Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Libertarians should abandon the Right Libertarians should abandon the Right

11-13-2012 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
I thought we were having a normal conversation. "Crushing" you hadn't really crossed my mind. But this at least reveals your mindset.
burnsauce.gif
Quote:
I explained that there is no harm in a teenage relationship, by saying that girls mentally mature faster than guys, so the two people in the relationship have a smaller difference in their mental age than in their biological age. I'm not sure in how much detail you expect me to explain. For example, girls' orbitofrontal cortex has a higher relative volume than boys'. The orbitofrontal cortex is very important in impulse control (and emotional intelligence in general) and decision making. The limbic system also develops faster in girls than in boys.
'Mental age' is not a well-defined concept in your argument. Girls may make fewer impulsive decisions. This does not mean they are in a position to make fully informed decisions. The standard by which this is measured is the capacity of an adult, not that of a child of similar age but the opposite gender.

And are you arguing that the laws should only change for relationships involving older males and younger females? And why are we moving younger girls up and not older guys down?

Quote:
What's incredibly frustrating is that none of that is ever taken into account.
Even the article you linked to mentions that many places do have 'Romeo and Juliet' laws, which mitigate the problem as you initially presented it. Those laws probably won't cover an 18-yo and a 14-yo, though. And I'm fine with that, to be honest. Let's say half of such cases are starry-eyed innocents and half are guys who figure a younger girl is more likely to let him do whatever he wants. I think preventing the latter is worth more than facilitating the former.

Quote:
Government bureaucrats decide they can interfere with the natural bonding between teenagers and send them to prison with no evidence that any of what those teens do is harmful to anybody.
Do you know there's no evidence, or do you just know of no evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nih.gov
Negative effects of early sexual debut on academic outcomes can extend beyond secondary school, although concurrent changes in other psychosocial risk factors have not been investigated. Data from three waves of a longitudinal survey of Scottish teenagers were used to examine associations between early sexual debut (first heterosexual intercourse) and both expectations for (N = 5,061) and participation in (N = 2,130) tertiary education at college or university. Early debut was associated with reduced tertiary education, after adjusting for academic performance and wave 1 confounders relating to social background, attitudes and behaviours. Pregnancy/partner pregnancy did not explain all of this finding, as many sexually experienced teenagers opted out of tertiary education after leaving school early for other reasons. Changes in other psychosocial risk factors between waves 1 and 2 mediated much of the association found. Early sexual experience may predict disengagement from tertiary education, although further research is needed to explore causal pathways.
There's the usual disclaimers about more investigation, etc, but a correlation certainly exists.

Quote:
These laws can ruin lives, agree? This isn't about "crushing" each other in interwebz debates.
It's certainly not about creating excuses to avoid addressing arguments that are awkward for your position. In the case you're talking about, as presented I don't think a custodial sentence was the best response, for sure. But you can't seriously think you can jimmy us into a false choice between the most draconian response possible and thepaedobay.org.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
It's fine to talk about 'taking subtleties into account', it's another thing altogether to devise a workable method of doing so. These abstracted general statements aren't advancing the discussion.
The above problem isn't going away. I mean, for the sake of argument, let's say you've convinced me, and I'm all aboard the la6ki teen-sex Orient Express. Where do we go from here? How do we distinguish the lovely natural harmless stuff from the nasty exploitative harmful stuff?
11-13-2012 , 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
You can't use the fact that the law criminalizes his initial conduct (or the consequences flowing therefrom) as evidence that his later conduct displays some pathological attraction to younger girls
Of course you can. Men with a pathological attraction to younger girls very frequently disregard restrictions on their behaviour and seek out ways to bypass them. The fact that he re-established contact with the girl and resumed having sex with her despite having spent a year in prison is actually a huge red flag, whether you realise it or not. It's far from conclusive, but it's not the innocuous irrelevancy that you're making it out to be, either. The amount of risk someone is prepared to accept to achieve a given end is surely proportionate to their desire to achieve it, no? He could have just waited.
11-13-2012 , 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
I thought we were having a normal conversation. "Crushing" you hadn't really crossed my mind. But this at least reveals your mindset.




