Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Tailgater]

And hey, he had his chance to argue all this in court decades ago. But he decided to flee the country. Whether he'd get off on the rape charge then, or now, is irrelevant--he's attempted to circumvent the entire justice system. That is not permitted. A civilization built on law does not work when people can just defy it. Trials exist exactly so people can fight for their side of things. He chose not to do so.

Everyone is shadowed by your awesomeness.

 

[Tailgater]

At the very least, he should be tried for fleeing. Even if he messed up and "accidently" slept with her during a toxic night out, he's a giant loser for not facing his mistakes.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So 13 is okay?

If you need things boiled down to three word slogans before you can understand them this probably isn't going to help you.

A couple of years ago I would have said that the best evidence showed no statistically significant increase in adverse life outcomes for people who become sexually active at thirteen. So as long as they were having safe sex I wouldn't have said that there was an evidence-based reason to criminalise sex with them at that age as long as it was safe, consensual and so on.

(According to this 6-8% of girls and 8-11% of boys in the USA claim to have had sex before they were fourteen. The age of consent is thirteen in Spain and with Romeo and Juliet Laws I believe there are quite a few other civilised jurisdictions where people can legally have sex at twelve or thirteen. So while thirteen is a shocking figure to some USians it's merely at the low end of the existing range of legal ages, and it's consistent with the low end of when children become sexually active whether you make it legal for them to do so or not. Sometimes we do want to criminalise "normal" human behaviour but it inevitably incurs a high social cost so you'd best have hard evidence that you are preventing more harm than you are causing).

However since some new and better-controlled studies have been done I think there's good reason to discourage people under fourteen from having sex, and less-good reason to discourage people under sixteen. So I'd now say that, since you have to draw a line somewhere, drawing a line around fifteen or sixteen seems like the least worst option.

On the other hand I don't think the available evidence supports going on a frothing witch hunt when you find people in the 13+ range having consensual sex. I think we should strongly discourage it but we shouldn't get overexited and treat it like rape or murder.

 

[stateofgrace]

If you need things boiled down to three word slogans before you can understand them this probably isn't going to help you.

A couple of years ago I would have said that the best evidence showed no statistically significant increase in adverse life outcomes for people who become sexually active at thirteen. So as long as they were having safe sex I wouldn't have said that there was an evidence-based reason to criminalise sex with them at that age as long as it was safe, consensual and so on.

(According to this 6-8% of girls and 8-11% of boys in the USA claim to have had sex before they were fourteen. The age of consent is thirteen in Spain and with Romeo and Juliet Laws I believe there are quite a few other civilised jurisdictions where people can legally have sex at twelve or thirteen. So while thirteen is a shocking figure to some USians it's merely at the low end of the existing range of legal ages, and it's consistent with the low end of when children become sexually active whether you make it legal for them to do so or not. Sometimes we do want to criminalise "normal" human behaviour but it inevitably incurs a high social cost so you'd best have hard evidence that you are preventing more harm than you are causing).

However since some new and better-controlled studies have been done I think there's good reason to discourage people under fourteen from having sex, and less-good reason to discourage people under sixteen. So I'd now say that, since you have to draw a line somewhere, drawing a line around fifteen or sixteen seems like the least worst option.

On the other hand I don't think the available evidence supports going on a frothing witch hunt when you find people in the 13+ range having consensual sex. I think we should strongly discourage it but we shouldn't get overexited and treat it like rape or murder.

And, of course, if the discussion was about your own thirteen year old daughter you would feel the same way, right?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And, of course, if the discussion was about your own thirteen year old daughter you would feel the same way, right?

Appeal to emotion, I'd say. Anyone think this should be filed under a different fallacy?

 

[Ranb]

When a man supplies a 13 year old girl with alcohol and drugs, then proceeds to rape her after she repeatedly says no, he should not be expect to be treated with kid gloves just because he gave her a ride home after, then fled when he found out it deserved more than a slap on the wrist.

So I wonder how many other young girls have fallen victim to Polanski? It is not uncommon for rapists who are caught to later admit to other rapes. Would a child rapist stop after just one offense? Here is an interesting link to recidivism rates. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/rcd.html

Ranb

 

[stateofgrace]

Appeal to emotion, I'd say. Anyone think this should be filed under a different fallacy?

Actually it wasn't. It was a simple question, one I guess you prefer to ignore and declare it a fallacy. Maybe you could take a shot at actually answering it.

Your own daughter, thirteen, would you still post the same opinions?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually it wasn't. It was a simple question, one I guess you prefer to ignore and declare it a fallacy. Maybe you could take a shot at actually answering it.

Your own daughter, thirteen, would you still post the same opinions?

You get this exact same silly question in discussions of all sorts of crimes. "Would you still be against the death penalty if he murdered your (whatever)?". "Would you still be against castration if he raped your (whatever)?".

It's an appeal to emotion because, unpacked, the question really means "Would you still have the same opinion if you were really, really angry?".

I don't know what I would think if I was really angry, or if I was completely drunk, or if I'd just been given a concussion with a shovel. I'm pretty sure none of those conditions are apt to make my position more sensible, however.

 

[Roma]

I'd want any forty year-old man thrown in jail just for giving my fourteen year-old daughter alcohol and drugs. I think there' actually a law against that too, right ?

 

[Tailgater]

How about she doesn't get raped, but we jack her up with some dope?

yes to above.....and it's a pretty severe punishment too.

 

[Roma]

I am completely appalled Tailgater.

