Trump says Jeff Epstein is a terrific guy

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,383
Reaction score
1,531
Points
113
...and in pops the referee. Illegal use of words, 5 yards. Repeat down.
This is a boring and dumb Jake argument that we've had dozens of times. My use of the word arbitrary is perfectly fine and everyone knows what I mean by it. "You can't consent to sex until 18" is not based on science or principle. In my mind it is then arbitrary. It's not random, maybe that's what Jake thinks arbitrary's only meaning can be.

Regardless, it's a dumb argument. But Jake is obsessed with evening the score. He's got a lot of work to do.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,775
Reaction score
387
Points
83
This is a boring and dumb Jake argument that we've had dozens of times. My use of the word arbitrary is perfectly fine and everyone knows what I mean by it. "You can't consent to sex until 18" is not based on science or principle. In my mind it is then arbitrary. It's not random, maybe that's what Jake thinks arbitrary's only meaning can be.

Regardless, it's a dumb argument. But Jake is obsessed with evening the score. He's got a lot of work to do.
I didn't make up the definition. Here it is:

ar·bi·trar·y

/ˈärbəˌtrerē/
<g-img class="FamOtd" style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle;"></g-img>Learn to pronounce

adjective

  • based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.


  • Your statement:

    "You can't consent to sex until 18" is not based on science or principle.

    is just plainly and obviously wrong. The science behind it is in regard to the development period of a person's brain.

    Let's try this, though, since you want to continue to be a jackass. Why don't you answer Minnesota's question with an answer that you can apply as law at a state or local level. How does your dream law about being able to date your 13 year old niece's best friend read, S2?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,434
Reaction score
2,193
Points
113
I think we will need to institute a 50 strikes rule. He's on about 49 with this one.
He's actually a substantive poster. When you are actually at the bat swinging at real substance- you get strikes. You? Not so much, you just make calls about other people. I'm not sure why that's interesting for you, but everyone has their thing I guess.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,775
Reaction score
387
Points
83
He's actually a substantive poster. When you are actually at the bat swinging at real substance- you get strikes. You? Not so much, you just make calls about other people. I'm not sure why that's interesting for you, but everyone has their thing I guess.
How does your dream law read with regard to consent, BGA?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,434
Reaction score
2,193
Points
113
How does your dream law read with regard to consent, BGA?
Mine? I'm not S2 on this. I'd have consent be 21 or marriage whatever comes first. 21 for voting. 21 for abortion without consent (I'd of course prefer no abortions). 21 for the military. 21 for drinking. None of that is ever going to happen but adherence to it would resolve a lot of society's issues.

Yours?
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,775
Reaction score
387
Points
83
Mine? I'm not S2 on this. I'd have consent be 21 or marriage whatever comes first. 21 for voting. 21 for abortion without consent (I'd of course prefer no abortions). 21 for the military. 21 for drinking. None of that is ever going to happen but adherence to it would resolve a lot of society's issues.

Yours?
18 for voting and military. I believe that is the age of eligibility for a military draft, if they were to reinstate it. And I believe that is the appropriate age, from what I understand of average brain development. If you can be drafted, you should have rights to vote for sure.

Drinking is a bit different. There are pragmatic reasons to delay this one. I am ok with 21 since anyone who wants to drink at 18 can figure a way, but just not everywhere. I'm ok with the soft de facto allowance we have between 18-21. Not perfect and an arugment can be made either way to 18 or 21. But for sure by 21. I might consider allowing military exemption. But it's not like I have a real strong opinion on any of this.

18 for marriage. (Maybe you stated something wrong above, but it reads that you would allow marriage prior to 21?)
18 for consent.

None of these are arbitrary and none of yours are either. So why do you come to S2's defense when he makes an asinine argument? Choose your battles, mate.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,383
Reaction score
1,531
Points
113
I didn't make up the definition. Here it is:

ar·bi·trar·y

/ˈärbəˌtrerē/
<g-img class="FamOtd" style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle;"></g-img>Learn to pronounce

adjective

  • based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.


