Louisiana law gets medieval

[rogue06]

How exceedingly magnanimous of you.

[In case you have missed it, I am, once again, being sarcastic.]

You posed the question. Of course it's my fault for assuming that you were asking in good faith.

I very much doubt that, as with a couple in their twenties, it will be one of the main driving forces in their relationship but who is to say that sex will not play a part?

Good luck to both of them

You can see the differences on average at every decade^[1]. By the time a couple reaches 90 those home fires are mostly ashes. Cuddling becomes a primary means of showing affection.

Now, of course, there are exceptions but even in those cases the drive is nowhere near as strong.




1. a girl who I went to school with who became a successful comedienne noted how women reach their sexual peak at around the age of 30, which coincidentally is about the same age that men discover they have a favorite chair.

Fast forward 60 more years.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You posed the question. Of course it's my fault for assuming that you were asking in good faith.

I made no mention of them seeking permission or being "allowed" to do so.

You can see the differences on average at every decade^[1]. By the time a couple reaches 90 those home fires are mostly ashes. Cuddling becomes a primary means of showing affection.

Purely as a matter of interest how often do you observe nonagenarian couples being intimate in their homes/bedrooms?

Now, of course, there are exceptions but even in those cases the drive is nowhere near as strong.

That has already been noted.

[Sparko]

It is the mutilation I find barbarous. In Saudi a doctor is available to bind the stump following the amputation of a hand. Does that make the punishment less horrific?

It does tend to stop thieves though. Both as a deterrent and a preventative.

Does physical castration "prevent" sex drive? Reading on the Castrati of eighteenth century Europe some went on to become married men. One castrato even divorced his wife for adultery when she became pregnant.

Sex is not the same as love. One can be married and not have sex or even a sex drive. I suppose if someone were a dedicated pedophile, not having working sex equipment would not prevent him from still lusting after children, or even abusing them.

Given that you have already told me what me what I think on that topic, why are you asking?

I consider the over prescription of such drugs to be potentially deleterious. Or is that another polysyllabic word like apotropaic that is beyond your vocabulary?

A typical HA non-answer, which actually gives us the answer. You don't have a problem with treating transkids with hormones or even surgery. If you did you would have simply said so, instead of making such a slimy non-answer.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It does tend to stop thieves though. Both as a deterrent and a preventative.

Do you also support the death penalty? [added vitriol] That certain acts as "a deterrent and preventative."

Sex is not the same as love. One can be married and not have sex or even a sex drive.

Is that comment from personal experience?

I understand that some people are deemed asexual and I suspect there may be couples who both identify as asexual and succeed in having a happy and loving albeit platonic, relationship.

I suppose if someone were a dedicated pedophile, not having working sex equipment would not prevent him from still lusting after children, or even abusing them.

The difference being that Sullivan is not technically a paedophile. His victim was a young teen not a prepubescent child.

A typical HA non-answer, which actually gives us the answer. You don't have a problem with treating transkids with hormones or even surgery. If you did you would have simply said so, instead of making such a slimy non-answer.

Unlike you I do not hold the view there are simple answers to complex issues. We all know Mencken's view on that attitude.

There may be occasions when such therapies are required or necessary. However, I have expressed my views on some aspects of trans gender issues particularly in relation to prepubescent or pubescent children in the past. My concern is that for many it may simply be a fad/fashion encouraged by television, magazine articles, social media, and the wider internet.

[Sparko]

Do you also support the death penalty? [added vitriol] That certain acts as "a deterrent and preventative."

I support the death penalty only in extreme cases and when there is no doubt at all of guilt.

Is that comment from personal experience?

What would that matter?

I understand that some people are deemed asexual and I suspect there may be couples who both identify as asexual and succeed in having a happy and loving albeit platonic, relationship.

People got married in the past as political moves. I know a couple who got married and the male is in a wheelchair and has no feeling below his hips (so no sex). People get married for many reasons. Sex just one of them. And I think a marriage based just on sex or primarily on sex won't be a good one. Especially as they age.

The difference being that Sullivan is not technically a paedophile. His victim was a young teen not a prepubescent child.

That is still a pedophile. I noticed you stuck in "technically" Legally a pedophile does not just refer to just someone who has an attraction to prepubescent children.

Unlike you I do not hold the view there are simple answers to complex issues. We all know Mencken's view on that attitude.

There may be occasions when such therapies are required or necessary. However, I have expressed my views on some aspects of trans gender issues particularly in relation to prepubescent or pubescent children in the past. My concern is that for many it may simply be a fad/fashion encouraged by television, magazine articles, social media, and the wider internet.

So is that you do or do not support giving children hormone therapy in order to allow them to change genders?

You complain about me reading your mind, and then I ask you to explain your mind, instead of doing that, you start waffling and speaking in vagaries instead of just telling me what you think/believe. Can you blame me? If you don't want people guessing at what you believe, you should state it clearly and simply. Then I can't "read your mind" incorrectly. Of course then you would have nothing to COMPLAIN about and troll with.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I support the death penalty only in extreme cases and when there is no doubt at all of guilt.

