in your eyes is if they commit a serious crime. If this is what you think adulthood is all about, murder, rape, and grand theft, then perhaps the adults are the ones whose rights should be taken away.

What do I have to spell everything out for you? These children have proven that can't even be responsible as children, how are they going to handle the responsiblities of an adult? There not, because were not going to give them the chance since they already blew that one they had.

Well that is what democracy is about. What are you afraid of? If a 20 year old runs for president and is some frat guy without a brain in his head then of course no one will vote for him. If that 20 year old has all the qualities to be an exceptional president, then why on earth not let him have the chance? Do you not have faith in democracy that voters will pick the best candidate and don't need things screened for them? If so then why do you bother to live in a democracy in the first place, move to China.

I could care less. I'm just telling you that rallying to be able to drink beer and run for the presidency at whatever age is a pretty pathetic cause and does not warrant your rediculous persecution.

I'm speaking of income tax, sales tax, capitol gains tax, you name it. Young people pay all forms of taxes, paying out millions and millions of dollars every year to a government that will gladly take their money but won't let them vote on what to do with it.

Millions? Please. Who are these kids working for Microsoft? And if they're not working for Microsoft who's money are they spending? You guessed it, mommy and daddy's. I would wager a kid of sixteen, depending on how much he works, pays a few hundred (not to mention the money his parents will get back when they claim him on their returns), which I'm sure by that age he is taking advantage of what his tax dollars are already doing for him.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


The point is, in case you haven't been listening, that you cannot -- I repeat, cannot -- just give 10 year olds the kind of information that adult possess. It not something you read in a book, or watch on television.

The only thing different between myself and you when I was your age, was that I wasn't as entirely arrogant as you. You're beginning to sound like those morons in the sixties who claimed you couldn't trust anyone older than thirty. Grow up.

It seems you haven't been listening, it has already been done. Your ignorance and refusal to consider new points of view are apalling. If your biggotry is what passes as maturity now a days then you can have it. GO TO WWW.TCS.AC JOIN THEIR MAILING LIST, ASK THEM YOUR FOOLISH QUESTIONS. If you have any desire for the facts of the matter this is what you will do.

Of course you will continue to prove your ignorant closed-mindedness by responding by saying i'm some dumb kid and that you don't need to validate my proof because you already know i'm wrong, because i'm a "dumb kid" who couldn't possibly be right. If this is all the proof you require to have a solid case then I'm glad you aren't a lawyer,.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I can in several ways...

All you have succeeded in is substantiating that people are now having sex later in life because they no longer need to hurry up and procreate before they kick the bucket. This is hardly evidence that people are having sex earlier in life, and in fact is evidence that people are having sex later because it is the more appropriate time to do so barring procreation restraints (otherwise, why would people start having sex later just because they're dying later?).

I note that you failed to answer my question as to whether or not you've matured at all in the past five years. Have you matured at all in the past five years? If you have, then how can you possibly say that 15-year-olds are just as emotionally and mentally mature as 25-year-olds?

[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.

Even more generally, the freedom of speech ends where you start to hurt other people. In my eyes, it is a great misconception in laws thay you can be sued for hurting someone physically, but hardly for hurting psychially. I just want to add the example of the Russian composer Tchaikovsky, who was driven into suicide by words only (he was homosexual). A "blind" Right of Speech is something very dangerous, and it is almost as dangerous as a too strict control from the side of the state. Hitler well used his Right of Speech. Nowadays he wouldn't have it anymore in Germany, and that's why these laws exist.

I see a homosexual relation with a boy who is sexually mature, but just 14 as something different than pedophilia. A child has no notion of what sex is really about. A 6 year old is almost certainly ruined for life (unless extremely taken care of), a consenting 14-year old, who understands sex, not necessarily. Most of you now seem to be talking about the first case. What exactly is NAMBLA advocating?

The laws against sex with people younger than the age of consent arose from two different things: First, European adolescents become mature earlier nowadays (The composer Joseph Haydn had to leave the boy's choir at an age of 18 due to his breaking of voice. Nowadays this would be extremely late/impossible). Second, the orld has become more complex and while people were able to raise a child at an age of 16, say, 300 years ago, they are not today because they still have lots to learn.

About maturity in general: Growing up is a gradual thing. And for different aspects of life the time when one can take over responsibility is different. (I think even a 6-year old child has enough sense to understand why murder is a crime. And usually their sense is much better than that of 16-year old people who have been indoctrinated that military is something wonderful.) To look through the policies of different parties takes a much longer time than to see why theft is bad. Therefore the ages where one should take responsibility for one or the other is different.

Originally posted by OzzyKP:
But if a 15 year old is given the same amount of information as a 25 year old or a 35 year old their decisions will be just as rational.

There is one big misconception in it. The 15 year old is not less intelligent than the 25 or 35 year old. But you simply cannot give a 15 year old all the experience a 25 year old has made in the last 10 years. And there is usually much more involved than simply the information you use directly to decide but also the knowledge where to think more about something, having seen/read about consequences of similar cases.
We had a 64-years-old teacher (just when being 14/15 years old) who said something along the line that he has the "right" to be our teacher not because of a higher intelligence but because he has gained an experience we never can catch up (before his death). Souded a bit arrogant at that time but he was right.
The same holds also for the 25- and 35-years-old. Only that new experience usually is more complex and therefore the growth is slower.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Ramo



Yep, authoritarian.

when it comes to pedophiles, your goddamn right I'm athoritarian


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"



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?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by MrFun


Whoa --- get off your high horse, Sprayber.

