Not pit-level annoyance, just a peeve about pedo and rape hysteria...

[iamnotbatman]

Dammit Stoid, you couldn’t leave well enough alone

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Please take the ad hominems to the Pit.

[Stoid]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I’m not interested in word games. I have provided the cite explaining that neurogical devlopment is not complete until the 20’s.

And I acknowledged that you were correct regarding the development of the brain, remember?

To give you your due, Dio, you are correct that the human brain is actively developing while in our teens, even into our twenties, there’s no question about that at all, actually.

Where your assertions fall apart is when you extrapolate from this fact the foolishly simplistic assumption that it is impossible for a 15 or 16 year old to make a valid decision about their sexual behavior, at least, not if it includes having sex with someone twice their age. And that’s just silly.

The gaping hole in your belief system, Dio, is in your passionate conviction that human beings have an incredibly narrow range of possible realities, when simply looking around the room should tell you how ludicrous that is. We can generalize, certainly, and we must in order to function, but the variety of human experience is astonishingly wide. My own experience of being the 16 year old girl to a 33 year old man was excellent. But I still don’t think it should be something we regularly recommend, because as a general rule it’s probably not a good idea. But neither am I going to say that because it’s generally not a great idea that my own experience was some kind of delusion.

Loosen up your mind, Dio, if for no other reason than you’ll probably enjoy your life more.

[iamnotbatman]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Please take the ad hominems to the Pit.

Any time you want to actually engage in debate, go ahead and actually answer one of my questions:

By what metric are you defining “cognitive parity”?

Otherwise it is not inappropriate (nor is it technically ad hominem) to call you out on it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The “metric” is the respective stages in neurological development.

[Stoid]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

“Prior to puberty” is not an age. Why can’t you just have the guts to give a real answer?

I did give a real answer. The only real answer. A number isn’t a real or true or honest answer.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Please take the ad hominems to the Pit.

When you learn what a strawman is, you should learn what an argumentum ad hominem is. Because it isn’t negative things said about the way you are arguing.

Oh hell, I’ll just tell you, since I know all about it, people whip it out when dealing with me almost automatically! (See Page One of this thread) but**** it’s not really me, it’s Stephen Bond:

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

Five bucks says he’s a Doper.

[iamnotbatman]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The “metric” is the respective stages in neurological development.

Looks like I have to go ahead and connect the dots for you again. Here was your quote:

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, my argument is that it is not possible for a 30 year old to have cognitive parity with a 15 year old.

Let’s insert the relevant “definition” you provided:

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, my argument is that it is not possible for a 30 year old to [be at the same stage of neurological development as] a 15 year old.

Great. You’ve replaced “cognitive parity” by “same stage of neurological development”. This is better at least. How do you define neurological development? You realize that neurological development is continuous, vague, and age-relation has been studied mostly qualitatively through brain mapping techniques, follows a fairly wide bell curve as most psychometrics do, and is not necessarily correlated strongly with emotional intelligence anyways.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Stoid

I did give a real answer. The only real answer. A number isn’t a real or true or honest answer.

The only real answer is a number. “Puberty” is not an age, nor is it a stage of emotional or cognitive development. Why are you so afraid to actually name an age at which you would say that sex with an adult can never be healthy?

When you learn what a strawman is, you should learn what an argumentum ad hominem is. Because it isn’t negative things said about the way you are arguing.

That’s twice in this thread that you have erroneously accused me of not knowing the definition of a particular fallacy. let me help you. Anything in the thread which is directed at me personally is an ad hominem attack. All of the “Dio show” bullshit, and the puerile snickering is pure ad hominem It’s directed at me as a person, not at my arguments, and has no place outside of the Pit. I have not attacked anyone personally, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

[iamnotbatman]

My point, Dio, is that all you know is:

1. There is such a thing as neurological development. There is some evidence that significant changes in the brain are taking place even at age 20. (never mind the fact that changes in the brain occur and are also seen by brain mapping techniques after age 20 and 30 and 40…).

Now, you have no idea what those brain changes mean, what their affect is on emotional intelligence, nor do you have any idea what the width of that age spectrum is. Do you? Finally, and most damning, is that brain development doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with any absolute level of, well, anything. Is the brain of someone with an IQ of 50 (oh, right, IQ doesn’t exist, ok, how about an ape instead) whose brain is “fully developed” better equipped than the “not-yet-fully-developed” brain of someone with an IQ of 120? Of course not.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@iamnotbatman

Looks like I have to go ahead and connect the dots for you again. Here was your quote:

Let’s insert the relevant “definition” you provided:

Great. You’ve replaced “cognitive parity” by “same stage of neurological development”. This is better at least. How do you define neurological development? You realize that neurological development is continuous, vague, and age-relation has been studied mostly qualitatively through brain mapping techniques, follows a fairly wide bell curve as most psychometrics do, and is not necessarily correlated strongly with emotional intelligence anyways.

I define it the way neurologists define it. This is a sophist angle on your part. Show me an example of a 15 year old with a complete neurogical devlopment. It isn’t there. It isn’t ok to fuck children, ok. This kind of chicken shit nitpicking is garbage. It is not going to result in a successful argument that it;'s sometimes ok for 30 year olds to fuck 15 year olds.

[iamnotbatman]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That’s twice in this thread that you have erroneously accused me of not knowing the definition of a particular fallacy. let me help you. Anything in the thread which is directed at me personally is an ad hominem attack. All of the “Dio show” bullshit, and the puerile snickering is pure ad hominem It’s directed at me as a person, not at my arguments, and has no place outside of the Pit. I have not attacked anyone personally, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Ad hominem is “[personal attack], therefore X”. The reason for the “attacks” is not to prove you wrong, it is to prove you are obnoxious. In that case, yes, it is a form of ad hominem, but of the non-fallacious sort, which I doubt you were referring to. Look it up.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Of course they are fallacious, since they have zero to do with the discussion, and they are not allowed outside of the pit.

[iamnotbatman]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Show me an example of a 15 year old with a complete neurogical devlopment.

Show me an example of a 30 year old with “complete neurological development.” Do you even know what you mean when you say “neurological development”?

[iamnotbatman]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Of course they are fallacious, since they have zero to do with the discussion, and they are not allowed outside of the pit.

You didn’t look it up, did you.
*
An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.*

If “the issue” is you, then it is not fallacious. It is valid argument.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I’m not interested in semantic games. You are not going to convince me that you should be allowed to fuck 15 year olds, so just give it up.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@iamnotbatman

You didn’t look it up, did you.
*
An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.*

I know Latin, dude, I know the definition, and I also know that IN THIS THREAD, the ad homonems against me have been off point, irrelevant and therefore FALLACIOUS.

And fallacious or not, personal attacks are not allowed outside the Pit.

[iamnotbatman]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I define it the way neurologists define it.

How do neurologist define “complete neurological development”?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

This is sophist bullshit.

[iamnotbatman]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I know Latin, dude, I know the definition, and I also know that IN THIS THREAD, the ad homonems against me have been off point, irrelevant and therefore FALLACIOUS.

Was this off point and fallacious? The evidence is in the thread, dude. Calling you out point-by-point for specious, evasive argumentative machinations is neither off point nor fallacious.

[iamnotbatman]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

This is sophist bullshit.

How can you argue that a 30 year old can’t ever have sex with a 15 year old, and yet a 60 year old can have sex with a 30 year old, unless you have some quantitative definition of “complete neurological development” that you are hiding from us?