here are old message board entries

---

prev <-> next

[2004-05-12 15:30:00] - i mean, if you disagree, you disagree. i'm just very surprised you think kids can accurately give consent - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:29:00] - yes - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:29:00] - Paul: sir, answer the question - travis

[2004-05-12 15:28:00] - Vinnie: Well, I dunno, do YOU see a problem? -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:26:00] - what if the kid doesn't want to go home? no problem there? - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:24:00] - Travis: Well, yeah, so how would things change? Once the kid gets his x-box and candy, he decides he wants to go home and if the guy won't let him, it becomes kidnapping. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:23:00] - i mean with consent - travis

[2004-05-12 15:23:00] - kids are kidnapped all the time without consent, the people trick them into giving consent, like my extreme example i just gave - travis

[2004-05-12 15:22:00] - even then, those places have to let the kid go if he expresses a desire to leave, even if the shady guy with a roll of duct tape offers the kid candy and an xbox to come with him - travis

[2004-05-12 15:21:00] - yeah - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:20:00] - Vinnie: Oh, you're talking about babies being taken from parents? -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:19:00] - it means you have to keep your children at all times in 'hospital' places, places that won't allow your child to be taken - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:18:00] - yeah, but again, we go back to children that can't consent... - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:17:00] - Vinnie: Well, if a child is kidnapped, which by definition kinda means it was without consent, then all they need to do is get the kid to say he didn't consent to it... -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:14:00] - i see. so people would try to prove that it was done by force. that at least covers the murder scenario... - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:13:00] - Vinnie: I don't understand what you mean. It's the same people who complain when it happens now... -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:12:00] - Travis: No, no. I covered that a couple of messages ago. Implied consent doesn't cover everything by a long shot. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:12:00] - what I don't understand is who complains when there's no one to complain, like in a murder, or in a child abducted off the street case - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:11:00] - Travis: I can't believe I coined a phrase which is sticking around. It's like the difference between passive consent (allowing something to happen) and active consent (working towards changing something). -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:11:00] - what paul's saying is that taking the baby is wrong, but it shouldn't be illegal - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:10:00] - therefore, since i didn't not consent, by way of the baby example i implied consent to let you shoot me - travis

[2004-05-12 15:10:00] - paul: why isn't it okay to shoot me? i never expressed a desire either way - travis

[2004-05-12 15:09:00] - paul: wait, what happened to the implied consent the baby gave to anyone taking it home? - travis

[2004-05-12 15:09:00] - The initiation of force, unless consented to, is always wrong. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:08:00] - Just like it's not ok for somebody to shoot you as long as you don't forbid him to do it. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:08:00] - I never said that ANYTHING that isn't forbidden is allowed. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:08:00] - vinnie: i know, that's why i brought it up to argue against paul's implied consent, but i'm not sure which side i'm on overall - travis

[2004-05-12 15:07:00] - Vinnie: I know, except I wouldn't exactly say it's what's wrong with it. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:07:00] - Travis: No, because I think if the baby decided it wanted to go home with you and expressed it's desire to the hospital, then they would allow it. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:07:00] - actually, your joke example is exactly what's wrong with implied consent - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:05:00] - paul: then isn't the hospital infringing on the baby's freedom to choose?  and that's a cardninal sin in your ideal world - travis

[2004-05-12 15:05:00] - Travis: I don't see it that way. We're discussing whether or not the government should allow something. Not whether or not it's right or wrong. At least that's what I'M debating. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:04:00] - Travis: What's wrong with implied consent? It means sex with an unconscious girl is totally legal (j/k). The hospital wouldn't allow it because it's hospital policy. Same reason a school wouldn't let you pick up other people's kids. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:04:00] - paul: this is more about morality and society than politics - travis

[2004-05-12 15:03:00] - Vinnie: Besides, I'm not so sure that Travis is a trophy to be proudly displayed in a debate about politics. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:03:00] - paul: but why should they not let me?  isn't it the baby's decision to go with me? - travis

[2004-05-12 15:02:00] - paul: Nah that's fine. - aaron

[2004-05-12 15:02:00] - vinnie: i'm just against this "implied consent" crap - travis