  • Your statement:

    "You can't consent to sex until 18" is not based on science or principle.

    is just plainly and obviously wrong. The science behind it is in regard to the development period of a person's brain.

    Let's try this, though, since you want to continue to be a jackass. Why don't you answer Minnesota's question with an answer that you can apply as law at a state or local level. How does your dream law about being able to date your 13 year old niece's best friend read, S2?
Ah, please link me to the research that says a person's brain is capable of consenting to sex on the day they turn 18, and not on the day before they turn 18.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,775
Reaction score
387
Points
83
Ah, please link me to the research that says a person's brain is capable of consenting to sex on the day they turn 18, and not on the day before they turn 18.
Quit dodging my question with stupidity. How does your law read, S2?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,383
Reaction score
1,531
Points
113
Quit dodging my question with stupidity. How does your law read, S2?
You asserted that consent laws are not arbitrary and are based on science. I'm asking to see your evidence for that. You were the one who jumped in to my discussion. Control freak insecure Jake just can't handle it.

Hey Jake, here's an idea. If you can't handle a discussion with me, maybe stop replying to all my posts.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,775
Reaction score
387
Points
83
You asserted that consent laws are not arbitrary and are based on science. I'm asking to see your evidence for that.
Brain development science.

You were the one who jumped in to my discussion.
It's a public forum. If you want to have a private discussion, have it private.

Here's a simplistic chart that gives a general idea of the science. Now let's hear how your law reads now, S2. Quit stalling.

 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,383
Reaction score
1,531
Points
113
Brain development science.

It's a public forum. If you want to have a private discussion, have it private.

Here's a simplistic chart that gives a general idea of the science. Now let's hear how your law reads now, S2. Quit stalling.

I see. And which of those says an individual may consent to sex at 16. Or 18. But not 17 and 364 days old. I know 12 year olds with better judgement than 50 year olds.

In what sense does this graphic prove your point?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,383
Reaction score
1,531
Points
113
How young is too young?
If a 15 year old falls in love with a 19 year old, do I think the government should get involved? No I don't. Is this really our concern? I don't see where age of consent laws really do much to prevent the real problem that we are all concerned with and that's child sexual predators.
 

Minnesota

Active member
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
842
Reaction score
153
Points
43
If a 15 year old falls in love with a 19 year old, do I think the government should get involved? No I don't. Is this really our concern? I don't see where age of consent laws really do much to prevent the real problem that we are all concerned with and that's child sexual predators.
You didn’t answer the question.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,383
Reaction score
1,531
Points
113
You’re playing dumb because you know that this is a pitfall of libertarian logic. Man up or shut up.
I gave you 2 separate answers, and you were satisfied with neither. So if you want to be specific, and get into it, ask a specific question.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,775
Reaction score
387
Points
83
I see. And which of those says an individual may consent to sex at 16. Or 18. But not 17 and 364 days old. I know 12 year olds with better judgement than 50 year olds.

In what sense does this graphic prove your point?
Are you playing dumb or just plain dumb? And besides your constant dodging ITT, you have pivoted off the original point I was making that the age of consent is anything but arbitrary. You claim to want discussions, but you always dodge, pivot and lash out. Maybe you should mention Howie now.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,383
Reaction score
1,531
Points
113
Are you playing dumb or just plain dumb? And besides your constant dodging ITT, you have pivoted off the original point I was making that the age of consent is anything but arbitrary. You claim to want discussions, but you always dodge, pivot and lash out. Maybe you should mention Howie now.
I'm staying on the central point.
I said it's arbitrary.
You said it's based on science.
I said show me the science.
You posted a chart.
I don't see how the chart shows why they picked 16 in some states, or 18 in others. You said "brain development." That's an insufficient answer.

I usually like to resolve point 1, before moving on. Although I can certainly understand why you'd like to abandon ship and pick a different fight.