I explained that there is no harm in a teenage relationship, by saying that girls mentally mature faster than guys, so the two people in the relationship have a smaller difference in their mental age than in their biological age. I'm not sure in how much detail you expect me to explain. For example, girls' orbitofrontal cortex has a higher relative volume than boys'. The orbitofrontal cortex is very important in impulse control (and emotional intelligence in general) and decision making. The limbic system also develops faster in girls than in boys.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/39/16988.abstract



What's incredibly frustrating is that none of that is ever taken into account. Government bureaucrats decide they can interfere with the natural bonding between teenagers and send them to prison with no evidence that any of what those teens do is harmful to anybody.

These laws can ruin lives, agree? This isn't about "crushing" each other in interwebz debates.
So, I read your article. I'm not sure you read it critically enough. Your article does not show development in the female brain that is ******ed in the male brain. Instead, it shows certain features of the brain in males develop differently from corresponding features in females, and those features in males do not necessarily "catch up" to females, but instead are lifelong differences between the two. The authors "speculate" (their word) that this may be consistent with the perceived superior emotional maturity of females at a younger age, as the areas that favor females are areas that are involved with language and social interaction, but their findings are by no means conclusive of that.

Now, one paper cited by this paper does provide evidence of what you were hoping to show:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...53811907002340

This paper takes a coarser look at the differences in the maturation of the brain in males and females as they age. The brain features they looked at were much larger than the paper you cited, but they did observe time offsets between the way certain features grew and then shrank in males and females. But get this: the size of the offsets varied by feature, but typically 3 years, and always under 4 years (some features didn't show a significant difference at when changes happened at all). Your argument that a 19 yo male is at the same maturity level as a 14 yo female is not supported by any data presented so far. Indeed, the rate at which the volume of brain features decreases with maturity tends to accelerate from the onset of puberty up to age 18 or so (true for both sexes), it seems likely that the 19 yo would have a significant advantage in maturity compared to a 14 yo girl.
11-13-2012 , 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Of course you can. Men with a pathological attraction to younger girls very frequently disregard restrictions on their behaviour and seek out ways to bypass them. The fact that he re-established contact with the girl and resumed having sex with her despite having spent a year in prison is actually a huge red flag, whether you realise it or not. It's far from conclusive, but it's not the innocuous irrelevancy that you're making it out to be, either. The amount of risk someone is prepared to accept to achieve a given end is surely proportionate to their desire to achieve it, no? He could have just waited.
Imagine the law criminalized all sexual activity with persons under the age of 30.
11-13-2012 , 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
What are you looking for here? Do you want an abstract from a scientific peer reviewed publication that speaks to physical brain development of a 15 year old?
I'm looking for something. You made a claim which is quite baseless so far. Why do you think 15-year-olds are unable to consent?
11-13-2012 , 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
Don't be obtuse. It's a cartoon on someone's personal blog, not a brief. I think the obvious, albeit implicit, point was that many instances of statutory rape are instances of overcriminalization.
Oh, but they aren't. That blog's cartoon was about how apparently innocuous activities might be criminalized due to regulatory overreach, or how overreaction to isolated crimes causes counterproductive zero tolerance policies. Those aren't really the same thing, the cartoon kinda lost focus and became a list of bad things the government does.

But I'm mostly on board with all that.

The scenario, though, that la6ki is upset about is now a 14 year old and an older teenager. That's not something that the older teenager was unaware of. Age of consent laws are not an overreaction to an isolated crime.

His rhetoric about "bureaucrats" telling you who you are allowed to love or whatever is not only disturbingly similar to the rhetoric you'll find on NAMBLA's website(and LirvA posts, the dearly departed even had the same pouty teenager tone), it's an attack on the very idea of "statutory" rape being a crime at all. Not "some" or "many" instances, he appears to be upset at the idea of criminalizing consensual sex due to an age difference.