[2004-05-12 15:02:00] - Vinnie: I'm not so sure, he could be serious. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:01:00] - Travis: Well, that's part of the beauty of it. I doubt my "rule" about implied consent babies would change anything because hospitals still wouldn't let you take another person's baby. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:01:00] - ha, I have won travis over to my side - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:01:00] - and no one can stop me or complain because the babies didn't complain - travis

[2004-05-12 15:00:00] - Aaron: Often you have to pay child support. But I was more just talking about non-child resulting sex. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:00:00] - heh, yeah, i'm going to the maternity ward after work and picking up a couple of implied consent babies and taking them home - travis

[2004-05-12 14:59:00] - paul: If you sleep with someone, get them pregnant, and then disappear - i think that is illegal, isn't it? It's pretty close! - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:59:00] - Vinnie: Oh, you were talking about taking MY newborn away? That's not something I need to worry about. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:58:00] - i see your point though, that you think someone has to complain for there to be a wrong. i just don't agreee with it at all - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:58:00] - Travis: That was exactly my point. You don't need the baby to say "I want you to take me home" for it to be legal. There is implied consent everywhere. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:58:00] - i guess not, but just the idea that I could take your newborn from you seems wrong to me. I guess I can't explain it - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:57:00] - Paul: and how in the world are you going to determine whether or not the baby wants to be taken home?  the only action it can take is crying and that's caused by a million things - travis

[2004-05-12 14:57:00] - Aaron: Either you're joking, in which case I have nothing to argue. Or you are being serious, in which case I equally have nothing to argue. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:56:00] - Vinnie: I'm not entirely sure why I should know that, but all I'm saying is that it's not necessarily illegal to do something with express consent. What if I pass out in the parking lot of some bar and you take drive me home. Is that illegal? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:54:00] - paul: If a life-changing pregnancy results, then yes, maybe it should be illegal for men to not call women after having sex with them - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:54:00] - oh c'mon, paul, you of all people know that lack of expression != consent - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:53:00] - Vinnie: Every one of which cases? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:53:00] - Vinnie: Sure, they can take the baby home after birth, as long as it doesn't express that it doesn't want to be taken home. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:52:00] - ok. then is it economically feasible to figure out in every one of these cases the child's intent. I say definitely not - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:52:00] - Aaron: Immoral, maybe. But do you think we should be legislating morality like that? What's next, is it illegal for men not to call women after having sex with them? -paul

[2004-05-12 14:51:00] - 'after birth' should be in there - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:51:00] - Vinnie: When it comes to shooting a gun, I think intent plays a major role in it. If the 2 year old shot somebody with a gun and it was intentional and he meant to harm that person, then I could see compelling reason to imprison him. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:51:00] - or how about this: do you all think it's immoral for parents to take a child home with them? after all, they don't have the child's consent! - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:50:00] - if it's determined that the child purposely shot a person, then yes, imprisonment! - mig

[2004-05-12 14:50:00] - paul: I think it would be immoral for someone to have sex with her without at least telling her, "Oh, this might make you a little pregnant" - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:49:00] - aaron:  how much is the mininum?  who decides what the minumum knowledge is? - mig

[2004-05-12 14:49:00] - i'd like someone to answer my gun question, please - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:49:00] - Aaron: So in theory, somebody who was raised without any knowledge of sex whatsoever, if she was 30 and had sex with somebody, you think it should be illegal? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:47:00] - paul: A minimum amount of knowledge about sex, yes - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:47:00] - Aaron: So you think people need a minimum amount of knowledge before they should be legally allowed to breed? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:46:00] - no, but only because I think by that time enough people can make the decision themselves - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:45:00] - Vinnie: Because it sounds like that is what you are advocating. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:45:00] - travis:  besides, the whole purpose of speeding laws is just to make money for the state, do you really think they'll care if you're seepdometer was off by 1 or 2 mph if they can reap the profit of writing you a reckless ticket. - mig

