Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Elixir]

If you look at the difference between a 22 year old and a 12 year old... which is a 16 year old closer to?

The 16 year old would be closest to a 16 year old

Poor Chuckie K is probably rolling over in his grave right now.

 

[Playball40]

The brain is physiological.

Yes it is. But thoughts and beliefs aren't. If they were, then the schizophrenic down the road who believes himself to be Napoleon would be in charge of France.

A thought or a belief has to have a physical representation, even if a convoluted set of things, in the real world of the brain. Otherwise, it would not exist. Even invalid thoughts have physicality, though it would be a large confluence of neurons and memory and we do not know what else (yet). A specific invalid thought or belief does not necessitate that the product of the thought or belief manifests in the real world, only that there is some manifestation within the vast physiology of the brain. Otherwise, it would supernaturally be in an abstract soul which does not exist.

Moreover, and more to the point of the topic of discussion, if we look at the difference between, say, late adolescence (16-18) and a more developed adult brain chemistry, let's say, 25 yrs old, we do observe a difference in thought patterns: adolescents engage in riskier behavior because hormones influence brain chemistry and especially because the dopamine-rich reward system of the limbic system develops faster than the prefrontal cortex responsible for impulse control and judgment. Impulsive thoughts can be a thing that exists more frequently in a younger brain because they are spurred on by chemistry but also in addition when the physiology of the prefrontal cortex catches up, a filter can also be put in place for those thoughts.

If you look at the difference between a 22 year old and a 12 year old... which is a 16 year old closer to?

Uh, that depends on the 16 year old. My son is 22 and looks like a 12 year old.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The brain is physiological.

Yes it is. But thoughts and beliefs aren't. If they were, then the schizophrenic down the road who believes himself to be Napoleon would be in charge of France.

Napoleon was exiled from France.... again... in 1815, so no, he wouldn't be in charge of France. Your parallel would work better with if someone down the road thought they were Macron. But no one does that.

Are you attempting to be humorous here, or do you genuinely believe you're scoring points in an argument with this?

bilby isn't the only one that can pedantically nitpick facts!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pretty much just Grief.
...
So no. I don't see hope. I don't see a path forward. I don't see a single thing that can be done.
...
That, let's take a middle path (which you didn't actually invent by the way) gets filed under camel nose by gun-rights activists. It won't go anywhere.

I don't ascribe to your nihilistic approach. Just because other approaches haven't worked in the past doesn't mean we should give up on trying different variations in the future.

I suppose if you really feel like there's nothing that can be done, you could always immigrate to somewhere with laws that better suit your beliefs, rather then trying to adapt our laws, including adapting our constitution, which requires legislative effort and negotiation rather than just blatant violation.

Tell that to Trump and the Trumpanzies.

Are you Trump? Do you think Jimmy is a "Trumpanzee"?

Why do you think this is relevant, and why do you think it somehow prevents *us* from having a reasonable discussion among ourselves?

I've never quite understood why you struggle so hard to understand what other people say and what they mean when they say it.

I'm just worn out at this point. Conversations go in circles, and some of you seem to have completely lost the ability to reason and think on your own.

Well, she is a woman after all.

Someone says "A is a problem", and it gets met with "Well that guy over there who none of us has every directly interacted with said B so nanny-nanny-boo-boo pthbthtbthtbthtbt!"

Today, a problem at North High School in Evansville, Indiana... seven children shot to death.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The brain is physiological.

Yes it is. But thoughts and beliefs aren't. If they were, then the schizophrenic down the road who believes himself to be Napoleon would be in charge of France.

A thought or a belief has to have a physical representation, even if a convoluted set of things, in the real world of the brain. Otherwise, it would not exist. Even invalid thoughts have physicality, though it would be a large confluence of neurons and memory and we do not know what else (yet). A specific invalid thought or belief does not necessitate that the product of the thought or belief manifests in the real world, only that there is some manifestation within the vast physiology of the brain. Otherwise, it would supernaturally be in an abstract soul which does not exist.

