Athiesm and sex

[Nutrition]

Oh wow natural selection wins again, I didn't read the poll question and hit "Very nice" because I thought it was just general sex, not incest.

Yeah, its disgusting, almost as disgusting as religion, but not quite.

[Messenger]

My rule is this - anyone under 18 is too young and anyone who is dead is too old.  I don't subscribe to ageist ideas.  However, the people who click with me generally fall into a group within fifteen years of my own age.

this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

[Kyuuketsuki]

My rule is this - anyone under 18 is too young and anyone who is dead is too old.  I don't subscribe to ageist ideas.  However, the people who click with me generally fall into a group within fifteen years of my own age.

this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

No it's not especially as I don't think Kylyssa meant it literally as "a rule", in essence all she is saying is she has a set of personal standards ... you are just stupid enough to interpret it literally.

Do you actually know anything about adults?

Kyu

[Kylyssa]

My rule is this - anyone under 18 is too young and anyone who is dead is too old.  I don't subscribe to ageist ideas.  However, the people who click with me generally fall into a group within fifteen years of my own age.

this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

This is my personal rule of thumb which applies to me and me only.  I'll only date persons who have reached the age of their majority to avoid any legal entanglements.  Persons under 18 may have parents or guardians who have a say in their lives as well and I wouldn't want to mess up the home life of a minor just to get some nooky.  I'm going to be 39 this month and many parents or guardians would probably take exception to me dating their ward.

I'll only date or fool around with people who are reasonably emotionally mature.  If a male or female who was 17 years and 360 days old was unable to wait a week before getting it on, he or she wouldn't meet the minimal degree of maturity I require.  If you are wondering if I've faced that exact situation before - no, all perspective suitors both male and female have either been substantially under 18 or over 18 if only just over since I've been out of my teens myself.

[Will]

this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

Just so you know, 18 isn't an arbitrary number. There's a reason that the law separates a 17 year old from an 18 year old, and the roots are in several things.

First, there's psychology. Emotional development takes a certain amount of time in humans. Without these steps, decision-making is notably impaired. Generally when one is 18 enough emotional development has taken place that an individual's decision making is about at the level of an average adult. If you'd like, please read the link below for a bit more information:
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/erickson.shtml

Second, there's physical ability. While adolescence doesn't really end until the late 20s for most people, the age where people generally reach a similar physical condition to an average adult is around 18.

Third, there's experience. Generally, an 18 year old is a high school senior or a college freshman age, when more adolescent innocence regarding truths of the world are being replaced by real life experience. Call it wisdom if you like.

When each of these three things come together, the line between child and adult can be drawn with reasonable correctness.

And btw, I don't agree with courts trying children as adults, mainly for the above reasons. I find it's more a knee-jerk, emotional reaction that's rooted in vengeance instead of justice to do that to someone who's still developing into an adult.

[thirteen31]

I agree with you, Willravel, but I wanted to respond to this paragraph.

And btw, I don't agree with courts trying children as adults, mainly for the above reasons. I find it's more a knee-jerk, emotional reaction that's rooted in vengeance instead of justice to do that to someone who's still developing into an adult.

However, I don't believe it's just an emotional reaction that's rooted in vengeance instead of justice. The act of having a young offender tried as an adult in a Court of Law is the 'emotional loophole'. All of your points are good, but what determines whether a young offender is an 'adult' in the Court is decided more by the act itself rather than the number for age.

On the other hand, what happens to the young offender after they've been convicted as an adult is the real moral dilemma.

[Will]

However, I don't believe it's just an emotional reaction that's rooted in vengeance instead of justice. The act of having a young offender tried as an adult in a Court of Law is the 'emotional loophole'. All of your points are good, but what determines whether a young offender is an 'adult' in the Court is decided more by the act itself rather than the number for age.

Oh, but the reaction to the severity of the crime is what I was eluding to. Say a 13 year old murders his parents. Premeditated multiple murder is one of the worst crimes one can commit (at least in the US justice system), but even if the crime is very horrible, the child's age and emotional development are not changed by the crime. They are a natural constant. So it would stand to reason to factor the reality of his incomplete emotional and moral development when trying the child. Why cast this aside? An emotional response. Murder carries with it a stigma that overrides reason with a lot of people, especially when the murder is done out of hatred. So strong is the stigma that an individual (say a judge or a member of the jury) can be swayed to ignore the reality of a child's natural development in favor of considering only the severity of the crime. That's not an objective reaction, imho.  

On the other hand, what happens to the young offender after they've been convicted as an adult is the real moral dilemma.

On this we certainly agree.

[Sophus]

this rule is logically false
Maybe we should make a separate thread on that

Do you consider a person who is 17 years and 360 days as young but after one week as old????
Are you familiar with the term "Treated as an adult"?

False? How can someone's personal rule for their life be false? You can agree with it or disagree with it but nothing more.

P.S. Interesting way to spell disgusting, by the way. I didn't notice that before.