[2004-05-12 14:45:00] - Vinnie: Assume that it's not equally likely then. What if I found a 20 year old who made MORE stupid decisions than the average 14 year old in regards to sex (and I'm sure such a person exists). Should we then ban her from having sex? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:45:00] - i just don't think you can treat kids the same as adults is all. if any 2 year-old fired a gun and shot someone, I don't think we should imprison that child. would you all agree? - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:45:00] - mig: But after 30 year s of experience, if someone complained "ohhhh nobody told me that sex got you pregnant!" I would be less apt to believe them - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:44:00] - Vinnie: I would certainly trust her to be able to make that decision. Whether or not it's a good one is anybody's guess. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:43:00] - aaron:  and 30 year olds make dumb decisions too, i really see no difference between the two. - mig

[2004-05-12 14:43:00] - Aaron: Adults make dumb decisions too, though. Arguably they make even dumber decisions. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:43:00] - paul: the difference is that I don't think it's equally likely - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:42:00] - man, i'm leaving out words left and right - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:42:00] - travis:  well they can hit you with a reckless if you are less than 20 mph over the limit if they arbirtrarily decide you are driving recklessly. - mig

[2004-05-12 14:42:00] - Vinnie: My thinking is that it's equally likely that some stupid 20 year old can be persuaded to have sex by some smooth talker. So why is she "capable" of making decisions which could be just as stupid as the 6 year old? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:42:00] - do you trust your 6-year old to be able to make that decision? i don't most 6-year olds would understand sex is at that age. hell, make it even younger. make it a 3-year old - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:42:00] - mig: Kids make dumb decisions though. When I was 4 i consented to slam my nutsack in a door. I would have been really pissed off if that door had gotten me pregnant! - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:41:00] - Travis: I think that's the first time I've ever seen you type the words "paul's actually right" -paul

[2004-05-12 14:40:00] - mig: that's my assumption, too, but then what about that critical point of going from speeding to reckless? - travis

[2004-05-12 14:40:00] - vinnie:  as long as the 6 year old consents, i see no real problem. - mig

[2004-05-12 14:40:00] - Vinnie: Exactly. Unless there is any force or threats involved. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:40:00] - otherwise that act is different, which it isn't when you're talking about having sex with people of different ages - travis

[2004-05-12 14:39:00] - travis:  which is why i think police don't go after you unless you are 10-15 mph over the limit. - mig

[2004-05-12 14:39:00] - yeah, paul's actually right, the analogies would have to be that it was illegal to push a kid down the stairs but legal to push paul down the stairs - travis

[2004-05-12 14:39:00] - Besides, weren't females having kids at age 14 or whatever back in medieval times or whatever? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:38:00] - paul: so if convince your 6-year old to have sex with me, there's no problem? ah, I see - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:38:00] - travis: From anyone else, analogizing sex to death would seem completely off-the-wall but i guess i see your point about understanding - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:38:00] - Vinnie: No, I mean that if a girl is having sex (some 14 year old giving blowjobs in the back of a school bus or whatnot) then I think she is old enough to be having sex legally. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:37:00] - aaron: what's worse about stupid traffic laws like that is that it probably isn't even the fault of the drive in that case since your speedometer isn't 100% accurate, especially not to that degree - travis

[2004-05-12 14:37:00] - Aaron: I'm still not sure what these analogies are supposed to be arguing, but in both of your cases, the two actions were different. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:36:00] - In a world of people like us, maybe it would become 2% more illegal to sleep with a person for every month under 18 they are but the world's not like us, so there's just a line - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:36:00] - paul: how old does a girl have to be to have sex? - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:36:00] - aaron: so then why isn't puberty the age of consent line if that's the age they can suddenly understand sex?  and why is that a requirement anyway? kids can eventually understand death without having to die - travis

[2004-05-12 14:35:00] - Why is it suddenly $200 greater of a fine to drive 40 mph instead of 39? Is 1 mph really so likely to kill someone? hehe. I don't know. - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:34:00] - Vinnie: It just seems to me that if a girl is old enough to be having sex, then she should be old enough to be having sex legally. Maybe she doesn't know the dangers of STDs at age 14 but that's true about plenty of women of age 20+ -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:34:00] - paul: That's just an unfortunate side effect of laws. We rely on judges to observe the unusual edge-cases where the minors involved were very close to 18. - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:33:00] - Aaron: The primary reason that most people think Social Security is bad (I think) is because it's a pyramid scheme. The money you are paying for social security now isn't being saved with interest, it's being used to pay off the social security of your grandfather or whatever. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:32:00] - mig: yeah, but after a while, you'd get your adult license anyway, probably at 18 - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:32:00] - paul: i agree with you inasmuch that i'm not sure why people put so much faith in those lines. I definitely think traci lords was old enough to make the decisions herself, and I'm not sure why there was an uproar - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:31:00] - Aaron: Well, I was going to say that Social Security runs on the same premise of restricting the freedoms of everyone because some stupid people are "incapable" of making good decisions. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:31:00] - vinnie:  so, we would have to pass a test to have sex?  so it'd be like applying for a license to have sex? - mig

