|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Vestiges for Peter B. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by compmage:
We are going around in circles. We allow a certain level of responsibility for a certain age without knowing if the person is mature enough to handle that responsibility. That is why we have penalities for those who abuse them. They are privileges and not rights. Plus there is already something for children which can prove they are mature enough to handle adult responsibility. It is called emancipation. Let see. Assuming sex to be illegal before the age of 16. You follow the law, how exactly would you have any experiance what-so-ever in regards to sex when you turn 16? Experience as in life. To know what is right and what is wrong. Too late or not. What is the difference? Life, plus the body is better able to handle the responsiblity. Would you want a 13 or 14 year old to have a baby? Birth control is far from perfect. They may be able to handle the responsibility of having sex, but not the responsibilty of raising a child of their own. Is this true for the entire body or just most of it? Most of it. Hair and nails and the like don't count because they are already dead and it is really not growth, but expelling of dead tissues. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: It was from a documentary on the differences and simularities between men and women.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Discretion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by John:
If you follow the thread, Shraf made a statement to the effect that a judge's discretion should come into play in some circumstances, which is the functional equivalent of the proposal I made in my now much maligned little article. [/B] In a case like this this so-called discretion of the judge would still be as subject. A smart, but not truly mature, teen could fool a judge in the same manner that a socio-path can fake emotions.Your "article" got what it deserves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Maybe, but just have a look at it itself. It looks more like an X than a Y. The break may have caused certain mutations afterwards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by John:
Do you not understand that a smart teen capable of willful deception would, in a US court of law, be considered mature enough to stand trial as an adult in, for example, a murder case? Yet this same teen is not mature enough to decide to f#%k? Really, nos, that is absurd. That has more to do with people wanting some kind of "justice" for out of hand children than any real sign of maturity. It is wrong to try children as adults. Texas wants to execute the mentally incompetant as well. They'd probably execute children if they could. No nation can truly call itself civilized which still executes its own citizens. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: They don't know when the mutation occured which separated the sexes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Yup, you're a creationist alright since you don't have a real clue about evolution. I already have and that is why I know that evolution is true and creationism is nothing but wishful "thinking". There is just too much credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence in favor of evolution and all you have is your bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: When society says we are. In the USA it is 21, in Canada it is 19. In primitive cultures it is as soon as your body is old enough to reproduce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by John:
You do not pay attention. In the US there are dozens of different ages of maturity depending on what you want to do, where you want to do it, who you want to do it with, and what sex you are. Your reply is of course begging the question. You again gallop happily right over the important bits. Why 21? Why 19? Who set the age? Why do I believe them? Why is it OK that the age of maturity changes culture to culture? It all depends on the cultural norms and other things such as population size, educational systems, male to female ratio, experience from observed behaviors at certain age levels, etc. It is not as simple as you would want it to be. Sorry, but it seems that the cops won't be letting you bonk any young teenage girls any time soon and we can see just how much you want to do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Of course I know what this arguement is about. You want to be legally able to bonk underage girls and you are angry that society won't let you. Why don't you try Thailand, I hear that they don't have an age of consent there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Of course, the alternative answer is that your paper was not Nature material. Nature rejects many manuscripts, there are other places one can publish. Don't start with the conspiracy because you got a paper rejected. You'll quit before you start. Did Nature send your article out for review or was it rejected by the board? If you got reviews, you can use the critiques to sharpen your argument. If the board rejected it, why not try a different journal. Don't resort automatically to conspiracy. Like most creationists he likes to start at the top instead of working his way up through a gradual process and adapting his paper because it is perfect already. Unlike a Creationist's journal Nature does have standards and they won't publish just any thing sent to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Do you understand the concept of satire? As in Creationists mistakenly believe that we were created as we are now, at the top (So far). The reason why Nature didn't accept your "hypothesis" and a creationist journal would is that it wasn't credible. Creationists don't care about facts since belief and faith is far more important to them. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Deism:1. The form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation In other words, "God doesn't live here anymore."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: That's what what my dictionary said. Their belief is basically, "God doesn't live here anymore."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024