ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags celebrity incidents , Mick Jagger , sexual assault incidents , sexual assault issues

Reply
Old 6th February 2020, 03:01 PM   #201
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
So - at what point does the parent's responsibility turn from keeping the child safe, to allowing the child independence in things like sex, curfew, etc.?
15 is the age at which children are informally regarded as youths because they are, among other things, above the age of consent and criminal responsibility. As such, that is effectively the age at which the parents are required to allow their children significantly more autonomy.

It should be noted here that parents are allowed to interfere with their personal life if it's in the interests of their welfare and healthy development. If their child is hanging out with known delinquents and hoodlums, perhaps risking being dragged into petty crimes, their parents are of course allowed to try and stop them from doing so, as long as it's proportionate and does not constitute physical abuse.

The main problem is just that: it's very difficult to completely prevent a teenager, especially one aged 15 or older, from doing what they want without the kind of physical force and restraint that parents are not allowed to employ because it would be considered child abuse.

If they are 13 years old it's easier, but the principle is the same.

Edit: I should point out here that in pretty much all cases where children and youth engage in "socially degrading behavior", such as engaging in crime or otherwise socially unacceptable behaviour that is likely to have a significantly negative impact on their wellbeing and development, the social services are informed and may after an investigation seek involuntary actions if voluntary ones have no effect.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

Last edited by Arcade22; 6th February 2020 at 03:49 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 07:51 AM   #202
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,214
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
15 is the age at which children are informally regarded as youths because they are, among other things, above the age of consent and criminal responsibility. As such, that is effectively the age at which the parents are required to allow their children significantly more autonomy.

It should be noted here that parents are allowed to interfere with their personal life if it's in the interests of their welfare and healthy development. If their child is hanging out with known delinquents and hoodlums, perhaps risking being dragged into petty crimes, their parents are of course allowed to try and stop them from doing so, as long as it's proportionate and does not constitute physical abuse.

The main problem is just that: it's very difficult to completely prevent a teenager, especially one aged 15 or older, from doing what they want without the kind of physical force and restraint that parents are not allowed to employ because it would be considered child abuse.

If they are 13 years old it's easier, but the principle is the same.

Edit: I should point out here that in pretty much all cases where children and youth engage in "socially degrading behavior", such as engaging in crime or otherwise socially unacceptable behaviour that is likely to have a significantly negative impact on their wellbeing and development, the social services are informed and may after an investigation seek involuntary actions if voluntary ones have no effect.
Thanks. I guess the USA and Sweden would differ quite a bit on deferring responsibility to "involuntarily" handle a 13 year old who is acting up to the government / social services. Personally, I think that it is the parents' responsibility, and calling the cops on your badly-behaving child is the wrong solution. This isn't surprising; the two cultures are fairly opposite in their perception of individualism / collectivism.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 07:58 AM   #203
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,820
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Thanks. I guess the USA and Sweden would differ quite a bit on deferring responsibility to "involuntarily" handle a 13 year old who is acting up to the government / social services. Personally, I think that it is the parents' responsibility, and calling the cops on your badly-behaving child is the wrong solution. This isn't surprising; the two cultures are fairly opposite in their perception of individualism / collectivism.


Which is why, “It works in Sweden!” isn’t really a good argument...

ETA: And in this specific case, it doesn't work at all. I don't think the US is ever going to be a place where we are all basically forced to allow our 15yo daughters to go off with a notoriously horny 33yo rock star.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 7th February 2020 at 09:20 AM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 09:27 AM   #204
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,820
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Maybe I misunderstood, but when you quoted me and them asked me "Don't I have the right to be irrational?" it seemed that you thought I was implying that you were irrational.

I have no argument with how you raise your children. It is not my business. You seem to be doing what you think best and that is good.

It seems we were both misunderstanding each other's intent. That can happen when posting on a forum. No harm, no foul.
Absolutely.

I think there might be something we are in agreement on though: Tell me if I'm wrong. If a 33yo Mick Jagger shows up at your door and wants to take your 15yo out, I'm pretty sure your answer is going to be -"Uh, hi Mick, good to meet you! Big fan! But, uh . . .no!"
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2020, 11:48 AM   #205
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,625
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In America, they would elect him President.
Haha! Post of the week.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2020, 05:57 PM   #206
Carlotta
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Lemme have a guess

It was Hicktown, USA, somewhere in the South, and Daddy was involved in one or more of the following

Law Enforcement
City Hall
Baptist Church
Okay, I follow too many threads and don't keep up!
Anyway, partly right. Richmond, Virginia.
Like I say, I really don't know other details, but wouldn't be a bit surprised if at least two of your three guesses are spot on!
Carlotta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 07:13 AM   #207
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,325
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
I always hated the Stones so they should lock 'em up.

I liked their music, but some of their early, misogynistic texts are despicable.

In Denmark (Wikipedia), what Jagger did with the girl wouldn't have been a crime:
"Whoever has sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 15, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 8 years ..."

However, if he had started to teach her singing or dancing, for instance as part of her performance in Stones videos, it would have been different:
"Any person who has sexual intercourse with any child under 18, who is said person's adopted child, stepchild or foster child, or who is entrusted to said person for education or upbringing, will be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding four years." This applies, e.g., to teachers."
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 07:16 AM   #208
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,325
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Absolutely.

I think there might be something we are in agreement on though: Tell me if I'm wrong. If a 33yo Mick Jagger shows up at your door and wants to take your 15yo out, I'm pretty sure your answer is going to be -"Uh, hi Mick, good to meet you! Big fan! But, uh . . .no!"

I would ask him how he managed to get cloned 17 years before Dolly.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2020, 11:27 AM   #209
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,554
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I would ask him how he managed to get cloned 17 years before Dolly.
My thought was "This is what comes of having a woman Doctor"
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.