 

[Tailgater]

I'd want any forty year-old man thrown in jail just for giving my fourteen year-old daughter alcohol and drugs. I think there' actually a law against that too, right ?

And my four year old can down a box of juice with some benadryl, so I think he can handle a few beers.

Hmm, I just realized you might of thought I was talking about your daughter. That would be no. oops.

 

[Tailgater]

I am completely appalled Tailgater.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be dark about it, but I find the "if it bleeds, it breeds" argument quite hilarious.

 

[stateofgrace]

You get this exact same silly question in discussions of all sorts of crimes. "Would you still be against the death penalty if he murdered your (whatever)?". "Would you still be against castration if he raped your (whatever)?".

It's an appeal to emotion because, unpacked, the question really means "Would you still have the same opinion if you were really, really angry?".

I don't know what I would think if I was really angry, or if I was completely drunk, or if I'd just been given a concussion with a shovel. I'm pretty sure none of those conditions are apt to make my position more sensible, however.

Of course, but you was the one that said we shouldn't get "over excited" was you not? I always thought that excitement was an emotion, maybe I was wrong. The problem I have here, Kevin, is you are the one that evoked emotions, not me. You are the one that wishes us too view actions in a non emotive manner but in the same token bring follow human emotions to support your position.

So tell me, why I shouldn't get emotive about a highly emotive issues when you yourself actually raised the issue of emotions? My understanding is that most people, myself including, actually get highly emotive whereby the abuse of children is involved.

I guess the reason you view an emotive question as silly is because you haven’t actually considered the emotions your statements make to other members who read your posts. In this way you can retreat behind your statements and kid yourself that you are actually being dispassionate about a subject. Reality is, unless you are prepared to face the awful reality of what you are suggesting, your words really don’t mean too much.

The simple fact of the matter is that abuse of a minors evokes passion. This simple and blinding fact will not go away ,irrespective of your appeals to make it so. I am not for a moment suggesting that you are defending these actions I am merely pointing out that not getting excited is simply not an option.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Of course, but you was the one that said we shouldn't get "over excited" was you not? I always thought that excitement was an emotion, maybe I was wrong. The problem I have here, Kevin, is you are the one that evoked emotions, not me. You are the one that wishes us too view actions in a non emotive manner but in the same token bring follow human emotions to support your position.

Since I don't understand what you are referring to by "in the same token bring follow human emotions" I cannot usefully respond.

So tell me, why I shouldn't get emotive about a highly emotive issues when you yourself actually raised the issue of emotions? My understanding is that most people, myself including, actually get highly emotive whereby the abuse of children is involved.

I guess the reason you view an emotive question as silly is because you haven’t actually considered the emotions your statements make to other members who read your posts. In this way you can retreat behind your statements and kid yourself that you are actually being dispassionate about a subject. Reality is, unless you are prepared to face the awful reality of what you are suggesting, your words really don’t mean too much.

Nor can I make much sense of this, sorry.

An appeal to an emotion is still a fallacy. No emotive argument is going to change that. If anything it just illustrates why we need to avoid that form of fallacious reasoning.

 

[stateofgrace]

Since I don't understand what you are referring to by "in the same token bring follow human emotions" I cannot usefully respond.

Nor can I make much sense of this, sorry.

An appeal to an emotion is still a fallacy. No emotive argument is going to change that. If anything it just illustrates why we need to avoid that form of fallacious reasoning.

Replace "follow with "forward", it was a simple typo.

It actually wasn't an appeal to emotion at all. I simply asked if you would feel the same way if your own daughter was involved.

You really seem unable or unwilling to answer this simple question, so I will once again lay it out it its simplest form. You stated that "we shouldn't get over exited and treat it like rape" in reference to sex with minors. I have asked you if you would have the same opinion if this was applied to your own daughter.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Replace "follow with "forward", it was a simple typo.

It actually wasn't an appeal to emotion at all. I simply asked if you would feel the same way if your own daughter was involved.

It's still an appeal to emotion. It's still the same silly argument as "How would you feel about the death penalty if it was your (whatever)?". It still doesn't deserve a response.

In response to your edit:

The simple fact of the matter is that abuse of a minors evokes passion. This simple and blinding fact will not go away ,irrespective of your appeals to make it so. I am not for a moment suggesting that you are defending these actions I am merely pointing out that not getting excited is simply not an option.

Not getting exited may not be an option for you, maybe, but that just means that you can't have a rational, evidence-based opinion on the issue. It doesn't mean that the rest of us share your inability to take a step back and look at the actual evidence.

 

[stateofgrace]

It's still an appeal to emotion. It's still the same silly argument as "How would you feel about the death penalty if it was your (whatever)?". It still doesn't deserve a response.

In response to your edit:

Not getting exited may not be an option for you, maybe, but that just means that you can't have a rational, evidence-based opinion on the issue. It doesn't mean that the rest of us share your inability to take a step back and look at the actual evidence.

I am actually looking at your statement "we shouldn't get over exited and treat it like rape", nothing else. So based on your rational, evidence based opinion does this standard apply to members of your own family?

Yes or no?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I am actually looking at your statement "we shouldn't get over exited and treat it like rape", nothing else. So based on your rational, evidence based opinion does this standard apply to members of your own family?

Yes or no?

Sure. Now what?

 

[Tailgater]

If it was my daughter (who is now close to that age and just getting past barbie dolls and Hannah Montana), I would already taken a vacation to France by now.

My kids "want" alot of things, but that doesn't mean we let them have it.