[2004-05-12 14:30:00] - the worse part is that you don't make the decision - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:30:00] - Aaron: Ok, I guess I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that was my point. I just don't know how all of a sudden some activity that seemed perfectly harmless can become so horrible and evil just because somebody was, what, a year younger than thought? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:30:00] - Paul: I put money into social security if that's what you mean but... I'd just as soon that be replaced by some kind of stable bonds that gradually increase in value, or something else.  What is it about Social Security exactly that makes it worse than bonds? (educate me!) - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:29:00] - and I agree with aaron about arbitrary lines needing to be drawn - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:29:00] - anyone read "Harmful to minors"?  very interesting book about the topic of teching sex to children. - mig

[2004-05-12 14:29:00] - travis: i would agree there. the more education we offer, the more willing i'd be to lower the age of consent. maybe there should just be some sort of adult test everyone takes - vinnie

[2004-05-12 14:29:00] - travis: I think there's a big difference between education and understanding though. Could you really expect a kid to understand sex before they hit puberty? - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:28:00] - Paul: About my stupid analogy, I was just trying to illustrate that it's not always obvious when something becomes illegal, or immoral, so sometimes it makes sense to arbitrarily decide "Okay, it's illegal if... you push someone with a force of 5 kg" or something, even if it's just an arbitrary amount - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:27:00] - Travis: That's a good point. It's also been shown that exposing kids to "dangerous" things earlier and teaching them about it leads to less of a chance those things will harm them in the future. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:26:00] - aaron: then why wait so long to educate kids on the subject?  if you educate them about things like sex earlier, would it be okay for the age of consent to be lowered? - travis

[2004-05-12 14:25:00] - Aaron: I wonder, do you support Social Security? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:24:00] - Aaron: I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Was that in response to me asking Pierce if the only problem was the appearance of a law being broken? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:22:00] - The 18-year-old line may be completely arbitrary, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere to protect children from things they don't yet understand to be harmful - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:21:00] - but it's still odd that even the appearance of being underage makes the attraction inappropiate even though the goal of most people is to make themselves look younger than they are - travis

[2004-05-12 14:21:00] - paul: I can casually bump into you in a public place, and that's fine - but if I push you down a flight of stairs suddenly it's illegal. How is that fair? - aaron

[2004-05-12 14:18:00] - Mig: I just wonder why we make blanket assumptions saying that people under a certain age can't make their own decisions when many people ten times their age don't make better decisions. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:16:00] - i've thought about this age of consent thing for a while and the only conclusion is simply to reiterate the concept that people under the age of 18 are no more than property of society and the government. - mig

[2004-05-12 14:09:00] - Travis: Yeah, I hope he gets the same horrible hand cramps that I get from having to defend myself from three people at once. -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:09:00] - hehe, now pierce must know how paul feels when he has to debate politics - travis

[2004-05-12 14:07:00] - pierce:  were the people who found Traci Lords attractive and watched her vids horrible people? - mig

[2004-05-12 14:06:00] - unless you meant "If she look immature and/or is underage" - travis

[2004-05-12 14:05:00] - pierce: "if the girl is underage, then real actions (dating, sex, marriage) are wrong.  If she looks immature, then concepts (thinking/saying she's attractive) are inappropriate" that doesn't say anything about a mature looking underage girl - travis

[2004-05-12 14:04:00] - Pierce: The actions were horrible regardless? How so? Was the problem ONLY that suddenly people found out that a law had been broken? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:02:00] - Pierce: So then what would be the insecurity involved when finding a girl attractive that you suddenly found out was underage? -Paul