You wanted to be DPO jr. and get in a stupid definitional fight, let's go for it Jake.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
43,366
Reaction score
2,428
Points
113
You’re playing dumb because you know that this is a pitfall of libertarian logic. Man up or shut up.
Yep. But in 1850 they didn't need a law for this and it was fine!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,383
Reaction score
1,531
Points
113
Yep. But in 1850 they didn't need a law for this and it was fine!
In 2019 we have millions of laws on this and other topics. Guess there aren't any problems. Enjoy your utopia Howie!
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,775
Reaction score
387
Points
83
I'm staying on the central point.
I said it's arbitrary.
You said it's based on science.
I said show me the science.
You posted a chart.
I don't see how the chart shows why they picked 16 in some states, or 18 in others. You said "brain development." That's an insufficient answer.

I usually like to resolve point 1, before moving on. Although I can certainly understand why you'd like to abandon ship and pick a different fight.

You wanted to be DPO jr. and get in a stupid definitional fight, let's go for it Jake.
Arbitrary means it is random. There is no reason whatsoever. The reason 18 or 16 is because that is a point where those states have decided that a person can make an informed decision independently, based upon brain development. Those numbers didn't come out of thin air. They aren't random. There is no state that has the age of consent as 74 or one where it is 3. Those would be arbitrary.

You can plant the flag and claim victory, but it's pretty plain to see you are wrong. I've made my case. You've made your moronic case for the 49th time. That's it. You won't goad me into more of your moronic games on this one.

So, how does your law read, S2?
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
1
Points
36
How about S2 actually comes up with something of his own, rather than just shooting other people down??

S2, present an argument that proves there should be no laws restricting drinking age.

This ought to be fun.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
43,366
Reaction score
2,428
Points
113
How about S2 actually comes up with something of his own, rather than just shooting other people down??

S2, present an argument that proves there should be no laws restricting drinking age.

This ought to be fun.
You don't need a law. If a drunk 7 year old kills your family in a wreck, you can sue him for everything he's got! It's so simple, really.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
43,366
Reaction score
2,428
Points
113
Arbitrary means it is random. There is no reason whatsoever. The reason 18 or 16 is because that is a point where those states have decided that a person can make an informed decision independently, based upon brain development. Those numbers didn't come out of thin air. They aren't random. There is no state that has the age of consent as 74 or one where it is 3. Those would be arbitrary.

You can plant the flag and claim victory, but it's pretty plain to see you are wrong. I've made my case. You've made your moronic case for the 49th time. That's it. You won't goad me into more of your moronic games on this one.

So, how does your law read, S2?
There is no law in 2-land. Epstein would be taken out back and shot. His horse kept as restitution.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,383
Reaction score
1,531
Points
113
Arbitrary means it is random. There is no reason whatsoever. The reason 18 or 16 is because that is a point where those states have decided that a person can make an informed decision independently, based upon brain development. Those numbers didn't come out of thin air. They aren't random. There is no state that has the age of consent as 74 or one where it is 3. Those would be arbitrary.

You can plant the flag and claim victory, but it's pretty plain to see you are wrong. I've made my case. You've made your moronic case for the 49th time. That's it. You won't goad me into more of your moronic games on this one.

So, how does your law read, S2?
Oh Goody! More definition arguments!

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Law Relating to a decision made by a court or legislature that lacks a grounding in law or fact: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness
"Arbitrary decisions are not necessarily the same as random decisions. "

Ohhhhhh, those states DECIDED. Well that settles it.

I've specifically told you at least a dozen times that I don't wish to communicate with you Jake. yet you reply to me more than any other poster on this board. So I don't really think I'm goading you. I don't like you. I'd rather you left the board. But here we are. And so I've indulged you.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
9,995
Reaction score
1,042
Points
113
Guys, guys, enough. Who cares about this age thing. The real victim in all of this is Alex Acosta:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Top Bottom