Can that ever be completely assured? Police corruption, the withholding of evidence, witness intimidation etc?

What would that matter?

It might be opined that personal experience would add verisimilitude to your comment.

People got married in the past as political moves.

There were dynastic marriages in previous centuries.

I know a couple who got married and the male is in a wheelchair and has no feeling below his hips (so no sex). People get married for many reasons. Sex just one of them. And I think a marriage based just on sex or primarily on sex won't be a good one. Especially as they age.

I agree that no relationship based entirely on sex has a very long shelf-life because eventually reality has to be faced.

That is still a pedophile. I noticed you stuck in "technically" Legally a pedophile does not just refer to just someone who has an attraction to prepubescent children.

From Cornell Law School

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pedophilia

pedophilia

Pedophilia is a mental disorder where an individual seeks sexual gratification from children. Spelled Paedophilia in British English. The American Psychological Association (APA) Dictionary of Psychology defines pedophilia as “a paraphilia in which sexual acts or fantasies involving pre-pubertal children are the persistently preferred or exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement.” A 2013 APA News Release stated that the APA maintains that pedophilia is a mental disorder

That article goes on to briefly discuss the California Penal Code 288

From Britannica and with the US spelling option.

Pedophilia, in conventional usage, a psychosexual disorder, generally affecting adults, characterized by sexual interest in prepubescent children or attempts to engage in sexual acts with prepubescent children.

From the British charity The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/news/w...ematic-caution

Defining paedophilia


The tenth edition of the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) classifies paedophilia as a sexual preference for children, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age. The person diagnosed must be at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children who are the focus of their sexual preference

So is that you do or do not support giving children hormone therapy in order to allow them to change genders?

I gave you my answer.

There may be occasions when such therapies are required or necessary. However, I have expressed my views on some aspects of trans gender issues particularly in relation to prepubescent or pubescent children in the past. My concern is that for many it may simply be a fad/fashion encouraged by television, magazine articles, social media, and the wider internet.

Do explain where in the above you find "waffling and speaking in vagaries".

[CivilDiscourse]

Unlike you I do not hold the view there are simple answers to complex issues. We all know Mencken's view on that attitude.

The fallacy in this statement is known as the "complex question fallacy" or "ignoratio elenchi" (Latin for 'ignoring the issue'). This fallacy occurs when someone dismisses an argument or answer because they believe the issue at hand is too complex to be addressed with a simple answer. It's a form of faulty reasoning because complexity does not necessarily negate the validity of a simple answer, especially if that answer is accurate and relevant to the question.

[Sparko]

Can that ever be completely assured? Police corruption, the withholding of evidence, witness intimidation etc?

It might be opined that personal experience would add verisimilitude to your comment.


There were dynastic marriages in previous centuries.

I agree that no relationship based entirely on sex has a very long shelf-life because eventually reality has to be faced.




From Cornell Law School

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pedophilia

pedophilia

Pedophilia is a mental disorder where an individual seeks sexual gratification from children. Spelled Paedophilia in British English. The American Psychological Association (APA) Dictionary of Psychology defines pedophilia as “a paraphilia in which sexual acts or fantasies involving pre-pubertal children are the persistently preferred or exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement.” A 2013 APA News Release stated that the APA maintains that pedophilia is a mental disorder

That article goes on to briefly discuss the California Penal Code 288

From Britannica and with the US spelling option.

Pedophilia, in conventional usage, a psychosexual disorder, generally affecting adults, characterized by sexual interest in prepubescent children or attempts to engage in sexual acts with prepubescent children.

From the British charity The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/news/w...ematic-caution

Defining paedophilia


The tenth edition of the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) classifies paedophilia as a sexual preference for children, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age. The person diagnosed must be at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children who are the focus of their sexual preference

From your own source: While pedophilia itself does not give rise to criminal liability, acting on it does. Many jurisdictions make it a felony to engage in sexual contact with minors, which would be an example of acting on pedophilia.

A minor is anyone under 18, so technically (your word) pedophilia can refer to anyone under 18.

Also girls at 14 are not always done with puberty. and we don't know when his crime started.

I gave you my answer.

There may be occasions when such therapies are required or necessary. However, I have expressed my views on some aspects of trans gender issues particularly in relation to prepubescent or pubescent children in the past. My concern is that for many it may simply be a fad/fashion encouraged by television, magazine articles, social media, and the wider internet.

Do explain where in the above you find "waffling and speaking in vagaries".

You can't simply say that giving hormones to children to help them change their gender is something you think is fine, or is wrong. Forgetting "occasions when such therapies are required or necessary" (I am assuming you are referring to cases of intersex or some child who is not developing due to a lack of hormones in their body) - what is your answer: Do you think children who just want to change gender should be given hormones or surgery before they are old enough to legally make that decision on their own (18).

