   Political influence on science
  I was randomly reading articles at Wikipedia, waiting for a phone call, when I came across this article.Basically, a group of scientists conducted a study on adult-child sexual relations and came to the conclusion that it was not universally harmful.The US government didn't like this conclusion:Quote:July 12, 1999 - the American House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the study, declaring that child-adult sex could be nothing but "abusive and destructive." The resolution was passed unanimously in the Senate.This got me thinking, regardless of your views on the study itself and its conclusions, what do you think about politicians trying to define truth and control science in this way?The Swedish government is currently doing something similar, except it's actually trying to force universities to look at feminism and gender topics from the perspective set forth by the parliament as absolute truth.Do you think it's OK for governments to act this way? Is it for some reason necessary in order to change society for the better, or is it a threat to science and free speech?   
  I think the reason that the gov't doesn't like it is because it feels children are too immature to have relations with other people (although with many kids this is true).  This is why they put up voting ages, drinking ages, ages of consent, etc.  In fact, you don't even have free speech totally until age 18.  They see the average teenager as opinionated by the media and prone to sex and violence.  Also, with sexual relations with pre-teens and under, they see the child as being completely manipulated by the adult, since the child doesn't know what they're actually doing.They should have some sort of test to let minors that aren't that way vote and do other 'grown up' stuff.  This way, the kids that really are media-driven and immature in these ways would stay the same, but other kids like the ones here on gamedev that can actually express a thought would get equal rights.   ;  Aren't governments subsidising science with huge amounts of money?   ;  this is ofcource complete and utter bullshit. if your position is so weak one argument to the contrary is so dangerous to it that you feel the need to oppress it, you shouldnt be holding that position to begin with.   ;  I think it's crap that the government does stuff like this but at the same time I can understand why they would.If they wouldn't have covered up this study then you'd have a bunch of messed up adults having sex with kids then trying to use it as a defense.Quote:Original post by TheUberCuberThey should have some sort of test to let minors that aren't that way vote and do other 'grown up' stuff.  This way, the kids that really are media-driven and immature in these ways would stay the same, but other kids like the ones here on gamedev that can actually express a thought would get equal rights.I've thought about something like that before but I think the problem would be most kids wouldn't pass the test.  Then the majority of them would be pissed off because they weren't allowed to have the same rights as the ones who did.  It's just easier for the government to say 18 or 21 then to have someone make a decision on whether this person was mature enough to do whatever they did.  It also means they can't be held responsible either if someone manages to pass the test that shouldn't and does something stupid.   ;Quote:Original post by monkey8751If they wouldn't have covered up this study then you'd have a bunch of messed up adults having sex with kids then trying to use it as a defense.slipperly slope bullshit. youd have to let them use it as a defence first. a clear legal line is a clear legal line. (not that im saying that clear legal line is particularly ideal in the US, but ok)   ;  I'm not convinced that adult-child sexual relations are completely wrong. If two people want to do something, I don't see why they shouldn't, regardless of their age. Children probably don't have enough experience in these matters to make these kinds of decisions, but at the same time I don't think it's fair to say at this age you're mature enough to make this decision, and before that you're not. Children can also be easily influenced or intimidated. If something happens that they don't want, they're pretty much at the mercy of the adult. There's also the possibility of violence and forced sex, but this doesn't have anything to do with age, it would be wrong even between adults.There's plenty of reasons to be concerned, but to claim it can only be abusive and destructive in every single instance isn't a conclusion I'd be willing to jump to.   ;Quote:Original post by smart_idiotThere's plenty of reasons to be concerned, but to claim it can only be abusive and destructive in every single instance isn't a conclusion I'd be willing to jump to.Unless you planned on getting elected... This isn't the kind of stuff you want your opponents to be able to spin against you.   ;  What is the ever-loving point of a study like that anyway?  Jesus, it isn't like scientists don't have their own politics.  Who are the people who designed and greenlighted this study? And what kind of science is this?  Everyone with an ounce of common sense could tell you that in some instances and in some societies, this is not absolutely harmful.  It's just a terrible thing to approve of in general.  You don't need to do a damn "study" about it.Furthermore, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that practically all sociological/psychological studies are bullshit.   ;Quote:Original post by abstractimmersionWhat is the ever-loving point of a study like that anyway?  Jesus, it isn't like scientists don't have their own politics.  Who are the people who designed and greenlighted this study? And what kind of science is this?  Everyone with an ounce of common sense could tell you that in some instances and in some societies, this is not absolutely harmful.  It's just a terrible thing to approve of in general.  You don't need to do a damn "study" about it.(aside from what's in the article), there's always the "everyone has their own opinion" and many morals are based on subjective dogma.And as we learn from Science (excluding Kansas), that this matter fits in pretty well.Besides, knowledge is a good thing... especially when it affects some peoples lives (*cough* Jail).  This was just an attempt to remove axioms such as 'It's wrong!'.   