(Though, as with the buying/selling stuff earlier, what la6ki says now and what he'll claim to believe later can diverge).
11-13-2012 , 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
Imagine the law criminalized all sexual activity with persons under the age of 30.
Assuming the law was harshly enforced, then I'd imagine people currently classed as 'sex addicts' would break that law with much higher frequency than the population as a whole.
11-13-2012 , 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
I'm looking for something. You made a claim which is quite baseless so far. Why do you think 15-year-olds are unable to consent?
Their lack of physical and social development. It's cool, you don't have to accept my premise. I'm probably not going to be able to do the research today for you. I get that the line is going to be arbitrary, but I am fine with that. 18 is a good cutoff because 18+ means you should be out of high school at that point. It's a decent enough line to draw when it comes to statutory rape.
11-13-2012 , 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
So, I read your article. I'm not sure you read it critically enough. Your article does not show development in the female brain that is ******ed in the male brain.
This article supports my claim that the female brain's prefrontal areas and limbic system develops faster than the male brain's. I particularly quoted a bit of the article which was saying that this could be the explanation of the observation that males are more impulsive and less mature at a certain period of their development than their female peers. Obviously not everything in that article is relevant to this conversation.

Quote:
Your argument that a 19 yo male is at the same maturity level as a 14 yo female is not supported by any data presented so far.
That wasn't my argument. Instead, my argument was that the gap in mental age between an 18 yo and a 14 yo is smaller than the gap in their biological age.

Last edited by la6ki; 11-13-2012 at 04:45 PM.
11-13-2012 , 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Oh, but they aren't. That blog's cartoon was about how apparently innocuous activities might be criminalized due to regulatory overreach, or how overreaction to isolated crimes causes counterproductive zero tolerance policies. Those aren't really the same thing, the cartoon kinda lost focus and became a list of bad things the government does.

But I'm mostly on board with all that.

The scenario, though, that la6ki is upset about is now a 14 year old and an older teenager. That's not something that the older teenager was unaware of. Age of consent laws are not an overreaction to an isolated crime.
What? The argument was, I thought, that the punishment of that particular defendant was unjust, i.e. that he in particular should not have been punished for statutory rape, because his conduct was not morally culpable, and moreover not within the scope of what of what the statutory rape laws were designed to prohibit (sexual relationships between a predatory adult and a child too young to consent). At least two of these problems are specifically addressed in the cartoon -- namely, the problems of overbreadth and crimes without a mens rea element -- which was, by the by, unified by a simple theme: modern criminal law diverges from its traditional function of punishing conduct that's universally agreed to be seriously morally culpable.

Quote:
His rhetoric about "bureaucrats" telling you who you are allowed to love or whatever is not only disturbingly similar to the rhetoric you'll find on NAMBLA's website(and LirvA posts, the dearly departed even had the same pouty teenager tone), it's an attack on the very idea of "statutory" rape being a crime at all. Not "some" or "many" instances, he appears to be upset at the idea of criminalizing consensual sex due to an age difference.

(Though, as with the buying/selling stuff earlier, what la6ki says now and what he'll claim to believe later can diverge).
Admittedly I didn't read the entire exchange. If his argument is really that persons of all ages should be understood to be capable of consent, and all consensual sex between persons of all ages should be legal, I retract what I said in his defense.
11-13-2012 , 04:41 PM
Female pears itt.

Female pears edited out of the thread

Last edited by zikzak; 11-13-2012 at 04:52 PM.
11-13-2012 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
'Mental age' is not a well-defined concept in your argument. Girls may make fewer impulsive decisions. This does not mean they are in a position to make fully informed decisions. The standard by which this is measured is the capacity of an adult, not that of a child of similar age but the opposite gender.
Okay, I will ask you the same question. Why don't you present evidence that a 15-year-old girl is unable to consent? Let's try that for a change.

Quote:
And are you arguing that the laws should only change for relationships involving older males and younger females?
Not necessarily.

Quote:
And why are we moving younger girls up and not older guys down?
What would it mean to move older guys down? To criminally prosecute a 20-year-old woman having sex with a 17-year-old dude?