Moreover, and more to the point of the topic of discussion, if we look at the difference between, say, late adolescence (16-18) and a more developed adult brain chemistry, let's say, 25 yrs old, we do observe a difference in thought patterns: adolescents engage in riskier behavior because hormones influence brain chemistry and especially because the dopamine-rich reward system of the limbic system develops faster than the prefrontal cortex responsible for impulse control and judgment. Impulsive thoughts can be a thing that exists more frequently in a younger brain because they are spurred on by chemistry but also in addition when the physiology of the prefrontal cortex catches up, a filter can also be put in place for those thoughts.

If you look at the difference between a 22 year old and a 12 year old... which is a 16 year old closer to?

It depends on the juveniles in question but looks are superficial. I was discussing brain physiology because you claimed the brain is not physiological. Then, next you claimed that thoughts and beliefs are not physiological, but thoughts and beliefs have a physiological basis. And that basis is different between juveniles, like for example late adolescence, and adults, like 25 year olds. This is because the brain is still developing physiologically. Because juveniles take more risk due to brain physiology differences and because they appreciate the consequences of their actions less, we treat them differently in law.

 

[Derec]

Today, a problem at North High School in Evansville, Indiana... seven children shot to death.

Link? I am not seeing anything.

 

[Arctish]

Tennessee professor awarded $500k after firing over Charlie Kirk comments

Kirk, the founder of the conservative Turning Point USA organization, was killed during an event at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. Following his death, Michael shared an article on his personal social media account titled "Charlie Kirk says gun deaths are ‘unfortunately’ worth it to keep 2nd Amendment,” which discussed controversial comments made by Kirk shortly after the Covenant School shooting.

There was no additional caption written by Michael alongside the shared post.

Two days later, U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, shared a screenshot of his post on her X account.

Blackburn’s caption stated: “What do you say, Austin Peay?”

Later that day, the Clarksville university released a statement saying that Michael had been fired for social media comments that were “insensitive, disrespectful and interpreted by many as propagating justification for unlawful death.”

He was also reinstated to his position.

 

[Derec]

It depends on the juveniles in question but looks are superficial. I was discussing brain physiology because you claimed the brain is not physiological.

Who is claiming that?

Then, next you claimed that thoughts and beliefs are not physiological, but thoughts and beliefs have a physiological basis. And that basis is different between juveniles, like for example late adolescence, and adults, like 25 year olds.

Brains continue to develop through young adulthood. That is another way in which minor teenagers are like young adults.
That does not support the thesis that an average 16 year old is closer to an average 12 year old in development than to an average 20 year old (I think that's better than 22 to keep the same Δt).
As to your "25 year" thing, do you support moving the age of legal adulthood to 25?

This is because the brain is still developing physiologically. Because juveniles take more risk due to brain physiology differences and because they appreciate the consequences of their actions less, we treat them differently in law.

They take on more risks, yes, but that also means that teenagers and young adults engage in criminal activity more than older adults.
I see good arguments for taking age into account for, say, a 16 year old committing a serious crime. I do not see any reason why that 16 year old should not be tried in criminal court (usually referred to as "tried as an adult") since juvenile/family courts are not competent to deal with such crimes by near adults. A crime like murder or aggravated assault or armed robbery deserves a significant penalty, and not just a few years in juvi.

 

[Derec]

Obviously, you have a right to murder someone else at a protest for being nervous about your power to murder them,

That may be Elixir's position, but you won't find many, if any, on here who agree with him on this.

but God forbid you defend yourself against an ectopic pregnancy...

Likewise with ectopic pregnancies: who on here is opposed to termination in that circumstance? Even most pro-lifers would support that.

 

[Derec]

What do you mean what do you mean? These sorts of guns have no place in civilized society.

Which guns do you think "have [a] place in a civilized society"?

Jayland Walker made bad choices that night.

He did more than make bad choices. Fleeing from police would have been a bad choice, but shooting at them from a moving vehicle escalated the situation to a whole another level.

The bigger issue is two fold. One, was it necessary to plug 46 or so bullet holes into him (the shooting was grossly excessive,

Even if you think the number of rounds was excessive, I do not see how that entitles his family to almost five million dollars. Walker caused all this with his decision to not only lead police on a chase, but to also fire at them.
Second, according to this article, there were eight officers shooting at Walker. The article says 60 wounds, but some of those were exit wounds, so that does not contradict your number 46. 46 bullets by eight officers is less than 7 bullets per officer.
And again, since Walker fired at officers, and then reportedly went for his "waist area", it is perfectly understandable why the officers were jumpy. What is not understandable is why Akron city council would give almost $5M of taxpayer moneys to his greedy family.

and was evidence for why allowing people in a high speed chase should be there to contain, not detain.

