Live Earth

[nomadologist]

in contrast to the high school experience i had, my college professors were 100% amazing and great. my current job was offered to me by audience research professor, who i think i've talked about on here.

i remember when my mom heard, especially because i got offered over twice what i'd been making, she couldn't believe that he wasn't offering me a job because he had ulterior motives.

i've noticed in movies the pervy college professor is more an archetype than a pervy high school teacher.

 

[mistersloane]

I don’t see why you would think of it as ‘pathological’, but to answer your question: the cut-off age is whenever the object of desire has reached puberty. So if we were to use this terminology (which some object to) desire for a 9-year-old would be considered paedophilia and desire for a 17-year-old would be considered hebephilia.

Why do some object to those definitions Guybrush?

 

[tht]

have you read Dora yet?

that was what i was referring to, also his three essasys concerning sex and some other papers

notwithstanding statutory rape cases (considering 16+ in uk) i know of at least one girl who had sex with a middle aged teacher when scarcely older than that, which is clearly fucked up

how old does the elder person have to be for sex (or a fantasy thereof) with someone of that age to be considered pathological or abusive even if legal? if a worryingly high proportion of middle aged men at least fantasise about having sex with children, then i would contend that would rise to a majority, even a vast majority, if the 'sexual object' were legal-age adolescents instead

this sort of supplants the paedophilia theory since adolescents are no longer 'innocents' and the ingenue archetype is discarded in favour of the fantasy of sexually precocious teenage girls who've seen it and done many times already (the fixation supplanting 95% of hetereosexual pornography where 25 year olds pretend to be school age)

 

[tht]

It’s 18 if one of the participants is under the others’ superintendence ‘or the like’ (which would include a teacher, for example)

there is something similar in the uk now afaik, although it wouldn't apply to the case in my previous post

 

[DRMHCP]

Yeah, because you kids in the 70s made the world a great place for my generation. Thanks!

don't quite understand what you're getting at here but I doubt the cohort of youth I'm talking about (probably those born roughly 1964-74) were old enough to grab the levers of world influence and fuck it up before your generation started to grow up. Seeing as by what you say you're at least old enough to have finished university.

 

[baboon2004]

Anyway, Live Earth was rubbish, wasn't it?

 

[mistersloane]

Anyway, Live Earth was rubbish, wasn't it?

so rubbish even talking about fucking kids is preferable

 

[baboon2004]

so rubbish even talking about fucking kids is preferable

Bloody kids, eh? Who do they think they are? Can't even learn to fucking speak the language without help, can't get a job and earn a living because they're "too young".

 

[Mr. Tea]

I’m all for high age limits, especially when it comes to voting. Didn’t some country recently lower the age limit for voting to 16 or something? Ridiculous.

This is, as you say, ridiculous. Most 18-year-olds are stupid and ill-informed enough as it is, without getting their little brothers and sisters involved too.

The thing I can't fathom is that the legal age for smoking (in the UK) is lower than that for drinking.

Also, your statement about people exposed to alcohol at a lower age being more likely to become alcoholics probably refers to studies done in a sinle country: I'm talking about countries where the legal age is 16 (or 14 or or whatever) compared to countries where it's 18 or 21.

 

[Mr. Tea]

The age of consent, worldwide (purple = only applies if in a marriage; grey = no data):

They're making great strides in Yemen, though: women are allowed to travel on the inside of buses now and homosexuals no longer have to wear a blue hat in public...

 

[sodiumnightlife]

Most 18-year-olds are stupid and ill-informed enough as it is,

I find that highly fucking objectionable. Granted there are loads of idiots who are 18, but i'm pretty sure if you took a cross section of your peers there'd be a similar amount who are just as dumb. Considering a huge amount of political debate in the uk now centres around youth and how to deal with issues, we should at least have some say in it. exclusion and a feeling of not being able to do anything is one of the main problems facing people of my generation today.

 

[baboon2004]

I find that highly fucking objectionable. Granted there are loads of idiots who are 18, but i'm pretty sure if you took a cross section of your peers there'd be a similar amount who are just as dumb. Considering a huge amount of political debate in the uk now centres around youth and how to deal with issues, we should at least have some say in it. exclusion and a feeling of not being able to do anything is one of the main problems facing people of my generation today.

That's true. Let's just disenfranchise the stupid people.

And you think I'm joking?

 

[elgato]

This is, as you say, ridiculous. Most 18-year-olds are stupid and ill-informed enough as it is, without getting their little brothers and sisters involved too.

for the sake of argument, cos (standardly) i don't 100% know where i am on it...

many 30-year-olds, 40-year-olds, 50-year-olds are stupid and ill-informed, and many OAPs are senile and base their opinions on a world-view now long out of date

if we want to develop a more active political culture, where people of all ages engage with political and social issues (todays 16-year-olds are next decade's 26-yr-olds etc), we need to develop a culture where young people feel involved, and are given a sense (no matter how slight) that this is their domain as much as anyone's

or maybe oligarchy is worth another go?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well, alright, 'stupid' was a bit over the top. Sorry about that. But there's such poor election turnout among 18-25 year-olds that it seems pretty pointless to try and extend voting rights to people who probably know and care even less about politics than they do, i.e. 16-year-olds. If people can't really be arsed to vote, I don't think they should - that way, decision-making as to the make-up of Parliament is left to people who have definite views one way or the other.

 

[elgato]

Well, alright, 'stupid' was a bit over the top. Sorry about that. But there's such poor election turnout among 18-25 year-olds that it seems pretty pointless to try and extend voting rights to people who probably know and care even less about politics than they do, i.e. 16-year-olds. If people can't really be arsed to vote, I don't think they should - that way, decision-making as to the make-up of Parliament is left to people who have definite views one way or the other.

But imo part of the reason people dont care or know about politics is because of symbolic barriers, which are everywhere. People, from an early age, are made to feel that that world is not for them. So i feel that sending out the message that we want to involve you is a good thing, if not in the short-term, potentially in the long-term

 

[Mr. Tea]

People, from an early age, are made to feel that that world is not for them.

What do mean, exactly? I'm not saying I think you're wrong, I'm just interested to hear your reasons.
If it's to do with the backgrounds of many MPs, well, a fair number of them come from wealthy families and been to Eton/Westminster/Fettes or whatever, but plenty have come from fairly ordinary backgrounds and been state-educated, too.

 

[elgato]

Well yes, primarily the fact that there is so little representation outside of such a limited demographic. But primarily the rhetoric and manner of politics is something so few people can connect to. Without early engagement, its just repellant. And there are not enough efforts (as far as I can see, or saw) to introduce political thought or discussion at an early age. So if things are to improve in this regard, politics must change and people must change, and then if people change then politics will by necessity. Reform is necessary to help this happen, and early engagement and empowerment seem like fairly obvious moves really

 

[Mr. Tea]

Politics lessons at school, then? Actually I think that could be a pretty good idea.

 

[IdleRich]

I think you should have politics lessons at school - as long as you can separate that from teaching ideology.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well, yeah, as soon as I posted that I was thinking about how you'd have to try not to let it degenerate into indoctrination - but I don't think that would be impossible to prevent.
The teaching could concentrate more on the economics aspects of politics, say looking at Britain over the last hundred years, and then expand it to world events, look at European, American and international politics and globalisation, take a broad overview of social policy without trying to take any particular side and let history speak for itself in how not to do politics (not just fascism/communism, but disasterous economic and political decisions made my democratic govts. over the past fifty-odd years, perhaps).
Um. For example.