doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[Doctor Steuss]

You literally approvingly shared a study, less than a few weeks ago, that provided a strong argument against it. LMAO!

Well, I'll acknowledge that you are one of the few intelligent people on this board, and we can at least have a discussion, unlike with these other geniuses.

My cognitive abilities are a flickering candle in a tornado. My noggin has been ravaged by pharmaceuticals. Sanity giveth... but it taketh away. Caveat emptor.

The study concluded that by age 16, young people can possess adult reasoning skills, but psychosocial maturity typically takes longer to develop. Of course, there are limitations; the study doesn't account for real-world behavior and competence, but that's what we have so far. However, I suspect that single moms (who had a rough childhood and had to grow up faster) are a lot more mature than your average US girl.

Additionally, I would agree that 17 and 19-year-olds are too young for lifelong commitments, but one doesn't need to be at peak reasoning capacity to be in a relationship. I doubt you'd argue that 30 year olds can't date people over 45. But maybe we do need laws to protect people over 45 from 30 year olds.

The very nature of romantic relationships makes the dramatic linear trend of psychosocial maturity paramount. Unless the teenager is a sociopath that lacks emotion, or is some kind of genetic freak with no epinephrine receptors, or a deficiency that's pared with a mutant liver that has somehow been spared hepatic steatosis.

Relationships are emotional. Romantic relationships are exceptionally emotional. "Love" is rascally, and can make even the most rational person into an irrational psychopath (<<this space reserved for restraining orders>>).

On a more personal/anecdotal note: The concept of dating age gaps as we get older is interesting, and certainly something I've thought about. I imagine in previous generations, it probably didn't matter quite as much because, really what formative and life-altering events could two different people have in the late 1800's to early 1900's that a decade or two would make a huge difference. Now though, everything moves so fast. Technology, world events, the overall zeitgeist of generations. There are certain things that leave a mark on how you view the world, and how you respond to it. Growing up during the Great Recession would be vastly different than trying to make a living during the Great Recession. Coming of age, when computers were first entering homes and the workplace, and were a luxury item, would be vastly different than coming of age when it's common place for homes to have the equivalent of multiple computers. Being an adult, watching masses of people burn Dixie Chick albums, and call French Fries "Freedom Fries" is a (hopefully) life-altering thing, that shapes an overall view of history, current events, interactions with others, etc.

I've thought about dating again on occasion. For the most part though, the thought is unappealing to me. When I have thought about it though, I put the age cap at about 12 years (so between ages 32-56) I. My reasoning is super weird though on that. When I was 12, a classmate got pregnant, so in my mind, that's around the age threshold where someone could be the age of my child, or I could be the age of their child. Ultimately, I'd want someone who was in high school at the same time I was (my ex-wife is 1 year older than me), because I know that they'd have largely experienced the same world I did. The same formative experiences. The same geopolitical events. The same musical landmarks. The same pop culture trends. They would've largely had mentors the same ages as mine, teachers the same ages as mine, parents the same ages as mine. All of these things shape us in immeasurable ways.

There's just so many indescribable things that come with being born during a certain time frame. Things that I think we (and by that, I mean "me") easily take for granted. Things which have the potential to make an already difficult task (i.e. a healthy romantic relationship) more or less successful.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Well, I'll acknowledge that you are one of the few intelligent people on this board, and we can at least have a discussion, unlike with these other geniuses.

My cognitive abilities are a flickering candle in a tornado. My noggin has been ravaged by pharmaceuticals. Sanity giveth... but it taketh away. Caveat emptor.

The study concluded that by age 16, young people can possess adult reasoning skills, but psychosocial maturity typically takes longer to develop. Of course, there are limitations; the study doesn't account for real-world behavior and competence, but that's what we have so far. However, I suspect that single moms (who had a rough childhood and had to grow up faster) are a lot more mature than your average US girl.

Additionally, I would agree that 17 and 19-year-olds are too young for lifelong commitments, but one doesn't need to be at peak reasoning capacity to be in a relationship. I doubt you'd argue that 30 year olds can't date people over 45. But maybe we do need laws to protect people over 45 from 30 year olds.

The very nature of romantic relationships makes the dramatic linear trend of psychosocial maturity paramount. Unless the teenager is a sociopath that lacks emotion, or is some kind of genetic freak with no epinephrine receptors, or a deficiency that's pared with a mutant liver that has somehow been spared hepatic steatosis.

