Beyond "consenting adults"

[Grave_n_idle]

No one is interested in your petty hijack.

Somebodies clearly angry because they do not possess the ability to refute the compilation of articles I linked.

No one is interested in your petty hijack. That's not an impassioned response. I'm actually just hoping you'll actually present something on topic.

Although, given that your best response was to say the sources didn't count because you didn't want to read them (basically), my hopes aren't high.

[Bendira]

http://www.libertarianpapers.org

Start refuting those paper by paper. If you refuse its probably just because you are too ignorant to do so, right?

Among other things, perhaps you'd like to pick a group of papers that don't contradict one another?

So if I hypothetically were to find a database of equal size with articles that all supported eachother, you would refute them one by one?

[Grave_n_idle]

What is different between what I just did and what TCT is doing?

TCT was on topic?

TCT was presenting actual peer-reviewed content, not ideology?

TCT was addressing the actual issue of 'consent'?

[Grave_n_idle]

Among other things, perhaps you'd like to pick a group of papers that don't contradict one another?

So if I hypothetically were to find a database of equal size with articles that all supported eachother, you would refute them one by one?

You've yet to actually address even one. It's a bit rich to be making demands about how your (imaginary) sources should be handled, don't you think?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Why would I, when a) these papers don't have anything to do with the debate at hand and b) that isn't what TCT is expecting you to do.

a) It does have something to do with the topic at hand, because I am using it as an example of how absurd it is to expect me to refute a compilation of articles one by one. b) What is different between what I just did and what TCT is doing?

I didn't challenge anyone in this thread to refute those articles one by one.

I suggested that people educate themselves about the relevant information ON THE TOPIC and provided sources so they could do so.

Your inability to post anything even close to relevant TO THE TOPIC since then ... speaks volumes.

[Bendira]

Somebodies clearly angry because they do not possess the ability to refute the compilation of articles I linked.

No one is interested in your petty hijack. That's not an impassioned response. I'm actually just hoping you'll actually present something on topic.

Although, given that your best response was to say the sources didn't count because you didn't want to read them (basically), my hopes aren't high.

He can't use them as sources when he never even made an argument or summary to begin with. You can't link a source to support an argument that dosn't exist.

[Hydesland]

I begrudgingly agree with Benindra in this case, as much as I respect the amount of work and research TCT puts into his posts, I do not believe it is ever good debate etiquette to type two sentences and then paste bomb a massive list of links that I could not reasonably expect anyone to have the effort or time robustly refute in its entirety.

edit:

I didn't challenge anyone in this thread to refute those articles one by one.

Nevermind I took the post the wrong way then.

[Bendira]

a) It does have something to do with the topic at hand, because I am using it as an example of how absurd it is to expect me to refute a compilation of articles one by one. b) What is different between what I just did and what TCT is doing?

I didn't challenge anyone in this thread to refute those articles one by one.

I suggested that people educate themselves about the relevant information ON THE TOPIC and provided sources so they could do so.

Your inability to post anything even close to relevant TO THE TOPIC since then ... speaks volumes.

So you are agreeing that your posting that list of articles was just a "hey guys, you should check these out!" and not "I win the argument because I just posted a large list of articles and cannot reasonably expect you to go through and refute them all".

[The Cat-Tribe]

Among other things, perhaps you'd like to pick a group of papers that don't contradict one another?

So if I hypothetically were to find a database of equal size with articles that all supported eachother, you would refute them one by one?

If they met all the criteria I said earlier and were on-topic, I would do as I said earlier. Why do I have to repeat myself?

[Grave_n_idle]

I begrudgingly agree with Benindra in this case, as much as I respect the amount of work and research TCT puts into his posts, I do not believe it is ever good debate etiquette to type two sentences and then paste bomb a massive list of links that I could not reasonably expect anyone to have the effort or time robustly refute in its entirety.

I disagree.

If you present a point of debate, and then link a dozen supporting documents, I don't see how that can be bad.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I didn't challenge anyone in this thread to refute those articles one by one.

I suggested that people educate themselves about the relevant information ON THE TOPIC and provided sources so they could do so.

