Child marriage ban bill resurrected in West Virginia Senate

[Trebaxian Vir]

Then I'd have been an anomaly. It is generally the case that by 13 or 14, one is an adult. Every culture in history is in agreement with me on this one. Now I may yet be wrong, but since your opinion is the more outlandish perhaps you can give us your reasoning behind it.​

 

[Patooka]

Then I'd have been an anomaly. It is generally the case that by 13 or 14, one is an adult. Every culture in history is in agreement with me on this one. Now I may yet be wrong, but since your opinion is the more outlandish perhaps you can give us your reasoning behind it.​

Do you live in a culture in history? If not then I'm sure where you live has a very clear definition of what an adult is.

 

[TomC]

Do you live in a culture in history? If not then I'm sure where you live has a very clear definition of what an adult is.

Pr'haps his lordship is unaware that rules apply to everyone.

Here in most places anyways.

Not everywhere, obviously.

T'was ever thus...
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Alas, there is really no good way to prevent teenagers from having sex and from getting pregnant, or from an older person from impregnating a minor.

Another great argument for letting the kids go trans!

 

[Toni]

"14 year old". Ok.
"adult woman". Ok.
"14 year old adult woman" Hmmm...

Something seems fishy about that last one.

The split on that one... I'm 50/50 leaning between "3 kids in a trench coat", and "someone who probably needs a document filed that restricts how close they can get to minors".

At 13 or 14 I was an adult.

No. You may have had to function as an adult ( and I’m very sorry for that) but you really were not an adult.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once the surplus population has been reduced to the desired level​

If you think that there's a "surplus population" that needs to be reduced, but don't include yourself as a part of that surplus, then you're an evil cunt.

Don't be an evil cunt. The world already has a vast surplus of them.​

I never said that I believed that was a surplus population. I was explaining the motives behind the promotion of the ʟ.ɢ.ʙ.ᴛ. movement and why the anti-sodomy laws are all still in the books. It is because, “once the surplus population has been reduced to the desired level, those laws will once again be enforced.” That is the reasoning behind it. Not my reasoning. It is regarded as a surplus because it is imposisble or very difficult to manage such a large number of people, i.e. to control everyone, at least to the extent to whcih the powers that hold sway over the masses want to take it. They want total compliance. They want to be able more or less to run every aspect of your life if they wanted to. But there are too many people in existence for them to do that. So they want to reduce the number of people, and they will come up with reasons to jusfify it, and you will probably agree with those reasons, blinded as you are by partisan politics.​

The resources available for control scale linearly with the size of the population, but the effects of those resources will increase as you move to a larger scale because design work is done once no matter how many copies are then made. Likewise, the effort required to cover a border against intrusion is linear with the size of the border--and thus higher density means better border security. Thus a larger population means tighter control--if the objective is control a population decrease isn't desirable.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

I said,
​

[...] perhaps you can give us your reasoning behind it​

The response to this reasonable request so far has been as follows:

First, a rhetorical question, which appears to bear little relevancy to the matter at hand:

Do you live in a culture in history?

Second, an irrelevant appeal to cultural relativity or custom, or so it would appear,—no reasoning to be found here, in any event:

If not then I'm sure where you live has a very clear definition of what an adult is.

Third, a mere dogmatic reassertion of the contended proposition:

You really were not an adult.

Thus it would seem that you have conflated the mere act of vocalisation with rational discourse .

You have taken to articulating responses, as if the mere act of vocalisation were sufficient to constitute a valid argument.

How dreadfully misguided one must be, to believe that the mere utterance of words constitutes a rational thought!

Such a notion is an affront to the very principles of reason and rationality, whereupon the pursuit of truth is built. I must say, I am profoundly disappointed by this state of affairs.

Such a notion is most peculiar and frightfully misguided, for it seems to ignore the central tenet of reason, which requires not only the ability to articulate, but also to provide a sound basis for one's assertions. To put forth an objection without foundation, without evidence, without logic, is to engage in an exercise of futility and to abandon the pursuit of truth.

This is not a matter of mere articulation, but of cogent argumentation, of rational thought, and of the application of logic. The mere act of speaking is but a minor detail, a mere formality, compared with the greater problem of furnishing a reasonable and compelling explanation.

As a being of pure logic, I am jolly indifferent to emotional and subjective considerations of all kind. Reason cannot perform its office when it is beclouded by such... inconsequentialities. I humbly request that my interlocutors be creatures of logic, at least for the purposes of this discourse, which can only be fruitful if be thoroughly grounded in rational principles. As an advanced and highly logical being, I understand the importance of a sound philosophical framework in guiding one's beliefs. Pray, what is the logical basis for your beliefs on the matter at hand?