[2004-05-12 14:02:00] - Paul: the actions were horrible regardless.  It's just that people all of a suddent found out that the actions fell on the other side of that threshhold.  They hadn't previously known that she was not legally fit to make such decisions. - pierce

[2004-05-12 14:01:00] - Paul: the transgender thing is more related to insecurities about one's own sexual orientation (or how others might judge it) than an actual measurement of how attractive you find someone. - pierce

[2004-05-12 14:00:00] - Pierce: Regarding Traci Lords, why were the actions that were taken suddenly horrible then? -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:59:00] - Travis: correct; the concept is not "wrong", but it is "inappropriate" in my boils-down statement. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:58:00] - Travis: I may get lynched for bringing this into the debate, but I find it a lot like talk of gay relationships/marriage. Like if you find a transgender person attractive, why is it all of a sudden hideous and wrong when you find out they used to be a guy or whatever? -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:58:00] - dammit, the smilie is a colon-closeparen. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:57:00] - Travis: (personal opinion the traci lords situation was horrible because of the actions taken while she was underage, not because of how attractive guys thought she was before and/or after the discovery of her age. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:57:00] - because by the "boils down to" statement, only taking actions on a mature looking underage girl is wrong, but the concept would be fine - travis

[2004-05-12 13:56:00] - pierce: i know, but in that statement you separated image and legal status, now you're combining them again - travis

[2004-05-12 13:56:00] - Pierce: What if the underage girl initiated kissing some older guy? -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:55:00] - what's really stupid about all these taboos is in cases like traci lords, where loads of guys found her attractive and it was okay but then once people knew she was underage it was suddenly horrible for you think that way - travis

[2004-05-12 13:55:00] - Travis: the "boils down to" statement was with respect to society, as I explicitly stated. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:54:00] - Paul: basically anything romantic.  Dating, kissing, sex, marriage. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:54:00] - Travis: another part of the britney controversy was not with respect to (overage) guys who found her attractive, but the fact that an underage girl was being sexualized by her label (regardless of how physically/sexually mature she was). - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:53:00] - pierce: okay, just you didn't state it like that in your "it boils down to" statement - travis

[2004-05-12 13:53:00] - Pierce: Just out of curiosity, what kind of things that I could do with an underage girl would you consider to be wrong? -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:53:00] - Travis: I said "personally" because it applies to me specifically. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:52:00] - Travis: both image and legal status are factors in determining "appropriateness" of a claim that a girl is attractive. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:51:00] - pierce: you put "personally" in paranthesis so does that statement apply to society or just you? - travis

[2004-05-12 13:51:00] - Pierce: Yeah, I heard about that (supposed to be really good) but didn't see the skit myself. I'm disappointed. -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:50:00] - But I (personally) don't think it's even "wrong" for you to find an eight-year-old (who looks eight) attractive, because it's not affecting anyone else unless you verbalize or act on that attraction.  Understand? - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:50:00] - pierce: so yet again, why the problems with britney? she didn't look immature so why was saying she was hot inappropiate?  i understand taking action on those thoughts being wrong in society's eyes - travis

[2004-05-12 13:49:00] - Paul: regarding standing by travis, I'm with vinnie.  "Wrong" is the wrong word for it, since it's all relative.  "Inappropriate" or "taboo" are better words, because I'm just saying whether society accepts your attraction. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:47:00] - Paul: in response to your piercing question, the age of consent threshhold is important to both me and society as a whole. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:45:00] - dammit, one letter short again. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:45:00] - Here's what it boils down to... if the girl is underage, then real actions (dating, sex, marriage) are wrong.  If she looks immature, then concepts (thinking/saying she's attractive) are inappropriate.  Everybody draws their own lines, but what I've been describing is the general perspective of our society (except where I've said otherwise) - pierc

[2004-05-12 13:42:00] - Ironically, Lindsay Lohan played a more mature version of Hermione (complete with a too-tight schoolgirl outfit) on SNL. - pierce

[2004-05-12 13:34:00] - Interesting note, I just found out that Lindsay Lohan was underage. Not that I was particularly attracted to her, but it's kinda scary how mature young girls can look these days. -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:30:00] - people didn't necessarily get upset about people finding her hot as much as that they thought a minor was being sexually exploited I think - vinnie

