(June 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm)Annik Wrote: I want you to tell me exactly how many people you need to sleep with to become promiscuous. 1? 4? 10? 56? How many?

It's not a matter of notches on a bedpost, it's more to do with attitude to bedpost notches.

Then the word promiscuous is arbitrary.

I'll ask this question again, who are we to limit the free will of others provided they do not harm themselves or others?

(June 6, 2012 at 8:19 pm)Hovik Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm)StatCrux Wrote: You don't understand the term promiscuous? Or do you wish to redefine it?

---

No, setting up societal norms, do you want to challenge them regarding age of consent?

Yes, you are setting up a straw man. By injecting an arbitrary term like 'promiscuous' into the phrasing, you're setting up a false precedent for the argument. You're essentially rewording the argument so that it will illicit an emotional reaction to discredit the argument itself.

Societal norms are passively determined by society. Societal norms don't reflect how things should be done based on rational thinking.

So yes, I do challenge the "societal norms" regarding age of consent because they're based on a flawed understanding of the psychology of adolescents and sexual development.

Is an emotional response invalid when speaking about sexual consent regarding teenage persons?

(June 6, 2012 at 8:28 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:19 pm)Hovik Wrote: Yes, you are setting up a straw man. By injecting an arbitrary term like 'promiscuous' into the phrasing, you're setting up a false precedent for the argument. You're essentially rewording the argument so that it will illicit an emotional reaction to discredit the argument itself.

Societal norms are passively determined by society. Societal norms don't reflect how things should be done based on rational thinking.

So yes, I do challenge the "societal norms" regarding age of consent because they're based on a flawed understanding of the psychology of adolescents and sexual development.

Is an emotional response invalid when speaking about sexual consent regarding teenage persons?

Yes. Yes it is invalid, actually. You can't tell somebody they can't do what they want because it upsets you when there's no good reason otherwise why they shouldn't.

(June 6, 2012 at 11:30 am)Gendarme Wrote: It's really easy to disprove any religion at all, but what I'm having a hard time doing, is explaining the harms of it, or just the harm of believing in a god. I'm not talking about brainwashed idiots, I'm talking talking about normal religious people who teach their children to believe in whatever they do; what is the harm?

What is the harm? We were at a mall in Seattle when we noticed a couple that was obviously Muslim. The husband was wearing shorts and a T shirt. The wife was wearing a head to toe covering (including a veil). Only her eyes were visible. As they ate, the woman had to repeatedly lift the veil to shovel food into her mouth. She also had to lift the veil to drink. It was pathetic to watch. And infuriating. The man gets to wear whatever he wants, but heaven forbid the woman's arms be exposed! This is what religion offers. Ignorance and oppression.

(June 6, 2012 at 8:31 pm)Hovik Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:28 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Is an emotional response invalid when speaking about sexual consent regarding teenage persons?

Yes. Yes it is invalid, actually. You can't tell somebody they can't do what they want because it upsets you when there's no good reason otherwise why they shouldn't.

So emotional response reaction should be disregarded when we speak about consensual sex in 16 year old persons? The only issue is consent?

(June 6, 2012 at 8:36 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:31 pm)Hovik Wrote: Yes. Yes it is invalid, actually. You can't tell somebody they can't do what they want because it upsets you when there's no good reason otherwise why they shouldn't.

So emotional response reaction should be disregarded when we speak about consensual sex in 16 year old persons? The only issue is consent?

Asking the question twice doesn't change the answer.

(June 6, 2012 at 8:36 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:31 pm)Hovik Wrote: Yes. Yes it is invalid, actually. You can't tell somebody they can't do what they want because it upsets you when there's no good reason otherwise why they shouldn't.

So emotional response reaction should be disregarded when we speak about consensual sex in 16 year old persons? The only issue is consent?

I believe you're misunderstanding me. My personal feelings about the topic of consensual sex between 16-year-olds is irrelevant to the discussion, just as your personal feelings are irrelevant.

What I'm disputing is your inclusion of emotionally-charged and arbitrary terms like 'promiscuous' and creating straw man arguments that are meant to evoke an irrelevant emotional reaction instead of careful, rational discourse.

(June 6, 2012 at 8:37 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:36 pm)StatCrux Wrote: So emotional response reaction should be disregarded when we speak about consensual sex in 16 year old persons? The only issue is consent?

Asking the question twice doesn't change the answer.

So state clearly, consent overrides age?

(June 6, 2012 at 8:42 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:37 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Asking the question twice doesn't change the answer.

So state clearly, consent overrides age?

Consent and age are intrinsically linked.

The question becomes, then: are 16-year-olds capable of giving consent based on their psychological development? Yes, and there's nothing to suggest otherwise.

(June 6, 2012 at 8:42 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 8:37 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Asking the question twice doesn't change the answer.

So state clearly, consent overrides age?

As long as none of the parties will be hurt (Read: mentally and/or physically), they should be allowed. A 10 year-old in a sexual situation will have much different results than a 16 year-old.