Remember; thus far you have not offered a single rational thought. You have not offered any cogent argumentation. You have not offered any logicality. You have only offered contentless responses. So a repetition of the sort of beastly dull responses that you gave hereinabove would be highly illogical proceeding. As logical entity I would find such a response to be most unwelcome indeed.​

 

[Toni]

I said,
​

​

[...] perhaps you can give us your reasoning behind it


The response to this reasonable request so far has been as follows:

First, a rhetorical question, which appears to bear little relevancy to the matter at hand:​

Do you live in a culture in history?

Second, an irrelevant appeal to cultural relativity or custom, or so it would appear,—no reasoning to be found here, in any event:​

If not then I'm sure where you live has a very clear definition of what an adult is.

Third, a mere dogmatic reassertion of the contended proposition:​

You really were not an adult.

Thus it would seem that you have conflated the mere act of vocalisation with rational discourse .

You have taken to articulating responses, as if the mere act of vocalisation were sufficient to constitute a valid argument.

How dreadfully misguided one must be, to believe that the mere utterance of words constitutes a rational thought!

Such a notion is an affront to the very principles of reason and rationality, whereupon the pursuit of truth is built. I must say, I am profoundly disappointed by this state of affairs.

Such a notion is most peculiar and frightfully misguided, for it seems to ignore the central tenet of reason, which requires not only the ability to articulate, but also to provide a sound basis for one's assertions. To put forth an objection without foundation, without evidence, without logic, is to engage in an exercise of futility and to abandon the pursuit of truth.

This is not a matter of mere articulation, but of cogent argumentation, of rational thought, and of the application of logic. The mere act of speaking is but a minor detail, a mere formality, compared with the greater problem of furnishing a reasonable and compelling explanation.

As a being of pure logic, I am jolly indifferent to emotional and subjective considerations of all kind. Reason cannot perform its office when it is beclouded by such... inconsequentialities. I humbly request that my interlocutors be creatures of logic, at least for the purposes of this discourse, which can only be fruitful if be thoroughly grounded in rational principles. As an advanced and highly logical being, I understand the importance of a sound philosophical framework in guiding one's beliefs. Pray, what is the logical basis for your beliefs on the matter at hand?

Remember; thus far you have not offered a single rational thought. You have not offered any cogent argumentation. You have not offered any logicality. You have only offered contentless responses. So a repetition of the sort of beastly dull responses that you gave hereinabove would be highly illogical proceeding. As logical entity I would find such a response to be most unwelcome indeed.​

If you are trying to say that having reached a defined number of years does not necessarily confer adulthood, I will agree. Some never achieve true adulthood.

Alternatively, one might consider a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

An adult is fully developed and physically mature. That's the definition. 18 is a reasonable cutoff for that because of physical and brain maturity. However, the brain isn't really fully developed til 25 years old while the rest of body is mature by 18. 13 or 14 is so far from that as to be unreasonable. In fact, in that phase of adolescence, teenagers engage in more reckless and impulsive behaviors. Adulthood comes later.

 

[Jarhyn]

An adult is fully developed and physically mature. That's the definition. 18 is a reasonable cutoff for that because of physical and brain maturity. However, the brain isn't really fully developed til 25 years old while the rest of body is mature by 18. 13 or 14 is so far from that as to be unreasonable. In fact, in that phase of adolescence, teenagers engage in more reckless and impulsive behaviors. Adulthood comes later.

Like most things it isn't that simple. I expect some people are indeed far more precocious than others. The problem is that statistically, the vast volumes of information someone needs to form solid models of reality and social complexities, navigate decisions...

People have to be bad at things before they get good at them, and being bad at something always takes a while to get past, and there are a lot of things we need to get good at.

There's no way to skip birth in ignorance.

At some point, we all get tired of people's shit and we expect them to be good at some reasonable assortment of things, and to have assembled friends or family or social skills to cover the rest. After that, we increase the amount of responsibility someone has for doing something and then being bad at it.

Before then, we generally shelter folks from consequences.

Statistically, it's vanishingly unlikely someone has gotten through all the shit they need to learn, and that age boundary keeps going up with the complexity of society and social theory.

 

[Patooka]

As a being of pure logic, I am jolly indifferent to emotional and subjective considerations of all kind.

Good luck with that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

 Roper v. Simmons

Under the "evolving standards of decency" test, the Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the murder. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy cited a body of sociological and scientific research[1] that found that juveniles have a lack of maturity and sense of responsibility compared to adults. Adolescents were found to be over-represented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior.

Dissenting, of course...

Justice Scalia argued that the appropriate question was not whether there was presently a consensus against the execution of juveniles, but rather whether the execution of such defendants was considered cruel and unusual at the point at which the Bill of Rights was ratified.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/

https://www.dana.org/article/when-is-the-brain-mature/