Your inability to post anything even close to relevant TO THE TOPIC since then ... speaks volumes.

So you are agreeing that your posting that list of articles was just a "hey guys, you should check these out!" and not "I win the argument because I just posted a large list of articles and cannot reasonably expect you to go through and refute them all".

Of course. When did I suggest otherwise in this thread?

On the other hand, I stand by the two points I made and I think those two points do "win the argument."

[Meryuma]

Why? Can a 15yo consent to have sex with a 14yo?

Obviously not.

Why? Claiming something is obvious doesn't present any sort of argument, valid or otherwise.

Anyways, the whole "child sexual abuse research" thing was basically an appeal to scientific authority. The fact that a scientist is saying that consensual sex can be in and of itself abuse doesn't make it true. It doesn't make it false, either.

[Bendira]

So you are agreeing that your posting that list of articles was just a "hey guys, you should check these out!" and not "I win the argument because I just posted a large list of articles and cannot reasonably expect you to go through and refute them all".

Of course. When did I suggest otherwise in this thread?

On the other hand, I stand by the two points I made and I think those two points do "win the argument."

Ok, well as long as we agree then. You have a following of people though that disagree with you, in the fact that they think you won the debate simply by posting a large collection of articles.

[GeneralHaNor]

you laugh, but Meryuma has a more through understanding of Political and Economic theory, then most of the people I've seen on NSG
His understading of Anarchist Ideology surpasses my own.

This doesn't make his opinion more valid, but it certainly elevates him above the whole "children don't know what they are talking about" category.

Um. Without commenting one way or the other on Meryuma and certainly meaning no insult to Meryuma, "understanding [] Anarchist Ideology" is NOT (contrary to increasingly popular opinion in some circles) equivalent -- or even particularly relevant -- to understanding political philosophy, political science, and economics (of any kind). Meryuma may or may not have knowledge of the latter areas. My point is we seem to have more and more posters who think having read just Rothbard, Stirner, Proudhon, or even Lysander Spooner makes one knowledgeable about political philosophy, etc. That just ain't so.

To quote the dude
"That's just like, your opinion, man"

[Grave_n_idle]

Obviously not.

Why? Claiming something is obvious doesn't present any sort of argument, valid or otherwise.

Anyways, the whole "child sexual abuse research" thing was basically an appeal to scientific authority. The fact that a scientist is saying that consensual sex can be in and of itself abuse doesn't make it true. It doesn't make it false, either.

There's no point debating with someone who tries to write off facts as though using them was a fallacy.

I'm done.

[Hydesland]

I begrudgingly agree with Benindra in this case, as much as I respect the amount of work and research TCT puts into his posts, I do not believe it is ever good debate etiquette to type two sentences and then paste bomb a massive list of links that I could not reasonably expect anyone to have the effort or time robustly refute in its entirety.

I disagree.

If you present a point of debate, and then link a dozen supporting documents, I don't see how that can be bad.

I just think it stifles or stops debate, I don't think it is necessary either.

[The Cat-Tribe]

No one is interested in your petty hijack. That's not an impassioned response. I'm actually just hoping you'll actually present something on topic.

Although, given that your best response was to say the sources didn't count because you didn't want to read them (basically), my hopes aren't high.

He can't use them as sources when he never even made an argument or summary to begin with. You can't link a source to support an argument that dosn't exist.

I didn't make an argument before either set of sources? Are you sure 'cuz I think they were in bold and italics?

Regardless, this has descended into the type of nonsense hijack "debates" involving you have almost always turned into and encouraged me to take a vacation to begin with. I'm done here.

[Grave_n_idle]

Of course. When did I suggest otherwise in this thread?

On the other hand, I stand by the two points I made and I think those two points do "win the argument."

Ok, well as long as we agree then. You have a following of people though that disagree with you, in the fact that they think you won the debate simply by posting a large collection of articles.

The question of capacity for consent pretty much ended with TCT's post. Not because he posted ever-so-many-sources (which seems to be what you're suggesting) but because the facts agree.

[Bendira]

Why? Claiming something is obvious doesn't present any sort of argument, valid or otherwise.

