It's a fun idea to play with, though. Let's say a person could be or was magically more mature at Xy+1d and a specific subject was going to reach their personal age of consent on 18y+1d day...but they married at the day their laws allowed, 18y. Ultimately, our age of consent laws boil down to culture and expedience. We're not comfortable as a nation setting it as low (or as high!) as that number may in fact be..either in general or on a case by case basis..and we don't feel like (or feel we have a responsibility to or duty of) clogging our system up with endless appeals to that effect.

The age of consent is what we say it is because it's what we say it is, the we in this case being the determining factor or truth-maker and regardless of what an individual or even a group of people in our society feel, believe, want, or in fact are.

What is a Woman?

Speaking about Neil deGrasse Tyson, he gave a very good explanation to the right wingers about the trans issue. When pressed about sports competing he said that today's competing classifications should be changed, emphasizing that there are already classifications in many sports in which you can't compete with other males just because you are a male (wrestling, boxing, weightlifting...).

We worry about the few trans people in a profession filled to bursting with actual freaks of genetics who stomp all over trans face in competitions all day every day. We worry about girls sports..which we don't think is worth funding. We worry about bathrooms that we don't even keep clean.

None of it is actually about trans people or sports or bathrooms at all. They're just a useful vehicle and practice dummy for gutting civil rights.

(January 25, 2025 at 10:15 am)h311inac311 Wrote: What is a Woman?

Something that will never give you the time of day....... Troll

(January 25, 2025 at 1:10 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We They worry about girls sports..which we they don't think is worth funding.  We worry about bathrooms that we don't even keep clean.

Forgive the edits, but dingdingdingding

(January 25, 2025 at 10:15 am)h311inac311 Wrote: What is a Woman?

Boru

(January 24, 2025 at 3:32 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(January 24, 2025 at 1:40 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: Well, morality can be objective.
If harm is detectable by anyone, then it is objective. For example, it is pretty much generally accepted that we don't want to be punched in the face because it hurts, we don't want our stuff stolen from us. <====That is pretty universal and so, it goes into the objective box.

Other decisions, such as deciding that a 16 y old (and less) can't get married since he has not reach the age of consent and so it is immoral, that goes into the subjective box.

Whilst I'd agree that it is immoral to cause unnecessary harm, this is a subjective claim, it is not objectively true that causing unnecessary harm is immoral, obviously. That there is a broad consensus on any moral assertion, or even were it a universal consensus, doesn't make that moral assertion objectively true. 

Ultimately all moral assertions rest on subjective claims, though once we agree on a moral assertion, we can of course make objectively true claims about how to best avoid those immoral acts, or achieve moral ones. For example if we agree it is immoral to cause (I would add the word unnecessary here) harm, then it is objectively true that punching someone for no good reason is immoral, but the moral assertion that causing (unnecessary) harm is immoral is still a subjective one.

It depends on how you define morality.
If you define morality as = causing harm is immoral.

Then, if person X punches person Y, person X is causing harm. He did an immoral act.
Humans are just machines and you can do damage to a machine.
I could punch a LCD monitor and the glass would crack. We can all agree that I broke the machine. It is an objective fact that I broke the machine.
Why would I call the situation between person X and Y subjective? Is it because person Y is a human?

The only thing that comes into play is that humans "want" or "don't want". Person Y does not want to be punched. The LCD monitor has no "want".

Some people might want to define morality as, it is wrong to punch another person in the face except if they have another skin color, they are a woman (physically), they come from another tribe, they are gay, they are transgender, they have another religion.
This is a case of a human wanting to harm another human because they hate them.

(January 25, 2025 at 10:15 am)h311inac311 Wrote: What is a Woman?

It depends on who you ask.
Christians/conservatives define this based on the cell. If the 23 rd chromosome looks like XX, then it is a woman or woman’s cell. If it is XY, then it is man or man’s cell.
They tell me this is what their biology class has thought them. I was thought the same thing in biology class.

It turns out that reality is more complicated. The biology class is talking about the most likely outcome of the body shape and genitalia.
There are some rare cases where a woman has a XY and XXY.
There are some rare cases where a person has both sex organs.

Then, there is the social construct of what a woman is suppose to be. They tend to have longer hair than males. They are more likely to want to wear jewelry, paint their nails, wear makeup, talk on the telephone. As kids, they prefer to play with dolls instead of war games. They tend to wear a skirt.
At one point in time, women stayed at home and took care of the house and baby, they did the shopping. That changed. They are all expected to go to work.
Skirts have become are, specially in the workspace.
Women did not go to war. That changed for western societies.

In short, there isn’t a clearcut definition. The word “woman” is a relative term just like the word, small, big, tiny, huge, short, long, young, old, colorful, smelly, disgusting, delicious.

(January 26, 2025 at 11:10 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote: It depends on how you define morality.
If you define morality as = causing harm is immoral.

And there's your subjectivity.