Age of Majority

  • Thread starter Mark Robert Hopkins
  • Start date
M

Mark Robert Hopkins

Member
Now that I have time to address this discussion for the last time . . .

Blast!

David quite unrepentant, and called me an illiterate idiot.

Solution: read a book. That's what I do. You'll find that it does wonders.


A Monumentophiliac was a person willing to consort with Catherine the Great (David Gest wouldn't have said no), and polyvivatism is a rare mental condition characterised by the patient's belief that he is Long John Silver come back to life.


Not likely. The proper denotations to terms like Monumentophilia, polyvivatism, Harolding, and Maudism--if these are, indeed, real words--can be ascertained by breaking down the linguistic components--called morphemes--and performing an analysis that way.

As everybody knows, philia, based on the Old Greek Philios, means love[r] of..., but the word monumento, which although in a connotative sense suggests something of tribute, has no specific reference to Catherine the Great. This word reflects awe and respect to great things. The word poly, also Greek, means many, followed by the Latin "viv-," which is a morphemic inference to life. This can be seen in non-English Latin-based infinitives such as vivre and vivir, which both translate as to live in French and Spanish respectively. The suffix "-ism" indicates, among other things, a state-of-being, which can include the notion known as a belief in... Together, these three morphemes form the word poly + viva[t]- + ism. No specific reference exists here to Long John Silver, which makes your assertion weak on all accounts. The love of great things and the belief in [or] state of living many lives (or) the belief in [or] state of reincarnation, then, are the most likely meanings to monumentophilia and polyvivatism as derived from their root words respectively.

In essence, what I am saying is this: If these words are real (and I doubted it the moment I read them), you arrived at the wrong definitions, at least from a linguistic standpoint.


why don't we just go for Harolding (meaning to be terrified of being struck in the eye by an arrow) and Maudism (meaning a fear of Scottish shepherds).

This isn't likely either. "-ing," of course, is a present progressive affix applied to English verbs. This suggests that Harolding must be a verb conjugated in the present progressive. Harold is a name, so turning it into a verb makes no sense. In order to infer meaning here, we'd have to find the closest relation to the name. That word would be herald, which is a messenger. This word, though, can be used as a verb. Herald as a verb means to announce the approach of [someone or something]. The word heralding (transforming the 'a' to 'o' and the 'o' to 'a' for the necessary sake of clarity) signifies the act of announcing an approach.

By the way, all words in English denoting a fear end with the suffix -phobia, from xenophobe--also of Greek origin. These words are collectively encoded as such. Keeping this rule in mind, neither Harolding nor Maudism could possibly refer to the fear of anything.

It's always nice to put two advanced degrees to work!
Smile



Now that this pointless exchange has been straightened out perhaps we can return to the original topic of this thread...


never mind pedophiles or Lolitas

Just as a side note, Martin, please remember that adults attracted to adolescents are not pedophiles (yet another Greek word!), who, according to the APA DSM IV, are adults, either female or male, predominantly or solely attracted to prepubescent children 12/13 and under. Those drawn to teens, at least casually, are considered psychologically normative, since many humans throughout history and even in the world today have this sexual impulse imbued within their psyches. Hell, advertising capitalizes on that! Teenagers are (more or less) sexually mature, prepubescent children are not.

A couple of relatively new words to account for those who are attracted primarily to individuals between 14 and 17 (sometimes 19) are ephebophilia and hebephilia and are not synonymous in any way with pedophilia, other than the latter's constantly incorrect social implications regarding sex between adults and teens who are minors. Still, the term Lolita is a much more recognized term that fits the bill, although Humbert Humbert is drawn to a girl who is 12, which is an attraction that falls in the extreme upper category of pedophilia, so that word might be incorrect as well to refer to teens. The word you want, though, is predator, and there certainly are more than enough of these. *shudder*

Anyway, I apologize for my digression. If the AOC was as high as 75, everyone would be arrested for engaging in criminal sex acts. Consider that every single baby born would be the result of a crime and therefore a dishonorable shame to its society. No, 75 is much too high, but I get your point.
Wink


I've noticed this is not directly connected to the original topic, which I posted, but I wanted to address your comments first, Martin. I ask that someone please take this thread back to the Titanic. After all, this is a Titanic site, not a site on law or sex. Thank you.

Have a very pleasant day, all!
Smile
 
Paul Rogers

Paul Rogers

Member
"Now that this pointless exchange has been straightened out perhaps we can return to the original topic of this thread..."

119633
 
M

monica e. hall

Member
Thanks for the download, Paul. I'll install it just as soon as I finish re-cataloging my library.
 
B

Bob Godfrey

Member
Which reminds me, Paul, where can I can get one of those pirate keyboards you mentioned in another thread? My Uncle Norman has polyvivatism something chronic and we need some way of communicating with him.
 
B

Bob Godfrey

Member
Thanks for the link, Paul - something for everyone there. Now, about the upgrade. Is it only for Internet Explorer? I'm using Firefox and I'm still puzzled by some of the postings in the South Pole thread.
 
Paul Rogers

Paul Rogers

Member
Haven't you finished yet, Mon? There are only six Harry Potter books out so far, after all.