Anyways, the whole "child sexual abuse research" thing was basically an appeal to scientific authority. The fact that a scientist is saying that consensual sex can be in and of itself abuse doesn't make it true. It doesn't make it false, either.

There's no point debating with someone who tries to write off facts as though using them was a fallacy.

I'm done.

None of those articles are "facts". Those articles aren't "data" either. They might include data within them, but data would be just raw statistics and numbers. All of those articles go a step further and attempt to interpret the data, which does not make them "facts" but more like interpretations.

[Grave_n_idle]

I disagree.

If you present a point of debate, and then link a dozen supporting documents, I don't see how that can be bad.

I just think it stifles or stops debate, I don't think it is necessary either.

What it appears to have done is answered the question in such a way that those who really didn't want to agree turned the debate into a hijack about how means such posts are (among other diversionary tactics).

[Grave_n_idle]

There's no point debating with someone who tries to write off facts as though using them was a fallacy.

I'm done.

None of those articles are "facts".

You don't get an opinion, any more. You opted out.

[GeneralHaNor]

But ... but ... the General said, "Meryuma has a more through understanding of Political and Economic theory, then most of the people I've seen on NSG. His understading of Anarchist Ideology surpasses my own. This doesn't make his opinion more valid, but it certainly elevates him above the whole 'children don't know what they are talking about' category." I mean, how can you even begin to dispute that?

A fourteen-year-old knows more than Gen? Well blow me the fuck away.

I'm not sure what you said before the edit, but your sarcasm doesn't really phase me
I'm entirely willing to recognize and even occasionally defer to people who are more knowledgable then me on a particular subject, especially if I happen to agree with them most of the time

My point was, that for the age of 14, he knows far more about what he believes then well, any 14 year old I have ever seen, I mean, he has a blog on the subject

At 14 I was obsessed with getting high and playin with myself.

[Bendira]

I just think it stifles or stops debate, I don't think it is necessary either.

What it appears to have done is answered the question in such a way that those who really didn't want to agree turned the debate into a hijack about how means such posts are (among other diversionary tactics).

Oh wow really, I was under the silly impression that the typical Cat Tribe circle jerk was a form of diversionary tactic that typically results in debate ending wanks like the following.

Good God TCT!

Can people stop making topics about the ability of children to consent to sex OR to any "adult" activity or responsibility without doing at least a little fraking homework on brain development, child development, and/or relevant psychology?

Given that the majority of 'kids can consent' threads are self-serving arguments from kids who want to have sex, or self-serving arguments from creepy older people who want to have sex with kids... no, the homework isn't on the agenda.

*nods*

And The Cat Tribes wins the thread, again.

And The Cat Tribes wins the thread, again.

And that's why he's being Commended.

Good God TCT!

This is not the TCT you're looking for.

*waves hand, Jedi stylee*

(Seriously, though - even on vay-kay, when TCT gets involved, he brings big guns.)

This is not the TCT you're looking for.

*waves hand, Jedi stylee*

(Seriously, though - even on vay-kay, when TCT gets involved, he brings big guns.)

And he's not afraid to use 'em.

[Meryuma]

Why? Claiming something is obvious doesn't present any sort of argument, valid or otherwise.

Anyways, the whole "child sexual abuse research" thing was basically an appeal to scientific authority. The fact that a scientist is saying that consensual sex can be in and of itself abuse doesn't make it true. It doesn't make it false, either.

There's no point debating with someone who tries to write off facts as though using them was a fallacy.

I'm done.

1.I didn't say the papers themselves commit a fallacy. Reread my post.
2. How many of the papers about child sex abuse are relevant to fully consensual sex? How does one get from "teenagers aren't as mature" to "teenagers can't consent"? How does the one about "understanding brain development in young children" saying that most brain development in several areas is between birth and age twelve support TCT's conclusions?
3. Quitting a debate based on an ad hominem. Skillful.

[Bendira]

None of those articles are "facts".

You don't get an opinion, any more. You opted out.

So you are admitting you have no clue what the difference between facts and opinions are.