[Dragon_Of_Heavon]

Dear Messenger

Alright so you would like to know (if i am not mistaken) why having incestuous relations is wrong, bad, or taboo Right? Alright first off let me go back to one of the first retorts you made. Disgust at incest is not a religious value, for that mater neither is kindness or loving ones neighbor. The ten commandments to use an example that i am sure is close to your heart was hardly revolutionary. Just because someone does or thinks something that is in agreement with the bible does not make it a christian value or a religious value. If you want incest by the by snuggle up to your bible for there is plenty in there. Incest is although out the bible. Adam and Eve for example were alone then had kids and notice none of them were female Cain, Able, Seth. None of these were women so are we to guess that other were created or are we to jump to the logical conclusion that they had sex with eve?

To come at this from a purely logical stand point one should not have incestuous relations as it destroys the gene pool for the species. From a psychological point of view a person should not have incestuous relations as it damages boundaries and authority of the parents to correctly govern the child. From a societal view it is destructive and debase to the welfare of the people. From the standpoint of an atheist it is destructive as it leads to a distortion of human genetics and for all the other reasons put forth thus far. Only from the religious stand point has it ever been a OK. As I am an Atheist post Catholic apostate heretic who is about to graduate from a catholic college and will soon be free of such points of view, I will gladly abstain from any thing religious including incestuous relations. Thank you for your time.

[Messenger]

Just so you know, 18 isn't an arbitrary number. There's a reason that the law separates a 17 year old from an 18 year old, and the roots are in several things.

First, there's psychology. Emotional development takes a certain amount of time in humans. Without these steps, decision-making is notably impaired. Generally when one is 18 enough emotional development has taken place that an individual's decision making is about at the level of an average adult. If you'd like, please read the link below for a bit more information:
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/erickson.shtml

Second, there's physical ability. While adolescence doesn't really end until the late 20s for most people, the age where people generally reach a similar physical condition to an average adult is around 18.

Third, there's experience. Generally, an 18 year old is a high school senior or a college freshman age, when more adolescent innocence regarding truths of the world are being replaced by real life experience. Call it wisdom if you like.

Those things follow something called Normal distribution

So if we assume that 18 is the average age (which is not true and it varies for each subject)
Then you have 1/2 of the people still children above 18 and almost another half became adults before 18 (at 15,16,17, etc.)

for example if we look into legal marriage age we see that it varies from 14 to 20
but amazingly California does not have a fixed age (They require Judge and parents approval ) ---> I think this is the best solution

For   Age_of_consent it varies from 12

For The age of criminal responsibility it is obviously different than marriage and ability to make sex, they developed different legal system for them

So the system should tolerate exceptions (which are very large)

[Messenger]

If you want incest by the by snuggle up to your bible for there is plenty in there. Incest is although out the bible. Adam and Eve for example were alone then had kids and notice none of them were female Cain, Able, Seth. None of these were women so are we to guess that other were created or are we to jump to the logical conclusion that they had sex with eve?

Let's postpone discussion about the bible now, but Adam and Eve had girls and each son had a twin sister, each son marry his other sister

To come at this from a purely logical stand point one should not have incestuous relations as it destroys the gene pool for the species. From a psychological point of view a person should not have incestuous relations as it damages boundaries and authority of the parents to correctly govern the child.

Use Condoms  
We can invite girl friends and boy friends from time to time as well

[Asmodean]

If all the family like each other, we can make group sex all together, Mother, Father, sisters, brothers

It may be that I don't like my family, but I find the idea... Unappealing.  

[Messenger]

I'll only date or fool around with people who are reasonably emotionally mature.  If a male or female who was 17 years and 360 days old was unable to wait a week before getting it on, he or she wouldn't meet the minimal degree of maturity I require.  If you are wondering if I've faced that exact situation before - no, all perspective suitors both male and female have either been substantially under 18 or over 18 if only just over since I've been out of my teens myself.

Regarding sex, it is a bit different
Because people will start to want and feel sex at very young age 10-14
So any legal system that forbids it, will not work
They will do it, regardless of any legal, religious boundaries see many statistics
Teen Sex and pregnancy
25% of female, and 30% of males had sex before 15



The best solution is what California applied, there should be no minimal age for marriage
A Judge can decide if the couple is old and mature enough to be married or not + Parent approval

[curiosityandthecat]

Regarding sex, it is a bit different
Because people will start to want and feel sex at very young age 10-14
So any legal system that forbids it, will not work

The legal system doesn't forbid minors from having sex simply because they chose arbitrary ages. The legal system has chosen those ages because children 10-14 are not (regardless of how much they may claim the opposite) mentally and emotionally mature enough, on the whole, to make responsible decisions about sex and the aftermath that may accompany it. When hormones are cascading over an adolescent's system during puberty, rational decision making and forethought are suppressed. The legal system is working in loco parentis by imposing rules upon those that may harm themselves otherwise. Granted, as was said, many ignore it. This is why communication and education are so important.

[VanReal]

If you are an atheist you don't have well defined rule about sex; what to do and what not to do

That makes no sense, what does being an atheist have to do with having rules against or for certain sexual behavior?