You don't think somebody fleeing from police should be detained? Especially when they already fired at police?

Secondly, OMG he might have a gun. The police groups supported of all of this pro-gun legislation in the state of Ohio... then dare to complain about how it isn't making them safe?

Most people have the right to own firearms. Nobody has the right to shoot at police while fleeing from them.

Regarding Akron officials that you are bad mouthing, they did an admirable of job of managing a volatile situation.

And wasted $5M of taxpayer moneys.

Allowing people to protest, however, closing off access to cars and reducing the capacity for protests to get ugly. And they also had a curfew in downtown as well. The damage from the anger of the Walker shooting was relatively low in part because the "idiot Akron politicians" allowed people to be heard but didn't provide an easy mechanism for hooligans to fuck things up.

My objection was not in them allowing people to peacefully protest. People in the US have that right, even if the cause is as idiotic as somebody getting shot at police after firing at them. My objection is in the ridiculous payout when the shooting was deemed justified.

What do you want from me? Or any of us really? It's legal. I have to live with it. You want me to fly out to these protests and ring a bell and yell "shame!"?

As I said, consistency. You commented on my reply to Elixir (post #2578) where he said that Rosenbaum was justified in attacking Ritt because the teen was openly armed at a protest, and that is "threatening". But if Ritt being armed is "threatening", then the same should apply to all the left-wingers who arm themselves with similar weaponry.

Also, while openly carrying may be legal in many states, occupying city blocks and placing barricades on public streets like people did in cities like Seattle and Atlanta with city officials doing (next to) nothing is not legal anywhere. And while the occupier who murdered the 8 year old in Atlanta was prosecuted and convicted, other occupiers were not, and the Wendy's arsonists (also not legal) did not receive any prison time. In Seattle, the CHAZ occupiers likewise were not prosecuted, not even their leader Warlord Raz Simone.

Okay, so it isn't that common. It should be less than that, but it isn't that common.

What do you mean, "it's not common"? It most certainly was in 2020.

 

[Emily Lake]

The brain is physiological.

Yes it is. But thoughts and beliefs aren't. If they were, then the schizophrenic down the road who believes himself to be Napoleon would be in charge of France.

A thought or a belief has to have a physical representation, even if a convoluted set of things, in the real world of the brain. Otherwise, it would not exist. Even invalid thoughts have physicality, though it would be a large confluence of neurons and memory and we do not know what else (yet). A specific invalid thought or belief does not necessitate that the product of the thought or belief manifests in the real world, only that there is some manifestation within the vast physiology of the brain. Otherwise, it would supernaturally be in an abstract soul which does not exist.

Moreover, and more to the point of the topic of discussion, if we look at the difference between, say, late adolescence (16-18) and a more developed adult brain chemistry, let's say, 25 yrs old, we do observe a difference in thought patterns: adolescents engage in riskier behavior because hormones influence brain chemistry and especially because the dopamine-rich reward system of the limbic system develops faster than the prefrontal cortex responsible for impulse control and judgment. Impulsive thoughts can be a thing that exists more frequently in a younger brain because they are spurred on by chemistry but also in addition when the physiology of the prefrontal cortex catches up, a filter can also be put in place for those thoughts.

If you look at the difference between a 22 year old and a 12 year old... which is a 16 year old closer to?

The 16 year old would be closest to a 16 year old.

What they are actually closer to is not remotely relevant.

Don't tell me this, tell Toni and Don2

 

[Emily Lake]

The brain is physiological.

Yes it is. But thoughts and beliefs aren't. If they were, then the schizophrenic down the road who believes himself to be Napoleon would be in charge of France.

Napoleon was exiled from France.... again... in 1815, so no, he wouldn't be in charge of France. Your parallel would work better with if someone down the road thought they were Macron. But no one does that.

Are you attempting to be humorous here, or do you genuinely believe you're scoring points in an argument with this?

bilby isn't the only one that can pedantically nitpick facts!