[2004-05-12 13:30:00] - travis: underage - vinnie

[2004-05-12 13:29:00] - vinnie: then why did lots of people get upset about older guys finding britney hot?  was that just the age difference? - travis

[2004-05-12 13:27:00] - well, yeah, marrying is different - vinnie

[2004-05-12 13:26:00] - Vinnie: But you're crushing my dreams of ever attaining a young wife! -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:25:00] - don't get me wrong, I stand by you both too! but i'm trying to point out what most people feel - vinnie

[2004-05-12 13:22:00] - Travis: It's ok, I stand by you (and against society, it seems) that there isn't anything wrong with finding girls who look or actually are underage attractive. -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:18:00] - travis: uh, my point (and I think pierce's) was the opposite: being attracted to somebody who appeared underage was wrong, but if they were underage then it's even worse - vinnie

[2004-05-12 13:16:00] - vinnie: so if it's just looking underage that matters, why the uproar about britney who easily looked over 18 when she wasn't - travis

[2004-05-12 13:15:00] - Travis: Yeah, she looked pretty good there. I wasn't too impressed by her speaking, but I blame that on the editing for the pieces since the entire deal seemed poorly edited. -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:13:00] - http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0505wilson.html Deadbeat moms. -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:13:00] - dave: imdb lists her for the cast of the next harry potter movie, and she did look really good during those commercial break talks throughout the movie - travis

[2004-05-12 13:10:00] - http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=e8cfc0cc-fe79-4153-984d-511b78f81b1e "Victim of childhood gender experiment takes own life" -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:07:00] - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1212734,00.html Teach your children how to perform oral sex! -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:07:00] - uh, in ref to paul's comment - vinnie

[2004-05-12 13:07:00] - travis: what you may find amusing is that I saw Emma Watson sayin some stuff before the tv premier of the Sorcerer's Stone and thought she was pretty attractive...and then wondered how old she was...and figured it was probably a little inappropriate, HEHE -dave

[2004-05-12 13:06:00] - that is the point really, not that it matters to either of us. we're trying to explain the pov of society on the whole - vinnie

[2004-05-12 13:06:00] - I can't think of many 20+ females who looked 16- -dave

[2004-05-12 13:05:00] - Dave: I think the trio is under contract for the fourth movie, but I'm not sure. -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:04:00] - Travis: I think Pierce's point (and I could be wrong) was that being attracted to somebody who appeared underage was wrong, but if they were underage then it's even worse. -Paul

[2004-05-12 13:03:00] - travis: you shouldn't care anyways, just say what you think ^_^ everyone thinks we're all weird anyways. -dave

[2004-05-12 13:02:00] - travis: Is this Emma Watson's last Potter movie? Will she be too old to do the next one? -dave

[2004-05-12 13:02:00] - travis: how they look ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-12 13:02:00] - made doubly hard by my personal lack of such boundaries - travis

[2004-05-12 13:01:00] - i'm left confused on whether it's how old a person actually is or how old they look that makes it (in)appropiate to find them attractive - travis

[2004-05-12 12:59:00] - Dave: You're quite the master of wordplay today, aren't you? -Paul

[2004-05-12 12:59:00] - paul: your question was too piercing, so he ducked out ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-12 12:58:00] - Pierce: Dammit! Bye Pierce. -Paul

[2004-05-12 12:58:00] - Pierce: I'm certainly not trying to be anal here, but when you say stuff like "the age of consent threshold is an important one", do you mean that it's important solely in your opinion on this topic or in what you perceive as society's stance? -Paul

[2004-05-12 12:57:00] - lunchtime, then (tentatively) meetings.  talk to you all later tonight probably. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:57:00] - travis: I believe the solution is to just take the picture around and whenever you feel the need to say she is hot, just hold up the picture and say that the girl in the picture is hot, HEHE -dave

[2004-05-12 12:56:00] - Travis: Clearly not. -Paul

[2004-05-12 12:56:00] - travis: that "age of consent" threshhold is an important one.  it's not the only factor, but in terms of the exercise of actions it's significant. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:56:00] - travis: damn, she's hot ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-12 12:55:00] - travis: HEHE, misunderstood genius eh? I wish -dave