I oppose active pedophilia. I also do not see any correlation between sexual orientation and pedophilia activity, so I have never seen anti-pedophilia values as anti-gay.

I was not offended by you at all, I just wanted to participate in this on-going argument in a civil manner.

I'm just saying, that where do you draw the line once you deny one group of people free speech, and allow it for every other group??

I draw the line exactly where I said time and time again. If the KKK wants to spew their hate then fine with me. If the black groups want to talk about how bad whites are, thats equally fine with me. If the pal want to get on TV and call jews racist then fine.

But excuse me if I draw the line at pedophiles organizing to make it legal to have sex with young boys or girls. I'm personaly ok with my position.

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.

[Az]

Sprayber: I don't get it . why don't you think that men can have sex with kids? what's wrong with you ? what kind of close-minded bigot are you anyway?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Sprayber
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.

As I have stated time and time again, the group "Taking Children Seriously" is made up of hundreds of parents. All raising their children according the principles I have set forth. They would no more coerce their child away from a sexual relationship than an ice cream bar. Free individuals can make free choices.

And this is a suspect question anyways. Why does one have to be a parent to comment on the rights of youth? Would you tell an abolitionist that "well you aren't a plantation owner, you just don't realize how useful slaves are, until you start using slaves you are in no position to say slavery is wrong." That is a foolish statement.

[DinoDoc]

Would someone explain to me how a child is mature enough to handle a sexual relationship? Because from my own personal experience and from what I observed in others when I was a minor, I just don't see how such a thing would be possible.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by loinburger
All you have succeeded in is substantiating that people are now having sex later in life because they no longer need to hurry up and procreate before they kick the bucket. This is hardly evidence that people are having sex earlier in life, and in fact is evidence that people are having sex later because it is the more appropriate time to do so barring procreation restraints (otherwise, why would people start having sex later just because they're dying later?).

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. My point was that throughout human history people began having sex after puberty, it is only our modern closed mindedness, and anti-youth hysteria that has changed this.

Originally posted by loinburger
I note that you failed to answer my question as to whether or not you've matured at all in the past five years. Have you matured at all in the past five years? If you have, then how can you possibly say that 15-year-olds are just as emotionally and mentally mature as 25-year-olds?

I was going to respond, but since I am carrying on this argument alone I must let some things drop as there are many people I am debating. To answer your question we need to come up with a suitable definition of "maturity" the dictionary definition I just found is different than how it is often used. Mature just means full grown, or fully developed.

Because of adultist bias the modern concept of maturity and immaturity has developed to further oppress youth. So based on this definition one is declared immature if he does not follow the social norms of adultist society. This term is used to attack ones beliefs, actions, and ideas. The popularization of this term has futher entrenched adultist stereotypes, because now instead of someone being declared "naive" they are declared "immature" and associated with youth regardless of their age.

Just look at how this term and concept has been used in this thread. Loin, we had a long discussion a few weeks ago about objective reality vs. realitive reality. There were sharp disagreements between the various sides, but they were recognized as logical disagreements. Now look how this argument has progressed, rather than have my argument respected by my opponents I am called "junior" or "inexperienced" or "immature" for holding the views I hold. How convenient to be able to erase any arguments by just declaring your opponent as young.

Maturity is a measure of how well someone has submitted to our social norms. If you see a group of teenagers in a restaurant who are laughing their asses off at something, enjoying life, enjoying each others company, just having a wonderful time. Adultists in the restaurant would declare them "immature", because our norms declare we are not supposed to laugh boisterously when we enjoy something, we are supposed to be prim, proper, and act as if the joy of the world has been sucked out of us. Often this term is used with hypocrisy as well. Going out with my friends to a restaurant they will start badmouthing the next table over of teenagers for their loud "immaturity", yet every once in a while my friends will find something particularly funny and bust out laughing in the same manner. But of course that is acceptable, the teenagers are immature.

This term is much like other terms associated with oppressed people. A woman with a strong opinion is a "b_tch" (while of course a man with strong opinions isn't) a woman with mulitple sexual partners is a "slut" (while of course a man with the same isn't) these double-standards and hypocrisies help entrench oppression against a group. Mature and Immature are no different.

So by the two standards I have put forward, the dictionary definition of actual development and growth, and the adultist definition of obeying social norms my answer is thus:

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

Unfortunately I believe I have succomed in some ways to social norms, so by that definition perhaps I have "matured" but it is a great tragedy. My enjoyment of life has been taken away from me, and now I am more inclined to fear rebuke by others than I was before. I am greatly more inhibited, as all adults are which is why they often get drunk so they can loose their inhibitions that they worked so hard to build up in the first place. My joy has been replaced by fear, and that is no way to go through life. My peers are dominated by fear, and it sickens me. I think my life will be improved if I hang out with "immature" high schoolers, I think all of our lives will be improved if we do this. Shed our irrational inhibitions and f_cking enjoy life.