34 year old gets 20 years for Raping 79 year old woman....

[PhiLandShiR 18]

The point I'm making, is if we were attracted to younger women back then, wouldn't it be a safe assumption that people today still hold those same feelings and for it to be just as normal? Why should laws and so-called morality change what we're attracted to?

How about... a large part of your morality is learned from your parents...?

So what they believe, is what you believe....

And after they have a 14 year old daughter... it becomes a bad thing for her to 'get jumped on'...

so now you are taught its not a good thing to go jumping on 14 year olds....

And so on....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I never suggested there was nothing useful. All I said was it wasn't fair to lump sum people. I said it wasn't fair to say Person A is just ilke Person B because factors XYZ match up.

Unfortunately, due to the way the law works, XYZ is usually good enough to classify someone. I'm simply saying that you really can't do that with any certainty. It's a gamble.

Yes you did - you said that these disciplines are in their infancy and that they provide no inherent facts. I don't think you would find anyone who works in a pyschiatric field who would say that all schizophrenics, for example, are the same, just that people with those disorders share similar symptoms.

No, I'm not being dismissive. I'm talking about physical attraction. - If there was no physical attraction to a 14-year-old girl (and sometimes even a year or two younger) then we wouldn't even be having this conversation about the way it was back then. It wouldn't have been acceptable as there would have been no dominant attractiveness there to people of that age.

Back then it was 'acceptable' but it also wasn't necessarily dominant either for it to take place. Adulthood back then was considered a lot differently, yes.. but not everyone was jumping on the 14-year-olds..

The point I'm making, is if we were attracted to younger women back then, wouldn't it be a safe assumption that people today still hold those same feelings and for it to be just as normal? Why should laws and so-called morality change what we're attracted to?

The point I'm making is that you introduced this hypothetical scenario for flawed reasons - because you have no interest in actually discussing the social differences between say, the 18th century and the 21st.

I would contend that those social differences are more important to understanding why a 35 year old man might marry a 14 year old girl, than simply writing it off as a matter of sexual deviancy.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yes you did - you said that these disciplines are in their infancy and that they provide no inherent facts. I don't think you would find anyone who works in a pyschiatric field who would say that all schizophrenics, for example, are the same, just that people with those disorders share similar symptoms.

They are in their infancy though when you look at the way it's determined for someone to be mentally ill by current 'scientific' standards. It's all an educated guess, especially in using sociology/criminology and the court system.

It's so important, especially in legal terms to use examples of previous cases in comparison. This is a very erroneous thing to do, and it works for both sides of a case as well at times.

The point I'm making is that you introduced this hypothetical scenario for flawed reasons - because you have no interest in actually discussing the social differences between say, the 18th century and the 21st.

I would contend that those social differences are more important to understanding why a 35 year old man might marry a 14 year old girl, than simply writing it off as a matter of sexual deviancy.

Social Differences have NOTHING to do with how you ultimately "FEEL" - I'm not talking about 'learned' behaviour here at all. I'm talking about actual human feelings and emotion based on the way you were born.

Learned behaviour is a completely different subject to tackle all together.

[Peikko 1,575]

So.... if they are not problematic or unacceptable or symptomatic of mental or emotional disorders..... how can you call them abnormalities?

Because they are deviations from what is normal behaviour. Not all deviations from normal behaviour are going to result in activities that will cause a problem. Having sex with a sofa is not normal but nor is it a behaviour that is going to cause anyone harm and if you beat up the sofa to heighten your sexual gratification, the sofa is not going to complain. If however, having sex with a sofa is a behaviour you resort to because you have difficulties relating to people, and actually what you need for sexual gratification is sex with a real person that you have to force yourself onto (because you can't relate to them, or them you) and beat them that's is when your abnormality causes a problem and this is a behaviour that can be reasonably predicted because of your abnormalities.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They are in their infancy though when you look at the way it's determined for someone to be mentally ill by current 'scientific' standards. It's all an educated guess, especially in using sociology/criminology and the court system.

It's so important, especially in legal terms to use examples of previous cases in comparison. This is a very erroneous thing to do, and it works for both sides of a case as well at times.

why are scientific observations "erroneous"?

Social Differences have NOTHING to do with how you ultimately "FEEL" - I'm not talking about 'learned' behaviour here at all. I'm talking about actual human feelings and emotion based on the way you were born.

Learned behaviour is a completely different subject to tackle all together.

that's what you want to talk about, but you used a hypothetical situation that makes a massive assumption and a giant leap of logic. You want to talk about changing morality without actually touching specifics. Sorry, that stinks.

[scandal 951]

How about someone who's sexually attracted to a certain animal?

spooky and scandal will have to weigh in on that.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

why are scientific observations "erroneous"?

you answered your own question by saying 'observations.' - I'm simply pointing out no two cases are alike, but due to the 'system' they are often treated as such. You can observe 20 similar cases and find almost identical similarities. It's looking beyond that though, that often lies in the key to the individual.

Think of it in terms of your Master's Degree versus your PHD. - With your masters degree, you're going to look at the broad picture of subject matter. With a PHD though, you're looking specifically at one concentrated part of that subject though.

You can either lump sum based on previous cases, or you can take the time to break down the individual. - Our justice system doesn't like to do that though. A lot of this has to do with time constraints. The system is what it is. I'm just saying it's not necessarily right.

that's what you want to talk about, but you used a hypothetical situation that makes a massive assumption and a giant leap of logic. You want to talk about changing morality without actually touching specifics. Sorry, that stinks.

What stinks? - I'm just pointing out the fact that "feelings" don't go away just because morally or learned behavior changes. It's really that simple.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you answered your own question by saying 'observations.' - I'm simply pointing out no two cases are alike, but due to the 'system' they are often treated as such. You can observe 20 similar cases and find almost identical similarities. It's looking beyond that though, that often lies in the key to the individual.

Think of it in terms of your Master's Degree versus your PHD. - With your masters degree, you're going to look at the broad picture of subject matter. With a PHD though, you're looking specifically at one concentrated part of that subject though.

You can either lump sum based on previous cases, or you can take the time to break down the individual. - Our justice system doesn't like to do that though. A lot of this has to do with time constraints. The system is what it is. I'm just saying it's not necessarily right.

I think its a given that no two cases are alike - only that people who share similar psychiatric pathology share similar symptoms.

What stinks? - I'm just pointing out the fact that "feelings" don't go away just because morally or learned behavior changes. It's really that simple.

No, it isn't that simple. Your example, as I said, makes a huge assumption that the 35 year old guy chose to marry the 14 year old girl because he was sexually attracted to her and that this was condoned by society (society having at that time, a different moral code). Yet you don't seem interested in actually understanding why the society of yesterday (and the values of yesterday) differs from the society and values of today.

Now you seem to be suggesting that a person's environment plays no role in developing their psychological makeup. That is patently untrue.

[scandal 951]

Think of it in terms of your Master's Degree versus your PHD. - With your masters degree, you're going to look at the broad picture of subject matter. With a PHD though, you're looking specifically at one concentrated part of that subject though.

The total amount of utterly inane BS that gets spouted on VJ day in and day out is mind boggling.

[Ali G. 37]

The total amount of utterly inane BS that gets spouted on VJ day in and day out is mind boggling.

So you started rereading your posts again? Good for you.

[Fandango 1,439]

I often think of VJ as a round table symposium where we all at the table seems to think we each have the answers to solve all the world's ills.

No wonder congress is so fuqued up!