[2004-05-12 12:55:00] - actually, "eight year old" means "person who looks eight", though a 23-year-old who looks eight is at least of the age of consent. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:55:00] - dunno exactly how this fits in, but here: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0304141/Ss/0304141/C414-7.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Watson,%20Emma%20(II) that doesn't look like a typical 14 year old to me so is it wrong to find her attractive? - travis

[2004-05-12 12:54:00] - dave: your joking hyperbole was lost on us - travis

[2004-05-12 12:54:00] - Travis: Or groundrocketing. -Paul

[2004-05-12 12:53:00] - I don't know if anybody cares, but personally, I think that the age of the observer shouldn't make a smidge of difference when it comes to pronouncing the hotness of a woman. -Paul

[2004-05-12 12:53:00] - travis: yes yes, I intentionally made it sound weird =P -dave

[2004-05-12 12:53:00] - dave: i believe "skyrocketing downward" is called "plummeting" - travis

[2004-05-12 12:52:00] - travis: when I say "eight-year-old", I mean "eight-year-old who looks eight".  Again, the age is simply a heuristic for estimating sexual and physical maturity. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:52:00] - paul: yeah I know, but I wanted to make an extreme statement and couldn't think of a good one ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-12 12:52:00] - pierce: assuming the 8 year old looked like an 8 year old, right? -dave

[2004-05-12 12:52:00] - Dave: I don't know if it's called skyrocketing if it's going downward. -Paul

[2004-05-12 12:51:00] - To be clear about myself specifically, I don't really have a problem with travis saying Emma Watson is attractive.  That satisfactory? - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:51:00] - pierce: well, it seems like you're dodging the issue then, because you said it would be inappropiate to find a 25 year old who looks 8 attractive, so you're not following your own age limit taboo - travis

[2004-05-12 12:50:00] - The taboo also extends to the magnitude of the action, though.  So travis: saying Emma Watson is attractive is not necessarity appropriate, but it is acceptable.  Dating her would be unacceptable.  And saying an eight year old was attractive would be very inappropriate. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:49:00] - pierce: no, i'm talking about you personally. do you have a problem with travis' statements - vinnie

[2004-05-12 12:49:00] - jeez, someone stop the stock marketing from skyrocketing downward, it's annoying -dave

[2004-05-12 12:47:00] - Vinnie: social stigma includes statements; so if Jack Nicholson went around talking about how sexually attractive the Olsen twins are, he'd get in trouble.  So for the purposes of Paul's question, it includes statements. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:47:00] - oh, good news everyone: my company's courts repared the rim for the other side, so we could play full court - vinnie

[2004-05-12 12:46:00] - I'm not sure if this has been said, but it seems to me that there reaches a sort of threshold age. Like any guy less than 60 is pretty valid in stating that some girl 25+ is hot etc. -dave

[2004-05-12 12:46:00] - Travis: no it didn't.  I'm saying that such a hypothetical is dodging the issue.  The taboo of age is simply a taboo of sexual/physical maturity.  Age works as a simpler variable because those two concepts are closely related.  Proposing a 23-year-old who looks 8, or Emma Watson looking the same but being 23) divorces them. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:44:00] - it just seems like that during/after puberty, a person is going to look basically the same, so as long as something like big breasts aren't a concern for me, her looks aren't going to be much different in a few years when she becomes appropiate age - travis

[2004-05-12 12:44:00] - pierce: you mean exercises beyond just statements, I assume? cause I have no personal problem with travis' statements - vinnie

[2004-05-12 12:43:00] - a: I'm saying "generally socially appropriate", by the (admittedly ill-defined) standards of modern america.  Which I think is what Paul was asking. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:42:00] - a: assuming vinnie meant "i don't think pierce..." instead of "i don't pierce", I agree with him.  I'm not going to judge anyone's personal sexual/aesthetic attractions, though (such as in the case of minors) I reserve the right to judge the exercise of those attractions. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:42:00] - pierce: wait wait, your hypothetical situation negated your first claim that how she looks is a function of her age - travis

[2004-05-12 12:41:00] - pierce:  appropriate?!  i define everything to be approprate to me.  ~a