Relationships are emotional. Romantic relationships are exceptionally emotional. "Love" is rascally, and can make even the most rational person into an irrational psychopath (<<this space reserved for restraining orders>>).

On a more personal/anecdotal note: The concept of dating age gaps as we get older is interesting, and certainly something I've thought about. I imagine in previous generations, it probably didn't matter quite as much because, really what formative and life-altering events could two different people have in the late 1800's to early 1900's that a decade or two would make a huge difference. Now though, everything moves so fast. Technology, world events, the overall zeitgeist of generations. There are certain things that leave a mark on how you view the world, and how you respond to it. Growing up during the Great Recession would be vastly different than trying to make a living during the Great Recession. Coming of age, when computers were first entering homes and the workplace, and were a luxury item, would be vastly different than coming of age when it's common place for homes to have the equivalent of multiple computers. Being an adult, watching masses of people burn Dixie Chick albums, and call French Fries "Freedom Fries" is a (hopefully) life-altering thing, that shapes an overall view of history, current events, interactions with others, etc.

I've thought about dating again on occasion. For the most part though, the thought is unappealing to me. When I have thought about it though, I put the age cap at about 12 years (so between ages 32-56) I. My reasoning is super weird though on that. When I was 12, a classmate got pregnant, so in my mind, that's around the age threshold where someone could be the age of my child, or I could be the age of their child. Ultimately, I'd want someone who was in high school at the same time I was (my ex-wife is 1 year older than me), because I know that they'd have largely experienced the same world I did. The same formative experiences. The same geopolitical events. The same musical landmarks. The same pop culture trends. They would've largely had mentors the same ages as mine, teachers the same ages as mine, parents the same ages as mine. All of these things shape us in immeasurable ways.

There's just so many indescribable things that come with being born during a certain time frame. Things that I think we (and by that, I mean "me") easily take for granted. Things which have the potential to make an already difficult task (i.e. a healthy romantic relationship) more or less successful.

<3 love this. Very well considered.

[Gadianton]

"As long as the relationship is healthy and consensual,"

Adding two fallacies together doesn't achieve coherence, it just slightly increases the work to untangle the errors.

but let's rephrase it: We shouldn't assume there's harm when the relationship appears to be both healthy and consensual unless there's evidence suggesting otherwise. Does that convey the point better?

Not really. You are making it harder to untangle because you're not disclosing the fact that one of the parties is underage. Again, your premise "appears healthy and consensual" sneaks in the assumption that it's possible for an underage person to be in a consensual relationship. That's the hard stop for your target audience. Let's look at the most famous example of a complex question fallacy:

"When will you stop beating your mother-in-law?"

You can't debate when the beating will stop until it's agreed it's happening in the first place.

"When will you accept a consensual relationship between a 17-year old and a 26-year old?"

You can't debate when the acceptance can happen until it's agreed there is consent, and as soon as your target audience sees "17", they aren't buying there is consent.

"When will you comply with the executive order from President Biden?"

Seems like no problem with this question, but if I'm asking it on patriots.win, the fallacy is all mine, because most people on that forum don't believe that Biden is the president.

Regardless, the burden of proof lies with Doc, Dr Exiled, and all these other geniuses to demonstrate that I have done something wrong. All I hear from them are numerous ad hominem attacks and dreadful circular reasoning, yet you don't tell them anything. Instead, you solely target me.

I've not seen circular reasoning from Doc or Dr. E. Nor do I believe Dr. E has said explicitly that you have done something wrong, he's held back because he doesn't know what state you're in, and so he can't say without pulling the exact penal code. I agree with Res, you'd be a fool to go down that path. Doc has said you've done something wrong for sure, but I haven't seen him employ circular reasoning in order to make his case. I think he should quit with the worst of his incriminatory insults, but you fire right back in kind so it's even.

Morality is very subjective, so it shouldn't be difficult for them to present strong arguments as to why 17-year-olds shouldn't date 26-year-olds.

I think you have it backwards, because morality is very subjective, it's really difficult to make strong arguments about morality to a universal audience. "Burden of proof" doesn't really work outside of a formal debate. I know it's popular for some atheists to claim religionists have the burden of proof, but I don't play that game. The person with the burden of proof is obviously the person who wants to change another person's mind. If I want the apologists to quit believing in God, the burden is on me to find a way to convince them. You're the one with a life mission for this subject, and so I'd say it's up to you to make the case that 17-year-olds should date 26-year-olds. Given that underage relationships are quite taboo in society, you've got some work to do.