Bob, I think you'll need the Insanity '98 v2.4 plug-in to make any sense of that thread at all. It's not freeware, unfortunately. I'll ask my Mum for a copy; I'm pretty sure she's got it installed on her cooker, given the number of smoke alarms she's worn out.
 
Martin Owen Cahill

Martin Owen Cahill

Member
Mark,
thanks for you comprehensive response to my post.
I do appreciate the destictions you raise about Pedohilia and Ephebophila. I was really drawing arttention to the abitrary nature of AoCs in all areas of life hence my 75+ snipe at society.
thanks for your efforts and for me, back to Titanic.

14 year old boys having to go down with the ship does seem harsh by today's stds.

Martin
 
M

Mark Robert Hopkins

Member
MARTIN:

I was really drawing attention to the arbitrary nature of AoCs in all areas of life hence my 75+ snipe at society.

You won't get any argument from me on that. The arbitrary nature of the AOC has been a conundrum for a long time and continues to be, although I can understand the need to establish some area of transition, like Monica's age 30. The AOC is not necessarily based on actual psychological or sexual development, but on society's view's, beliefs, and values regarding sex and youth. And as we know, the views of those in society are not always or primarily logical or rational.

14 year old boys having to go down with the ship does seem harsh by today's stds.

The idea of 14-year-old boys having to go down with the ship might have even been considered harsh at the time of the Titanic. I think Bob Godfrey or someone else can elaborate more on this in detail. The thing about those under 18 during Titanic's time is that they were not as likely to have been coddled as much as they are now. What I mean to say is that, although they were under the AOM (21), as long as they were over 14, the youth might have been viewed as being independent in thought and action and deemed capable of taking care of themselves. Case-in-point: 17-year-old Jack Thayer, who left his father and struck up his own efforts to ascertain the seriousness of the situation and then [calmly] determined his own means of escape: He and his shipmate, Milton Long, who was 30, jumped together from the starboard boat deck (or sun deck, as it was also known). However, where Jack jumped out, which was the wiser method of descent, Milton dropped straight down into the water and was never seen again. Today, the 17-year-old would probably behave much differently and would likely be held under his parent's constant supervision and insisted into a boat along with the women and young children. At least this would be American practice; Europeans would likely hold a different attitude, as teens over 14 or 15 living in the European continent are generally deemed more mature than those in America. I will contend that this state of adolescent transformation is due to societal attitude and how that society fosters the influence of its youth. This is why the AOC and the AOM are not the same in every country, state, or society.
 
B

Bob Godfrey

Member
I can't add much to what I've already posted, but I'll sum that up by saying that in England in 1912 there were three points of transition in a man's life. At age 12 he was no longer regarded legally as a child and was no longer required to attend school. At age 16 he was no longer a 'young person', and legal prohibitions relating for instance to availability of sex, drink and tobacco no longer applied. In the eyes of the Law, that was the end of his period of personal vulnerability. But restrictions remained to protect society from his lack of experience. He could not, for instance, vote for a political candidate, or set up a business, or marry and raise a family without the approval of guardians older and (hopefully) wiser than himself. Finally, at age 21, he was by any definition an adult with the right to do all of these things.

These considerations based on age were a matter of cultural tradition allied to practicality. A young person of 12, at which age most had done with school and entered the adult world of work, could for instance hardly expect to travel on a half-price child's ticket. And, at a time when working class wives commonly had their first child at or near the age of 16, it wouldn't have made much sense to set the Age of Consent any higher.

In the boat deck scenario, any considerations of vulnerability, whether in terms of the Law of the Land or of Lightoller's 'law of human nature', would be limited to those aged no more than 15. Beyond that it was a matter of personal judgment by those on the scene and in control, but most of the crew loading boats would have looked twice at any male passenger who appeared to be above the age of 12. Keep in mind that there were crew members aged as young as 14, not one of whom was considered as having any right to a place in a lifeboat.

Back in 1912, acceptance of the validity of a 'women and children first' policy was in any case by no means universal. There were suffragists who believed that women who demanded equal rights should be prepared to accept equal risks. And there were those who believed that selection should have been based not on gender or even on age but on usefulness to society. It was reasoned, for instance, that a Captain of industry or a surgeon or a great writer was more valuable than an unskilled immigrant who happened to be young or female. Some even thought that a place in the boats should to some extent be restricted to those who'd paid for it. When the Republic went down 4 years earlier, the Captain's orders were said to have been women and children first, then First Cabin, then the rest.

In some other cultures, the 'women and children first' policy was considered to make no sense at all. An officer on a Chinese vessel of the time was said to have commented that his lifeboat priorities would have been men (ie breadwinners) first, then children, and women (supply exceeds demand) last. I make no further comment on that!
.
 
J

Julie Ann

Member
In order to this, you have to assume that 16 year olds are mature enough to be able to sue and to be sued, to enter into legal contracts, to make choices regarding use of alcohol and other drugs, and to support themselves. However, such an assumption defies the reality that the human brain does not mature until approximately age 25. 16 year olds may think that they want to be considered as of legal age, but the first time they find themselves in legal troubles when they have to assume full responsibilities for their actions and livelihoods will likely make them regret this change! Majority
 
Top