Quote:
Even the article you linked to mentions that many places do have 'Romeo and Juliet' laws, which mitigate the problem as you initially presented it. Those laws probably won't cover an 18-yo and a 14-yo, though. And I'm fine with that, to be honest. Let's say half of such cases are starry-eyed innocents and half are guys who figure a younger girl is more likely to let him do whatever he wants. I think preventing the latter is worth more than facilitating the former.
Why do you think that's your decision, seriously? I mean, don't you feel a little uncomfortable at least sitting in front of your computer and making these judgments about other people's lives which quite often have dramatic effects?

Quote:
Do you know there's no evidence, or do you just know of no evidence?
I know there's no evidence regarding the ages per se. They don't really mean anything from a developmental point of view (they are quite arbitrary, rather). The only thing one could say is "people mature as they age", but that's obviously pretty useless. I could decide to make the legal age of consent 30, since then the women/men will have matured even more...!

Quote:
There's the usual disclaimers about more investigation, etc, but a correlation certainly exists.
And what do people usually say about correlation? What doesn't it imply?

Quote:
The above problem isn't going away. I mean, for the sake of argument, let's say you've convinced me, and I'm all aboard the la6ki teen-sex Orient Express. Where do we go from here? How do we distinguish the lovely natural harmless stuff from the nasty exploitative harmful stuff?
I have a radical idea. How about we use our brains and look at each case separately, rather than vote dumb and blind laws which have the potential to crush lives?
11-13-2012 , 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
That wasn't my argument. Instead, my argument was that the gap in mental age between an 18 yo and a 14 yo is smaller than the gap in their biological age.
Cool story? There still seems to be a significant difference in the maturation of their brains, on average, and as such, restrictions on 18 yos screwing 14 yos still seem appropriate.
11-13-2012 , 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Assuming the law was harshly enforced, then I'd imagine people currently classed as 'sex addicts' would break that law with much higher frequency than the population as a whole.
Do you understand what I'm getting at? In this case, we have an 18-year-old defendant who had sex that was, in point of fact, consensual with a 14-year-old victim, an act that is defined ex officio to have been non-consensual. As a matter of law, he undoubtedly committed a crime, but that doesn't say anything about whether, in point of fact, his behavior is substantively abnormal, or whether he has certain psychosexual proclivities. Those are sociological and psychological questions that have empirical answers. The same is true with the fact of his having violated the court order, since arguing that his behavior is pathological based on his willingness to violate the order assumes that the behavior the order was designed to prevent was pathological in the first place. Otherwise, you're simply arguing that the legal definition alone is enough to establish that what he did was severely abnormal.
11-13-2012 , 04:50 PM
Quote:
Of course you can. Men with a pathological attraction to younger girls very frequently disregard restrictions on their behaviour and seek out ways to bypass them. The fact that he re-established contact with the girl and resumed having sex with her despite having spent a year in prison is actually a huge red flag, whether you realise it or not. It's far from conclusive, but it's not the innocuous irrelevancy that you're making it out to be, either. The amount of risk someone is prepared to accept to achieve a given end is surely proportionate to their desire to achieve it, no? He could have just waited.
I'm currently 25 and my girlfriend is also 25 (we've been together for almost 3 years now). If, for whatever reason, some idiots changed the law in a way which prohibits me from being in a relationship with her, I'm telling you from now that I'm certainly going to violate the law, AINEC. If they send me to prison, the moment I get out of there I'll immediately re-establish contact with her.

Considering the fact that by definition that itself doesn't make me a 'pedophile', please explain based on what you think that guy had a pathological attraction to young girls and not simply be in the same situation as me. And I guarantee you that nobody (unless somebody incredibly spineless) will abandon his girlfriend because a weird judge told him so, nobody! So?
11-13-2012 , 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
Admittedly I didn't read the entire exchange. If his argument is really that persons of all ages should be understood to be capable of consent, and all consensual sex between persons of all ages should be legal, I retract what I said in his defense.
I certainly didn't say that.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=278
11-13-2012 , 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Why do you think that's your decision, seriously? I mean, don't you feel a little uncomfortable at least sitting in front of your computer and making these judgments about other people's lives which quite often have dramatic effects?
And here. we. go.
11-13-2012 , 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
You should remember being that age dude.