I'm neutral here. I couldn't care less if a 17-year-old dates a 26-year-old. I remember high school and even junior high well enough. I don't know what kind of schools people here went to, but at my high school the girls 16-17 could be pretty damn tough. There was a significant farming contingent at my school. In a history class I had as a junior, there was a group of "cowgirls" who basically surrounded me. No, they never talked to me except once, to make fun of a cute bunny picture I had for a craft. They talked in class all period, and it was all super adult talk. They all seemed to smoke and drink, and party like crazy, and have older boyfriends they were having constant sex with. Cowboys with jobs who did rodeo. They had no problem throwing details about their sex lives right out there and sounded consensual to me. Good for them and their boyfriends, what do I care?

But let me tell you something else I don't care about. Suppose the father of one of these teens found out what was going on and didn't take kindly to the guy putting hands on his young daughter, hunted him down, and beat the tar out of him. Good for the dad. I'd probably laugh at the boyfriend for getting owned.

Bear in mind, there is a huge difference between saying 17-year-olds should be allowed to date a 26-year-old, and saying that 17-year-olds should date 26-year-olds. On to another fallacy of yours. You say that Cam needs strong arguments as to why a 17-year-old shouldn't date a 26-year old. But you're pitting that against what you believe should be the default position that a 17-year-olds should date older men. You're not just claiming it should be allowed, but that older men have all these advantages and so it should be encouraged; that it is better for them to date older men then it is to date guys their own age. Movies should be made showing the great advantages of a high-school girl dating her teacher. Hypothetically failing to argue that a 26-year-old should never be allowed to date a 17-year-old by no means says that they should date.

I think kids should be allowed to do dangerous tricks on their bikes. It would be very wrong to say kids should do dangerous tricks on their bikes.

[doubtingthomas]

adding two fallacies together doesn't achieve coherence, it just slightly increases the work to untangle the errors.

I think your brain is wired to detect fallacies in my sentences even when there aren't any.

Not really. You are making it harder to untangle because you're not disclosing the fact that one of the parties is underage. Again, your premise "appears healthy and consensual" sneaks in the assumption that it's possible for an underage person to be in a consensual relationship. That's the hard stop for your target audience.

I believe I have already given good reasons and provided good evidence showing that 17-year-olds (especially single moms) are capable of being in happy and healthy relationships with an older adult. Moreover, even if I didn't, you can take the argument as saying that we should assume there's no harm if it's possible for the relationship with 17-year-old to be both consensual and healthy. It may not be possible in the minds of the audience here, and even if they're correct, we should simply conclude that it is always harmful. A relationship that is "not harmful" cannot be deemed true if one of the conditions isn't met. Therefore, the burden of proof would fall on them to demonstrate that the conditions can't possibly ever be true.

But I can provide all the evidence they need for my position, even though I don't have to, since the burden of proof clearly falls on them.

Nor do I believe Dr. E has said explicitly that you have done something wrong, he's held back because he doesn't know what state you're in, and so he can't say without pulling the exact penal code.

Dr. E explicitly said that I did something wrong, that's why the mods removed his unfounded comments. And when a relationship is legal (or not a serious crime) in 99% of the world, your first assumption shouldn't be that I did something wrong. The age of consent in Bahrain is 21; no one would accuse me of doing something wrong if I state that I dated a 20-year-old. Similarly, no one would accuse me of doing something wrong if I state that I had premarital sex with a 45-year-old, even though premarital sex is illegal in some US states and considered a serious crime in some countries.

Lastly, whether something is legal or not has nothing to do with a discussion about ethics.

Bear in mind, there is a huge difference between saying 17-year-olds should be allowed to date a 26-year-old, and saying that 17-year-olds should date 26-year-olds. On to another fallacy of yours. You say that Cam needs strong arguments as to why a 17-year-old shouldn't date a 26-year old. But you're pitting that against what you believe should be the default position that a 17-year-olds should date older men.

I never suggested that.

[Gadianton]

DT, to my explanation of your latest re-statement of your fallacy, you write:

I believe I have already given good reasons and provided good evidence showing that 17-year-olds...

Something isn't clicking for you. Whether or not elsewhere you provided lots of evidence that you think is dandy has no relevance to the statement you re-wrote. I'll try one more example, incorporating your latest confusion. Take my previous example of me going to patriots.win and asking:

"When will you folks begin to follow the executive order issued by our president, President Biden?"

Even if on that same message board, I provided lots of evidence that Biden is the president, and suppose it's really excellent evidence, it's still a fallacy on my part to ask this question. look up "fallacy of complex question" for more information.