 

[Emily Lake]

Pretty much just Grief.
...
So no. I don't see hope. I don't see a path forward. I don't see a single thing that can be done.
...
That, let's take a middle path (which you didn't actually invent by the way) gets filed under camel nose by gun-rights activists. It won't go anywhere.

I don't ascribe to your nihilistic approach. Just because other approaches haven't worked in the past doesn't mean we should give up on trying different variations in the future.

I suppose if you really feel like there's nothing that can be done, you could always immigrate to somewhere with laws that better suit your beliefs, rather then trying to adapt our laws, including adapting our constitution, which requires legislative effort and negotiation rather than just blatant violation.

Tell that to Trump and the Trumpanzies.

Are you Trump? Do you think Jimmy is a "Trumpanzee"?

Why do you think this is relevant, and why do you think it somehow prevents *us* from having a reasonable discussion among ourselves?

I've never quite understood why you struggle so hard to understand what other people say and what they mean when they say it.

Realistically... many reason. Foremost being that I struggle with ambiguity, and IRL I really quite heavily on facial expression and inflection to infer intended meaning. That's largely lacking in purely written form. There are lots and lots of cases where people here write something that's supposed to be sarcastic or satirical, but there's no actual indicator of that. And these days, I'm pretty sure the world has lost it's collective mind, and stuff that I think ought to be sarcastic is actually for realsies serious.

Added to that is that often people make a leap from topic A to topic C, and they expect that somehow I'm just going to know that there's a B in there connecting them. Like with Toni's comment above. I'm talking to you about your seeming "nothing can be done, I give up" view... and Toni's response is "tell that to Trump". I honestly have no idea what the hell that has to do with any part of your and my interaction. It's irrelevant and so far as I can tell completely disconnected.

I'm a very literal person. I'm inclined to say what I mean as clearly and directly as I can, with as little ambiguity and uncertainty as I can manage. I don't always succeed in being crystal clear... but I *never* have any intentionally hidden subtext. And while I'm sure I sometimes fail, I think that my sarcasm is usually pretty clearly sarcasm.

I'm just worn out at this point. Conversations go in circles, and some of you seem to have completely lost the ability to reason and think on your own.

Well, she is a woman after all.

Someone says "A is a problem", and it gets met with "Well that guy over there who none of us has every directly interacted with said B so nanny-nanny-boo-boo pthbthtbthtbthtbt!"

Today, a problem at North High School in Evansville, Indiana... seven children shot to death.

Do you have a link? I can't seem to google-fu this.

Also, what do you think is a reasonable approach to addressing whatever the underlying cause was? What do you think would have a plausible chance of gaining approval from the public in general? Does it require the excision of the entire 2nd am, or can it be done as an adjustment to reasonable regulations?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Tennessee professor awarded $500k after firing over Charlie Kirk comments

Kirk, the founder of the conservative Turning Point USA organization, was killed during an event at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. Following his death, Michael shared an article on his personal social media account titled "Charlie Kirk says gun deaths are ‘unfortunately’ worth it to keep 2nd Amendment,” which discussed controversial comments made by Kirk shortly after the Covenant School shooting.

There was no additional caption written by Michael alongside the shared post.

Two days later, U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, shared a screenshot of his post on her X account.

Blackburn’s caption stated: “What do you say, Austin Peay?”

Later that day, the Clarksville university released a statement saying that Michael had been fired for social media comments that were “insensitive, disrespectful and interpreted by many as propagating justification for unlawful death.”

He was also reinstated to his position.

A win for free speech.

 

[Toni]

Nobody is underestimating puberty. But by your puberty argument, suddenly 9 year old girls undergoing puberty are more similar to a 16 year old than a 6 year old cognitively and developmentally. I guess that means 11 year olds are ready to become mothers? Mary Kay Letourneau ( and Donald J Trump) did nothing wrong by having sex with very young kids? I’m certain that is not what you mean.

Is it possible to talk about any social topic without it having to be about trump? Are you capable of that? I'm really tired of this bullshit. Seriously, why is there this compulsion to make every single thing about trump, to a point where basic common sense gets tossed out a window?