I'd imagine it's a lot more of the "only fish in the sea" mentality than than a weird attraction to underaged girls.
When I was in junior high we had a crew of kids on the block who hung out together. One girl was 13 or 14 but more mature than most of us and highly developed. The oldest kid was like a junior in HS, who obviously had some issues to be hanging out with a bunch of junior high kids. But he was more or less normal. I remember his parents even yelling at me in 8th grade for corrupting their son and getting drunk off my mom's liquor cabinet with him. Lol.

Anyway he had a huge crush on the girl I mentioned. Definitely a little weird - but she was into boys big time and he was a pretty immature junior. I'm pretty sure nothing ever happened. But do I think the guy was a predator who should have been locked up and labeled a sex offender for life if something happened? No. He was just a stunted kid and she was pretty advanced.

So anyway - yeah I agree it's a grey area. I don't mind it being against the law for him to mess around with her. But sex offender for life is too severe imo.
11-13-2012 , 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
The same is true with the fact of his having violated the court order, since arguing that his behavior is pathological based on his willingness to violate the order assumes that the behavior the order was designed to prevent was pathological in the first place. Otherwise, you're simply arguing that the legal definition alone is enough to establish that what he did was severely abnormal.
Here's where we differ. This is not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying doesn't require the assumption that his initial act was pathological and it isn't aimed at establishing that, either. All it requires is that you acknowledge the possibility. Given the possibility, the fact that he violated a court order to continue the behaviour increases the likelihood that his behaviour as a whole is pathological.

It can be reduced to this: One whose behaviour is pathological is more likely to risk imprisonment to engage in that behaviour than one whose behaviour is not pathological.

Surely you don't disagree?
11-13-2012 , 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Here's where we differ. This is not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying doesn't require the assumption that his initial act was pathological and it isn't aimed at establishing that, either. All it requires is that you acknowledge the possibility. Given the possibility, the fact that he violated a court order to continue the behaviour increases the likelihood that his behaviour as a whole is pathological.

It can be reduced to this: One whose behaviour is pathological is more likely to risk imprisonment to engage in that behaviour than one whose behaviour is not pathological.

Surely you don't disagree?
Of course he should disagree. It depends entirely on what the behavior is. If one risks going to prison for stealing a pack of gum from a store (but I really wanted that gum!) then obviously this is pathological. If one risks going to prison for being with a person they love, then there certainly isn't anything pathological here. In fact, as I said in my previous post, there would be something pathological if he didn't try.
11-13-2012 , 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
What? The argument was, I thought, that the punishment of that particular defendant was unjust, i.e. that he in particular should not have been punished for statutory rape, because his conduct was not morally culpable, and moreover not within the scope of what of what the statutory rape laws were designed to prohibit (sexual relationships between a predatory adult and a child too young to consent).
But look at the rhetoric la6ki uses to justify the claim that particular case was unjust:

Quote:
So two people love each other but can't be together because of a court order?
Quote:
Government bureaucrats decide they can interfere with the natural bonding between teenagers and send them to prison with no evidence that any of what those teens do is harmful to anybody.
Quote:
Do you understand that nobody has the right to get between those two people?
Just in general it's unfocused lashing out at edge cases and concluding, from the existence of these edge cases, that blah blah blah government bureaucrats are preventing true love.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
Admittedly I didn't read the entire exchange. If his argument is really that persons of all ages should be understood to be capable of consent, and all consensual sex between persons of all ages should be legal, I retract what I said in his defense.
Oh, no, no. I'm quite sure he doesn't truly believe that. I'm sure he finds the concept of Jerry Sandusky seducing 11 year olds with wine coolers as distasteful as the rest of us. But,

Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Do you understand that nobody has the right to get between those two people?
11-13-2012 , 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Okay, I will ask you the same question. Why don't you present evidence that a 15-year-old girl is unable to consent? Let's try that for a change.
Maybe you can tell me what such evidence would look like, if it were presented. I don't really know what you're asking me to provide.

Quote:
Not necessarily.
But how would you square your rationale for allowing older males to bang younger females with allowing the converse? Shouldn't you be dead-set against it?

