Bay 12 Games Forum

• Neurology itself does continue developing throughout adolescence.

To do the bulletpoint pick-apart, heh, last time I checked here, neurology itself continues developing pretty rapidly until well into your twenties. Society in general is also more likely to give someone with some degree of arrested development legal responsibility than someone underage. There's also very little restriction on making legal decisions while under the effect of neurochemical influencing substances (though you can still be help culpable for making poor ones in that situation, of course).  Mostly just noting that this is a really bad card to play. Society doesn't use neurological development -- at least not consistently -- as a measure of legal culpability, though there may be correlation between the two.

Correlation's only acceptable for use when you're playing a bit loose with methodology (or you don't have anything better to use, which is a situation that needs fixin'.)

• For some issues, it's better to be safe when it concerns child development. Yes, there might be a twelve-year-old somewhere who's somehow experience, rational, socially educated, and ethically sound enough to make the decision to have a sexual relationship with a 45-year-old and get married. However, if you assume that all of them can, then you've effectively destroyed the entire legal distinction between "minor" and "adult". I shouldn't have to explain why that's bad.

I think the point being made is that, while your situation would be bad, the fact that some number of individuals who are be capable of rational decision on-par with someone of a 'legal' age are effectively being denuded of rights for an arbitrary reason is also bad.

Definitely less of an issue, simply due to the numbers game, but it's really hard to support the position that it's okay to strip some people of rights because most people in their situation couldn't use those rights responsibly, especially when what's being used to identify those individuals isn't a measure of their actual capability, but instead some fairly arbitrary other attribute.

You don't think that children are less developed than adults in more abstract or less testable ways than academic knowledge? Driving is different, as you can test someone fairly objectively on whether or not they can perform it, which is why we test for licenses, but there's also an element of mature handling of the privilege, which is why there's an age limit as well.

The problem here is that age =/= mature handling of the privilege, which I think is what kaijyuu is pointing out. It's probably the easiest measure to use and one that possesses a pretty high correlation to maturity, but it's definitely not a causative one. There should probably (definitely, in my opinion) be a higher bar on a lot of age-restricted activities than there is, though that's a different argument..

Children voting? Where do you draw the line? Should people be able to vote the instant they learn to recognize a name on a ballot?

It'd be really bloody nice if there was actually a competency test at the ballot box, but there isn't. There's people who vote without doing more than making themselves capable of recognizing a word (whatever their party is) on the ballot -- they couldn't tell the position and platforms of the names on the ballot from a lilypad.

Age isn't a good measure of the ability to comprehend and respond appropriately to political situations -- again, there may be correlation, but age certainly doesn't equal political savvy. Nor does experience.

--

Overall, re: Age: It's mostly just somewhat annoying that what amounts to logistical difficulties is preventing a number of people (a statistically small percentage, but when you've got a population of hundreds of millions, a numerically notable amount) from being able to contribute to society to the fullness of both their capability and will. That cost may be acceptable for what it buys, but it's definitely not an ideal situation.

It's also a very, very, strange situation given humanity's historic background. People not too long ago were considered capable of making adult decisions at a much younger age (and still are, in parts of the world), which makes our current situation somewhat odd. At the very least, it undermines the necessity of high bar age limits considerably, I'd say.

By the way: Jailing someone for owning manga is not "thought crime". Sorry. Not that I necessarily agree with his getting arrested, but owning something is not thought, nor is its production.

Might not be a thought crime in a strict sense, but it's bloody close to it. Allowing for that sort of legal decision is a very, very, small step for jailing someone for owning particular non-visual literature that society deems inappropriate or simply thinking in the wrong way. It's a dangerous precedent that's actually managed to make a fair number of people completely unconnected with that sort of material very, very, worried.

That's... pretty disgusting, the situation yer being confronted with. I don't suppose you can attempt to talk this over with the other members of the committee? Terribly well aware it's probably completely useless, but it's the try that matters, neh? Or at least vote against it, I guess. Probably won't do anything, but hell. Yeh tried. Principles over prudence.

Last I checked, it's not terribly difficult to either implement an ant civ or replace the dwarves with one. Might take a half-hour, I guess. Maybe an hour, tops.

Caveat: Headache, hunger, and need-of-sleep. Not as coherent as I'd like. Unfortunately, if I waited 'till tomorrow, the conversation would probably be fair beyond this point.

It depends, I would think, after all, you use sexual thoughts as a example, which I am not quite seeing. For most cases non obvious sexual thoughts cause no discomfort, and obvious ones have their own punishments in the form of stigmas against the lecher. Especially if it is brought to the point of plans of sexual assault. We come full circle.

Thus the difference between a thought out plan and a momentary vision of punching that one ass hole.

Near as I can tell, my point there was that the distance between that momentary vision and a thought out plan is an order of magnitude smaller than the distance between a thought out plan and the actual act. The distance of relation between thought out plan and act, not the one between thought out plan momentary vision, is the important aspect. If the distance between plan and act is the same as momentary fantasy and plan, then the distance between momentary fantasy and act can't be terribly large.

Insofar as I can parse myself, the point is that the act of plotting does not jive well with the act of assault. The latter takes interaction between the actor and acted upon, while the former does not. Acts of a different kind.

Please note, that I said A as to C as B is to D, not the A is to B as C is to D that I think you set that up as.

I think the best way to respond to this is that the distance between A -> B is considerably further than C -> D, so the comparison of A -> C and B -> D doesn't quite match up. A is of a different magnitude of action than C.

 I'd say there's a bigger gap between plan and act than act and worse act, so saying that plan is equivalent to act in act-worse act doesn't strike me as as a fair statement. Parallel would have been a better word than "not much", as least to me.

Of course then you need to see there is a line, a easy to see line, when you start taking more peace of mind away for peace of mind, you are no longer following what I am saying. Or other rights as well I guess, depending on what they are.

Yeah, that point was more of a 'be careful with that phrase' than anything actually against your point. People of a particular malicious slant have a nasty habit of extending 'peace of mind' beyond the point it should be used and -- by and large -- considering their own peace of mind to be the only one that matters.

Aha.

Science homework, look apon my workings, and despair.

... you've been turned into half sand-eaten ruins by the years, yet your science homework marches on toward the future?

Just for clarification, though, if they actually made physical plans, gathered the appropriate material, and had a set date and apparently the willingness to commit the act, that wouldn't be covered under the right to assembly as you're conceiving it? It's fine to plan out a murder, but not prepare for it?

In my opinion, absolutely everyone has the right to plan to murder someone. No crime is committed until they actually try to murder someone.

Opinion being noted, haven't people actually been convicted of a crime during the planning stages? I'm not sure if conspiracy to commit murder actually requires a murder attempt or not. Ninja'd: Apparently it doesn't, at least in some places.

Your line of thought there, kaijyuu, is also directly in contention with a lot of efforts to combat sexual predation. Not weighing in on the issue in any way, just noting it.