It really doesn't matter how good the evidence is you brought to the table elsewhere. The rewrite of your initial fallacy is still a fallacy. Hint: It will likely be impossible to re-write your initial statement in any way that is not fallacious.

Dr. E explicitly said that I did something wrong, that's why the mods removed his unfounded comments.

If he did, then he did. I didn't see it.

no one would accuse me of doing something wrong if I state that I dated a 20-year-old.

Oh really? According to you, society condemns older men dating young women as old as 25. Your first post upon your return I believe complained about society demonizing relationships between older guys and 20-year-old girls.

Lastly, whether something is legal or not has nothing to do with a discussion about ethics.

I was trying to explain what I saw as Dr. E's position. He was bringing penal codes into the discussion. The law is based upon what society believes is morally right and wrong. Of course ethics has something to do with the law. You think it's a total coincidence that murder is illegal and that murder is also immoral? You'd be right to say that the law does not have a necessary connection to ethics. The law doesn't even have a necessary connection to the law, as laws get overturned as unconstitutional all the time. Dr. E's moral appraisal seemed to connect to law, and so that's why I brought it up. I could be wrong. Dr. E may have thought you did something morally wrong even if it were legal in your state. If that's his position, then I just missed it. my bad.

[doubtingthomas]

It really doesn't matter how good the evidence is you brought to the table elsewhere. The rewrite of your initial fallacy is still a fallacy. Hint: It will likely be impossible to re-write your initial statement in any way that is not fallacious.

Let me put it this way: if X is true and if Y is true, then it likely means that Z is true.

If someone thinks that X or Y can never be true, then we should have a discussion about that.

I don't understand why this is a big deal.

Oh really? According to you, society condemns older men dating young women as old as 25. Your first post upon your return I believe complained about society demonizing relationships between older guys and 20-year-old girls.

You got me good there. Good job. However, I can say that we are talking about 26-year-olds. A 20-year-old and a 26-year-old in a relationship probably won't be seen as a large age gap relationship. The societal disdain for grown men over 30 dating women under 25 is common, but the level of outrage tends to escalate when the woman is younger than 20.

I was trying to explain what I saw as Dr. E's position. He was bringing penal codes into the discussion. The law is based upon what society believes is morally right and wrong

That's not always true.

Dr. E's moral appraisal seemed to connect to law, and so that's why I brought it up. I could be wrong. Dr. E may have thought you did something morally wrong even if it were legal in your state. If that's his position, then I just missed it. my bad.

I doubt Dr. E always cares about the law. Even law enforcement officers don't enforce all laws; they do let some things go.

I am not sure if abortion is a felony in some states; it may soon be, but I doubt Dr. E would ever stop supporting abortion rights.

[Gadianton]

Let me put it this way: if X is true and if Y is true, then it likely means that Z is true.

I've never heard of that one. By the way, circular reasoning and complex question are informal fallacies. X therefore X is valid. Breaking your sentence down into symbols wouldn't reveal the problem.

Saying "exercise causes no harm as long as it is healthy" isn't invalid. It's formally valid. It's just not saying anything. Now if you had said, "exercise is healthy, as long as it causes no harm", then you'd have a non-sequitur.

but the level of outrage tends to escalate when the woman is younger than 20

Was anyone on the forum outraged at you on this forum for 17 < age < 20? No. The outrage on the forum came with < 18. The outrage at your movie had additional factors with typecast characters with an established fan base.

...the law...

Everyone agrees with you that something can be moral even if it's illegal. You're looking for the exceptional cases to make your point. If the law has absolutely nothing at all to do with what society thinks is moral, then why are you focusing on the most controversial laws like abortion? Why not tell us how breaking and entering is moral even though it's not legal? Driving a 100mph through a school zone is moral even though it's not legal? Lighting a 7-11 on fire is moral even though it's not legal?

[Gadianton]

DT, which of these sentences do you think conveys content most worthy of a fitness discussion?

"Benching free weights is not harmful, as long as it is healthy."

"Benching free weights is not harmful, as long as it is healthy and consensual."

"Benching free weights at gun point is not harmful, as long as it is healthy and consensual."

"Benching free weights is not harmful, as long as each next rep is only 10 pounds more than the previous rep, and you lift with a spotter."

[Dr Exiled]

adding two fallacies together doesn't achieve coherence, it just slightly increases the work to untangle the errors.

I think your brain is wired to detect fallacies in my sentences even when there aren't any.