Quote:
What would it mean to move older guys down? To criminally prosecute a 20-year-old woman having sex with a 17-year-old dude?
Maybe. This is all on the assumption that your claims about differential brain development are meaningful and pertinent, which I'm inclined to question, since, again, the capacity of children to offer informed consent is judged against an adult's capacity in that regard, not that of a child of the same age but the opposite gender. Five feet is longer than four feet, but it's still shorter than six.

Quote:
Why do you think that's your decision, seriously? I mean, don't you feel a little uncomfortable at least sitting in front of your computer and making these judgments about other people's lives which quite often have dramatic effects?
Of course my moral judgements are my decision, don't be silly. If you want to argue that having to delay sex for a few years is worse than being sexually exploited, be my guest. And I'm with you, more or less, on custodial sentences often being a poor solution.

Quote:
I know there's no evidence regarding the ages per se. They don't really mean anything from a developmental point of view (they are quite arbitrary, rather). The only thing one could say is "people mature as they age", but that's obviously pretty useless. I could decide to make the legal age of consent 30, since then the women/men will have matured even more...!
No, you said there was no evidence that early sexual activity is harmful. That's what I was asking about.

Quote:
And what do people usually say about correlation? What doesn't it imply?
The number three most abused fallacy on the internet, second to straw man and ad hominem. Correlation doesn't imply causation, sure, and so the study is not proof. But we weren't talking about proof, were we? We were talking about evidence. And there it is. Incomplete, yes, inconclusive, sure. But more than you've got, and also something you said earlier didn't exist.

Quote:
I have a radical idea. How about we use our brains and look at each case separately, rather than vote dumb and blind laws which have the potential to crush lives?
Firstly, who's "we"? Who would be making this call? What criteria would we employ ("our brains" is just further vagueness)? And who's going to pay for all this? Is that cost going to be worth the benefit it reaps? Given that no system is perfect, is that benefit going to outweigh the cost of false negatives?
11-13-2012 , 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
I don't mean to leap to la6ki's defense here, since I think he pretty thoroughly embarrassed himself (honestly, anyone who isn't embarrassed by Rothbard should seriously reconsider their political strategy), but I think you've picked the wrong point to harp on.
yes, he has embarrassed himself especially in his misunderstanding/misrepresentation of psych, especially developmental or adolescent, by implying that the study of psychology justifies statutory rape.


Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
I explained that there is no harm in a teenage relationship, by saying that girls mentally mature faster than guys, so the two people in the relationship have a smaller difference in their mental age than in their biological age.
This line is pretty loltastic, especially in its definitiveness. If your undergraduate professor let you get away with statements like these they should be harshly reprimanded.

b
11-13-2012 , 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Of course he should disagree. It depends entirely on what the behavior is. If one risks going to prison for stealing a pack of gum from a store (but I really wanted that gum!) then obviously this is pathological. If one risks going to prison for being with a person they love, then there certainly isn't anything pathological here. In fact, as I said in my previous post, there would be something pathological if he didn't try.
Avoiding prison is usually rational even if you don't agree with the law in question. He has three options:

A) Avoid the girl altogether

B) Maintain contact while refraining from sex, or engage in a one-time contact to vow to wait for each other

C) BAM-CHICK-A-WAH-WAAAAHHH

He went for C). Priorities differ, sure, but one way in which priorities can differ is by the behaviour of the person in question being pathological. And risking prison for sexytime should raise the probability estimate. That's all I've been saying.
11-13-2012 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Here's where we differ. This is not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying doesn't require the assumption that his initial act was pathological and it isn't aimed at establishing that, either. All it requires is that you acknowledge the possibility. Given the possibility, the fact that he violated a court order to continue the behaviour increases the likelihood that his behaviour as a whole is pathological.

It can be reduced to this: One whose behaviour is pathological is more likely to risk imprisonment to engage in that behaviour than one whose behaviour is not pathological.

Surely you don't disagree?
Sure, I concede that generally, but it's a tepid point, and not altogether very illuminating when it comes to evaluating this particular person (if not actively misleading). We ultimately don't have very much evidence in front of us to suggest that he suffers from any psychopathology, and I think that saying "he violated a court order" is not terribly helpful, since the order was entered as a result of the selfsame behavior we're trying to assess.

      
m