You fucking know that's not what I'm saying. So why the holy fuck do you even insinuate it, other than to try to imply that I think it? Or to try to divert attention away from the core topic? It's a smokescreen and a derail, and it's a very *intentionally* insulting one at that. So please Toni, please knock it off. You're smarter than this, and you know that I am too. What do you get out of school-yard taunts and sophomoric arguments from so?

The absolute fact is that a 16 year old can be physically and sexually as mature as a 20 year old ( or conversely, only about as sexually and physically mature as a 12 year old) but that does not mean that cognitively or emotionally they are functioning at the level of a 20 year old. Or even close.

Nobody said they were functioning at a 20 year old level. YOU however, made the assertion that a 16 year old functions more like a 12 year, and that's absolute and utter bullshit - and you know it.

Yes, I am still shocked and incredulous that you seem to believe that a 16 year old reasons more like a 22 year old than like a 12 year old.

No, I don’t believe that I wrote that a 16 year old functions more like a 12 year old.

You didn’t even correctly read the part of my post you quoted.

Toni, that's literally your quote - I changed nothing at all about it.

Are you seriously quibbling that I used the term "functions" with the clear context of cognitive function, where you used the term "reason"?

At the end of the day, it makes not one whit of difference. A 16 year old's cognitive abilities, and their ability to employ extrapolative reasoning, and their executive function is far more like that of a 22 year old than it is like that of a 12 year old.

Function and reason are not the same words and have different meanings. It's not a quibble.

 

[Toni]

The brain is physiological.

Yes it is. But thoughts and beliefs aren't. If they were, then the schizophrenic down the road who believes himself to be Napoleon would be in charge of France.

A thought or a belief has to have a physical representation, even if a convoluted set of things, in the real world of the brain. Otherwise, it would not exist. Even invalid thoughts have physicality, though it would be a large confluence of neurons and memory and we do not know what else (yet). A specific invalid thought or belief does not necessitate that the product of the thought or belief manifests in the real world, only that there is some manifestation within the vast physiology of the brain. Otherwise, it would supernaturally be in an abstract soul which does not exist.

Moreover, and more to the point of the topic of discussion, if we look at the difference between, say, late adolescence (16-18) and a more developed adult brain chemistry, let's say, 25 yrs old, we do observe a difference in thought patterns: adolescents engage in riskier behavior because hormones influence brain chemistry and especially because the dopamine-rich reward system of the limbic system develops faster than the prefrontal cortex responsible for impulse control and judgment. Impulsive thoughts can be a thing that exists more frequently in a younger brain because they are spurred on by chemistry but also in addition when the physiology of the prefrontal cortex catches up, a filter can also be put in place for those thoughts.

If you look at the difference between a 22 year old and a 12 year old... which is a 16 year old closer to?

The 16 year old would be closest to a 16 year old.

What they are actually closer to is not remotely relevant.

Don't tell me this, tell Toni and Don2

Why? I believe a 16 year old should be treated like a 16 year old, not a 20 year old or a 12 year old.

 

[Toni]

Obviously, you have a right to murder someone else at a protest for being nervous about your power to murder them,

That may be Elixir's position, but you won't find many, if any, on here who agree with him on this.

but God forbid you defend yourself against an ectopic pregnancy...

Likewise with ectopic pregnancies: who on here is opposed to termination in that circumstance? Even most pro-lifers would support that.

Unfortunately, there are those, some of whom are legislators and public speakers and 'influencers' who make exactly those arguments: A termination is not required for an ectopic pregnancy and all protesters are asking to be shot and should be summarily executed if whatever law enforcement or 'law enforcement' officer believes they might be ' in danger.' If you look around you'll find at least one poster here who thinks that Renee Good was either an agitator who should have been home baking cookies or someone who was pushed into being present by her lesbian wife and should have been home baking cookies like all non-deranged white women. In general, white women who step out of their homes for any reason other than to serve their family's need for a good home cooked meal are mentally ill according to one poster here.

 

[TSwizzle]

If you look around you'll find at least one poster here who thinks that Renee Good was either an agitator who should have been home baking cookies or someone who was pushed into being present by her lesbian wife and should have been home baking cookies like all non-deranged white women. In general, white women who step out of their homes for any reason other than to serve their family's need for a good home cooked meal are mentally ill according to one poster here.