Not really. You are making it harder to untangle because you're not disclosing the fact that one of the parties is underage. Again, your premise "appears healthy and consensual" sneaks in the assumption that it's possible for an underage person to be in a consensual relationship. That's the hard stop for your target audience.

I believe I have already given good reasons and provided good evidence showing that 17-year-olds (especially single moms) are capable of being in happy and healthy relationships with an older adult. Moreover, even if I didn't, you can take the argument as saying that we should assume there's no harm if it's possible for the relationship with 17-year-old to be both consensual and healthy. It may not be possible in the minds of the audience here, and even if they're correct, we should simply conclude that it is always harmful. A relationship that is "not harmful" cannot be deemed true if one of the conditions isn't met. Therefore, the burden of proof would fall on them to demonstrate that the conditions can't possibly ever be true.

But I can provide all the evidence they need for my position, even though I don't have to, since the burden of proof clearly falls on them.

Nor do I believe Dr. E has said explicitly that you have done something wrong, he's held back because he doesn't know what state you're in, and so he can't say without pulling the exact penal code.

Dr. E explicitly said that I did something wrong, that's why the mods removed his unfounded comments. And when a relationship is legal (or not a serious crime) in 99% of the world, your first assumption shouldn't be that I did something wrong. The age of consent in Bahrain is 21; no one would accuse me of doing something wrong if I state that I dated a 20-year-old. Similarly, no one would accuse me of doing something wrong if I state that I had premarital sex with a 45-year-old, even though premarital sex is illegal in some US states and considered a serious crime in some countries.

Lastly, whether something is legal or not has nothing to do with a discussion about ethics.

Bear in mind, there is a huge difference between saying 17-year-olds should be allowed to date a 26-year-old, and saying that 17-year-olds should date 26-year-olds. On to another fallacy of yours. You say that Cam needs strong arguments as to why a 17-year-old shouldn't date a 26-year old. But you're pitting that against what you believe should be the default position that a 17-year-olds should date older men.

I never suggested that.

Your obsession with teenage girls is designed to get a reaction and I originally bit. It's disturbing and I suggest that you stay away from high schools if you don't want your ass kicked by someone that doesn't have your nuanced view on the subject.

Additionally, I mistakenly assumed that you consummated your relationship with the poor 17 year-old and so I began to question you on where your act occurred because, surprisingly, some states, like Utah, aren't as hip as you are, as progressive and nuanced as you are, and define 26 year-olds having relations with 17 year-olds as criminal. What a shocker! However, upon further reflection, my guess is that you only were with her for a moment and surely didn't have any relations with her that could constitute criminal conduct within the State of Utah, where I believe you reside and resided at the time.

So, carry on with your obsession and I hope to whatever is out there that you don't act on your fantasies for the poor girl's sake. I'm done feeding the creatures.

[doubtingthomas]

Your obsession with teenage girls is designed to get a reaction and I originally bit.

Why do you persist in lying about me? I was talking about 20-year-old girls in my opening posts; you guys brought up the teen girls.

It's disturbing and I suggest that you stay away from high schools if you don't want your ass kicked by someone that doesn't have your nuanced view on the subject.

Unfortunately, a lot of maniacs like you would want to hurt me for dating a woman in her early 20s; but I would be ready to defend myself.

Additionally, I mistakenly assumed that you consummated your relationship with the poor 17 year-old and so I began to question you on where your act occurred because, surprisingly, some states, like Utah, aren't as hip as you are, as progressive and nuanced as you are, and define 26 year-olds having relations with 17 year-olds as criminal.

Jesus Christ, I doubt you think that Utah's laws amazing. If I'm not mistaken, all the states where that would be a serious crime happen to be states with a lot of right-wing maniac lawmakers, including Arizona and Florida.

could constitute criminal conduct within the State of Utah, where I believe you reside and resided at the time.

You are a maniac. Did you Holy Ghost tell you that I reside in UT?

DT, which of these sentences do you think conveys content most worthy of a fitness discussion?

Perhaps the last one? "Benching free weights is not harmful, as long as each next rep is only 10 pounds more than the previous rep, and you lift with a spotter"

I do wonder, are you going to give Dr. Exiled a free pass for all of his logical fallacies?

In the first paragraph, he made an Ad Hominem, an Appeal to Emotion, and a Strawman. He is also straight-up lying by claiming that I am obsessed with teen girls. Additionally, he committed the Fallacy of False Cause and made an Argument from Ignorance.

Lastly, doesn't he deserve harsher treatment for being a bigot?