[Cow Poke]

The fallacy in this statement is known as the "complex question fallacy" or "ignoratio elenchi" (Latin for 'ignoring the issue'). This fallacy occurs when someone dismisses an argument or answer because they believe the issue at hand is too complex to be addressed with a simple answer. It's a form of faulty reasoning because complexity does not necessarily negate the validity of a simple answer, especially if that answer is accurate and relevant to the question.

Reminds me of the Teen Talk Barbie doll who said "Math class is tough". Maybe they could have had her say "that's just too complicated".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The fallacy in this statement is known as the "complex question fallacy" or "ignoratio elenchi" (Latin for 'ignoring the issue'). This fallacy occurs when someone dismisses an argument or answer because they believe the issue at hand is too complex to be addressed with a simple answer. It's a form of faulty reasoning because complexity does not necessarily negate the validity of a simple answer, especially if that answer is accurate and relevant to the question.

Someone has been Googling!

[seer]

Someone has been Googling!

Yes, you as usual...

[CivilDiscourse]

Someone has been Googling!

Google or not, doesn't change the fact it's a fallacy.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The fallacy in this statement is known as the "complex question fallacy" or "ignoratio elenchi" (Latin for 'ignoring the issue'). This fallacy occurs when someone dismisses an argument or answer because they believe the issue at hand is too complex to be addressed with a simple answer. It's a form of faulty reasoning because complexity does not necessarily negate the validity of a simple answer, especially if that answer is accurate and relevant to the question.

Complex question fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...estion-Fallacy

Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact.

Logical Form:

Question X is asked that requires implied claim Y to be accepted before question X can be answered.

Example #1:

How many times per day do you beat your wife?

And here

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

Complex Question;
Many Questions, Loaded Question, or Compound Question Fallacy


Abstract: The fallacy of Complex Question (traditionally known as fallacia plurimum interrogationum) is discussed and explained with illustrative examples and self-grading quizzes. The “fallacy” is said to occur when an answer is demanded in response to a question composed of several questions.

In logic textbooks the fallacy is also cited as the Many Questions, Loaded Question, False Question, Double Question, Assumption of the Previous Question, Trick Question, or, in law, the Compound Question Fallacy).

The same site also has a long article on ignoratio elenchi here:

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/...gnoratio_types

ignoratio elenchi is used as a “catch-all” classification for fallacies of irrelevance not properly classified under more specific fallacies of relevance.[61]

Identifying fallacies of relevance such as ad hominem, ad populum, and so forth as ignoratio elenchi, although historically justifiable, is no longer done in contemporary textbooks.

Many of these textbooks expand the traditional definition of ignoratio elenchi as arising from a misunderstanding of the proper way to refute the argument being contested.

1. The ignoratio elenchi is often persuasive in oral political argumentation. Often listeners in such a venue are easily distracted by the confidence and resolve of a speaker. The fallacy is especially effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad populum fallacy. The emotional situation in a crowd can often be distracting and can result in overlooking the logical import of what is said.
2. Some Common Examples of Ignoratio Elenchi: There are many ways to evade a question. Some of the fallacious techniques to change or shift the focus of an argument are listed below together with a perfunctory example.

And it continues on

Finally

https://global.oup.com/us/companion....0conclusion%20 (ignoratio,actually%20support%20a%20different%20co nclusion.

Fallacy of irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi, meaning “ignorance of the proof”) A fallacy in which someone puts forward premises in support of a stated conclusion, but the premises actually support a different conclusion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

From your own source: While pedophilia itself does not give rise to criminal liability, acting on it does. Many jurisdictions make it a felony to engage in sexual contact with minors, which would be an example of acting on pedophilia.

A minor is anyone under 18, so technically (your word) pedophilia can refer to anyone under 18.

In some jurisdictions.

Also girls at 14 are not always done with puberty. and we don't know when his crime started.

As we do not know, your comment remains speculative.

You can't simply say that giving hormones to children to help them change their gender is something you think is fine, or is wrong.

To use a phrase quod scripsi, scripsi.

There evidently are individuals who believe, for whatever reasons, that they are in the wrong body and are the wrong sex and this conviction has existed since their early childhood. Such individuals might need hormone therapy at or after puberty but I suspect those instances are rare. And of course as you have noted there may be instances of intersex or developmental problems.

Do you think children who just want to change gender should be given hormones or surgery before they are old enough to legally make that decision on their own (18).

Where is that actually occurring?

[rogue06]

I made no mention of them seeking permission or being "allowed" to do so.

You literally asked whether or not a couple in their nineties should enjoy a sexual relationship. "Should" seems to imply that.

Purely as a matter of interest how often do you observe nonagenarian couples being intimate in their homes/bedrooms?

For the majority of my life my friends have been older. Then there's the fact that I'm the youngest on both sides of my family and have a reputation for not gossiping about what you tell me. IOW, people talk. I listen.