Interesting. Who is this mysterious poster you speak of? It is possible it is one of the many posters I have on ignore and I have not seen it. Could you provide a link to this mysterious poster that said such things.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes. Under 18, by law. Under 30 or so if one is thinking of emotional development.

PHYSIOLOGICALLY IMMATURE

Are you with a straight face asserting that a 17 year old human is NOT physically mature?

17 year old humans are not physically mature.

The brain is physiological.

Yes it is. But thoughts and beliefs aren't. If they were, then the schizophrenic down the road who believes himself to be Napoleon would be in charge of France.

A thought or a belief has to have a physical representation, even if a convoluted set of things, in the real world of the brain. Otherwise, it would not exist. Even invalid thoughts have physicality, though it would be a large confluence of neurons and memory and we do not know what else (yet). A specific invalid thought or belief does not necessitate that the product of the thought or belief manifests in the real world, only that there is some manifestation within the vast physiology of the brain. Otherwise, it would supernaturally be in an abstract soul which does not exist.

Moreover, and more to the point of the topic of discussion, if we look at the difference between, say, late adolescence (16-18) and a more developed adult brain chemistry, let's say, 25 yrs old, we do observe a difference in thought patterns: adolescents engage in riskier behavior because hormones influence brain chemistry and especially because the dopamine-rich reward system of the limbic system develops faster than the prefrontal cortex responsible for impulse control and judgment. Impulsive thoughts can be a thing that exists more frequently in a younger brain because they are spurred on by chemistry but also in addition when the physiology of the prefrontal cortex catches up, a filter can also be put in place for those thoughts.

If you look at the difference between a 22 year old and a 12 year old... which is a 16 year old closer to?

The 16 year old would be closest to a 16 year old.

What they are actually closer to is not remotely relevant.

Don't tell me this, tell Toni and Don2

Wtf

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. Under 18, by law. Under 30 or so if one is thinking of emotional development.

PHYSIOLOGICALLY IMMATURE

Are you with a straight face asserting that a 17 year old human is NOT physically mature?

Their outward appearance might not change much after 17 but their brain is still developing, which in turn is reflected in their behavior. Current medical research indicates those changes are pretty much complete at 25 years of age but might take a bit longer in some individuals.

Yes, I'm aware. Thus the term "physiologically".

Brain isn’t physiologically?

Sure sure, having a brain injury is totally going to make your bones shrink in size and change your hair color, right?

Honestly, do you not understand the distinction between somatic and psychological? Your house has a foundation and a physical structure. It also has paint and furniture. All of those are "physical" things sure, but the structural components of the house is what makes it a house, the decor and design gives it personality.

Toni and Arctish are also making a bit of a heap fallacy here. Cognitive development is tied to physical development, and it's true that a 17 year old isn't completely cognitively cooked. But a normal 17 year old is far closer to a 22 year old in terms of cognitive capability, complex thought, executive function, and extrapolative ability than a 12 year old. Cognitive development is a continuum, but it's not a uniform continuum... which is the pretense embedded in Toni's argument. There are developmental stages in humans that are slow processes of building information and compiling knowledge, but there are also stages that include massive leaps in functionality. This isn't mysterious or unknown, and I'm irritated with people pretending that it is somehow magically unknowable.

Very young infants have fairly low cognitive development. For the first few months, almost all of the energy goes to physical growth, and the brain mostly stays focused on "eat, sleep, poop". There's still some cognitive development, largely focused around the parental bond and facial recognition processes, the brain learning how to control eyeballs and process visual and aural stimulation. Then the process shifts priorities for a while, with a change in the inflection of physical growth - more energy investment goes into the neural functions for controlling the body (sit up, crawl, walk, grab, hold, climb) and language acquisition (non-verbal indication and expression of emotion, toddler jargon, basic vocabulary and syntax needed for core communication). Around 2, physical growth slows and enters a fairly linear increase. Between then and about 10, energy is split between increasing size overall and acquiring functional knowledge which is largely "stored facts" about the world around them and the people in it. Between 10 and about 14, height increases a bit more quickly, and the cognitive development of friendship bonds occurs. That's a key period of psychological development, where children start to think about other people from an external perspective rather than their own, and they start to internalize that other people like things that they don't like, and vice versa - they start to understand uniqueness of personality and interest, and that leads to compatibility bonding on shared interests and likes. When puberty hits, there's a huge increase in energy consumption, because there are several really critical developmental steps as they transition from juvenile to adult. There are lots of physical changes, including significant height increases as the long bones lengthen, accretion of bone density and strength, closure of the growth plates, and maturation of the reproductive system. But there are also significant cognitive changes - extrapolative ability and executive function increase substantially, and romantic bonding develops where the communal drives shift from compatibility of personality to compatibility of reproduction and all of the attendant sexual urges. The entire process of puberty takes a few years, but a huge amount of it happens in the course of the first several months. After about 16, the remaining physical changes are really minor in the grand scheme of things, and the cognitive development tends to be focused around executive function and emotional equilibrium.