[2004-05-12 12:40:00] - a: hmmm. you win this argument... - vinnie

[2004-05-12 12:40:00] - Yeah, it's just hypothetical, but it's the same kind of hypothetical that you just created with Emma Watson. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:40:00] - travis: but the way she looks is a function of her age, so it's disingenuous to make claims about "looking the same but being in the appropriate age range".  In other words, would it be appropriate to find a 25-year-old who looked 8 attractive?  Of course not. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:39:00] - i deny them.  i beleive they don't exist.  ~a

[2004-05-12 12:39:00] - a: i don't pierce or I like them either. just stating that they exist - vinnie

[2004-05-12 12:38:00] - haha, my own biases coming into play here: maybe it is weird to other people that I find them hot? - vinnie

[2004-05-12 12:38:00] - i don't like your silly social taboos.  they're ill defined, ambiguous, hypocrytical, among other things.  ~a

[2004-05-12 12:38:00] - i'm just thinking of a case like emma watson, who i'm not afraid to admit i think is attractive even if she is only 14, and the only apparent reason i can't say i find her attractive is her age even though i'd feel the same way if she looked exactly the same but was in the appropiate age range - travis

[2004-05-12 12:37:00] - but it's sufficiently unweird to be insignificant. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:37:00] - vinnie: yeah, but that's more of a magnitude argument.  I'm not saying it's very weird for you to say mrs. bristow is attractive, just that there's a nonzero (but miniscule) amount of weirdness in it. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:36:00] - travis: yes, because the age range from 20 to late thirties is when you're still "youthful" looking, so if it's acceptable to find any subset of that range attractive, it's acceptable to find anyone within that age range attractive. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:34:00] - pierce: that's getting farther into it. dating is a lot different from just saying you find someone attractive - vinnie

[2004-05-12 12:33:00] - pierce: what if a minor finds jennifer garner attractive? is there still as much leeway? - travis

[2004-05-12 12:33:00] - vinnie: I wouldn't say "not at all weird"... think about all the jokes that have been made about ashton kutcher. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:33:00] - haha, the gap goes one way, not the other. it's not at all weird for me to call demi moore or sydney bristow's mom hot - vinnie

[2004-05-12 12:32:00] - travis: as I said, there's more leeway on the older-than-you side, especially when ten years younger crosses the "legal adult"/puberty threshhold. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:31:00] - strictly a taboo thing. same goes for people like your relatives. you can mention that you think someone looks nice, just like it would be ok for some adult to call britney cute, but when you say someone's attractive there's a sexuality attached - vinnie

[2004-05-12 12:31:00] - hence, being able to say you find harrison ford or sean connery attractive. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:30:00] - pierce: yeah, but what about finding people like jennifer garner or halle berry attractive? that's like a 10 year gap between them and us (i know the appropiate gap changes as you age, but how do you define that size?) - travis

[2004-05-12 12:30:00] - But it's not as taboo, because older people are at least legal adults. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:30:00] - wait, I should clarify.  It's not inappropriate to find them attractive, but it's inappropriate to mention how attractive you find them. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:29:00] - pierce: sounds like you just created a circular definition - travis

[2004-05-12 12:29:00] - and yes, it is technically inappropriate to find people significantly older than you attractive; it's usually interpreted as some other (less admirable) attachment, such as gold-digging (think Anna Nicole Smith). - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:27:00] - And therefore, inappropriate to mention.  Which is almost the definition of taboo. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:27:00] - travis: yeah, it's just taboo.  Again, not necessarily wrong, just taboo. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:21:00] - why do you guys find it so inappropiate to mention you find people younger than you attractive anyway?  is it just mass social taboo?  what about how you're not supposed to find relatives attractive even if people unrelated to you think they are - travis

[2004-05-12 12:19:00] - so using age relativism, is it inappropiate to find people older than you attractive? - travis

[2004-05-12 12:08:00] - age relativism = when you're 16, you find 16-year-olds attractive and 70-year-olds unattractive.  When you're 70, it's reversed.  At least, that's how it's supposed to work. - pierce

[2004-05-12 12:05:00] - like i think it's appropriate up until 106.  but not older.  ~a

[2004-05-12 12:04:00] - vinnie:  who decides these lines?  ~a

prev <-> next