To oversimplify an analogy... a feline that has just had her first heat isn't completely matured either physically or cognitively, but she's far, far, far more similar in both to a cat than to a kitten - even if she was a kitten just two weeks ago. The impact of puberty is enormous, and it really shouldn't be understated.

Nobody is underestimating puberty. But by your puberty argument, suddenly 9 year old girls undergoing puberty are more similar to a 16 year old than a 6 year old cognitively and developmentally. I guess that means 11 year olds are ready to become mothers? Mary Kay Letourneau ( and Donald J Trump) did nothing wrong by having sex with very young kids? I’m certain that is not what you mean.

The absolute fact is that a 16 year old can be physically and sexually as mature as a 20 year old ( or conversely, only about as sexually and physically mature as a 12 year old) but that does not mean that cognitively or emotionally they are functioning at the level of a 20 year old. Or even close.

I would like to once more repeat my thought on the subject: someone needs a certain amount of social exposure, interpersonal experience, and practice relationships with people their own age before they can possibly be ready for certain kinds of relationships and contracts with others.

This takes TIME and EXPERIENCE. This time and experience is served up on a platter all through highschool and early college, and the more someone has of it, the less business they have with those who have less such experience.

It is a rather uncomfortable fact, too, but still a fact that puberty itself is not actually a requirement, specifically from observation of the cases where 18-30 year olds never experienced puberty and were fully capable of making their own goddamn decisions about that. It just happens that for most people, puberty happens around the same time as that experience really starts to accrue.

What matters is whether they have gotten enough life experience. Frankly, with abstinence-based sex education and the lack of transparency in health and human development courses on those subjects, with home schoolers, and the socially ostracized or delayed, that might take MORE than the normally accorded 18 years to prepare for and will certainly enough not be ready with any less than that.

So I find it disingenuous at best to bring up puberty here?

Time. Experience. Relationships. Learning the value of human lives.

Granted the context is in weapons ownership and brandishing. Honestly, 24+ might be better for that one. Certainly long enough to not be peer to the "highschool edgelord" phase.

Obviously, you have a right to murder someone else at a protest for being nervous about your power to murder them,

That may be Elixir's position, but you won't find many, if any, on here who agree with him on this.

but God forbid you defend yourself against an ectopic pregnancy...

Likewise with ectopic pregnancies: who on here is opposed to termination in that circumstance? Even most pro-lifers would support that.

Unfortunately, there are those, some of whom are legislators and public speakers and 'influencers' who make exactly those arguments: A termination is not required for an ectopic pregnancy and all protesters are asking to be shot and should be summarily executed if whatever law enforcement or 'law enforcement' officer believes they might be ' in danger.' If you look around you'll find at least one poster here who thinks that Renee Good was either an agitator who should have been home baking cookies or someone who was pushed into being present by her lesbian wife and should have been home baking cookies like all non-deranged white women. In general, white women who step out of their homes for any reason other than to serve their family's need for a good home cooked meal are mentally ill according to one poster here.

More the fact is that any question of whether reprisals will follow a procedure will be met with extreme hesitancy, and bureaucratic red tape virtually guarantees that the situation will be lethal to the "mother".

"Pro-lifers" give lipservice at best to the idea, having put a stick in the spokes of their bike every time: "thoughts and prayers; it was unavoidable; better these few deaths than all the precious little ones."

Or whatever other bullshit equivalent.