LMAO!! It was in such rapid decline in the late 70's, it took 15 years for it to finally end.  Funny how in the 80's is when they were building themselves up militarily, with even more warheads than the US had.  It was that uncontrolled spending that helped speed up their downfall.  But, the left can try to continue to rewrite history to give him no credit.  I guess I'll just use their logic and give Obama absolutely no credit in bagging Bin Laden.

I'm not out of line for using an analogy.  I'm not the one suggesting it's sometimes ok to have sex with children.   There's a difference between talking about talking about immoral things and endorsing immoral things.   Seriously, Bill Maher suggested (jokingly) that he wanted a video of a twelve year old boy having sex.  And you're defending that but my comments are out of line?

Besides, there is really nothing wrong with bringing up pedophilia to illustrate that pedophilia is wrong.  It's kind of a subject I've had to talk about quite a bit for my job.  I'm sorry if it offended your delicate sensibilities, but that doesn't invalidate the point that you failed to address.

By the way, I just have to point out that you said "we are talking about a boy not a child"... Are there no boy children?  Shit, I guess all the ones I was working with today must have been transgender.

I have to keep repeating myself because while I've addressed what you said about ten times by now, you keep ignoring it.  If you keep asking the same question, you're going to get a similar response.  I've explained ten different ways that whether or not they are in love doesn't matter, and you haven't addressed it at any point.  So I've tried to rephrase it in a way you'll understand.

But if you insist on an answer to your irrelevant question, here goes...  

The short answer is dopamine.  Dopamine is what makes us like the things we like.  It's what encourages us to explore our environment, make friends, eat, have sex, and interact.  But, it could also make us do things that are not good for us.  Dopamine is why someone on a diet eats a bacon cheeseburger, why the alcoholic relapses, why a man cheats on his wife, and why the smoker keeps smoking despite full awareness of the consequences.  It's why we constantly fail to make good decisions.  Dopamine is mainly controlled by the limbic system.  In a non-impaired individual (and probably in impaired individuals as well) the limbic system is fully developed by adolescence.  

The opposite of dopamine (to keep things simple) is seratonin.  Seratonin is a neurotransmitter that is largely controlled by the frontal parts of the brain.  Seratonin is the Jimminy Cricket to your Pinnochio.  One of its key functions is to help regulate impulses and override the limbic system.  It is what tells you "no I shouldn't eat that donut" or "I should study instead of playing videogames" or "maybe I shouldn't spend 50 dollars on Fire Emblem orbs."

While the limbic system is mostly complete around the age of puberty, the prefrontal continues to develop.  As we learn more about the brain, we keep finding that this part grows for longer and longer than we thought.  Current concensus is that the frontal lobe is fully developed sometime in the 20s, likely around 25, but some contend that it grows into the 30s.  For the most part, the limbic system is finished in childhood.

The limbic system is more active during puberty, because of hormones that influence it.  So, a 12 year old boy has an overcharged desire system, but a weak self restraint system.  Furthermore, the two parts of the brain aren't fully connected.  The connections between the limbic system and the front parts of the brain are the last stage of brain development as far as we know.  The connection allows your prefrontal cortex to more effectively limit your limbic system.  So this means a child would have to be INSANELY advanced to have reached this stage at 12, over a decade early.  Like, we're talking about Stewie from family guy shit here.  Because of this, the limbic system is far more active in decision making in a teen than an adult.  Emotion often trumps logic even in the best of adults, and much moreso in kids.

Because of this, teens are especially prone to risky behavior and novel experiences.  Teens general show an equal ability to identify the "better" choice in a hypothetical situation.  However, they show an incredibly diminished ability to make those choices in practice, when emotion comes into play.  I never said he didn't understand the consequences.  But abstract understanding of the consequences and having the ability to make a good choice are two entirely different things.   For this reason, top psychologists and psychiatrists argued that it is cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a 16 year old to death.  Because they are not able to make fully rational decisions.  The supreme court agreed.  And these are 16 year olds we're talking about, not 12.

Now, back to the case.  Sex releases dopamine.  Lots of it.  As does the prospect of approval and especially female attention.  Without seratonin to balance it out, the draw of the sex is hard to overcome.  Even at 14, he's still far away from being fully developed.  So it is really not hard to explain why he would make a bad decision at age 12 and then at age 14.  To argue that a decision is not bad because it was made at 12 and 14 is frankly stupid.  People often make bad decisions year after year, and doubly so for teenagers who still do not have fully developed brains.

But, it goes further than that.  A teacher is an authority figure.  In the milgram experiment, fully grown adults were compelled to seriously hurt, or even kill a stranger (simulated but they thought it was real) at the insistence of an experiment director who they met ONCE.  In this case, it was a teacher he was trained to listen to daily.  Furthermore, this was also his teacher in second grade, so she was an authority figure during his early development.  Those memories from early childhood influence how we view things, which is why a childhood trauma often develops into a phobia.  So, interactions from second grade likely influence his feelings in some manner.  It was also someone with considerably more social status.  

Even those on the fringe of psychology who think hebephilia or even pedophilia is ok, almost always insist that it should never be with an authority figure.  So, even those who support pedophilia would listen to your views and say "bro, that's kind of fucked up".  

And we can keep going.  Sex at an early age, especially with an adult, has been shown to lead to sexual attitudes that deviate from the norm.  That is what the victims come to believe love should be.  This is why we see abuse victims CONSTANTLY going back to their abusers.  It's why those who are victimized as children are more likely to become abusers.  Those who are abused, especially as children, are more likely to be in another abusive relationship.

So to conclue.. People do stupid shit is a pretty reasonable explanation.  The fact that actually got caught  Preteens and teenagers are especially prone to poor decision due to their overactive limbic system and underdeveloped forebrain which leads to more emotional and less rational decisions.  When an authority figure is involved, that further diminishes the potential for self restraint.  Furthermore, a victim of sexual abuse is more likely than a non-victim to gravitate towards abusive or unhealthy relationship.

The fact that the relationship was rekindled at age 14 in no way indicates that it was a healthy or non-abusive relationship.  It also in no way validates the initial sexual contact.  The fact that the same decision was made again does not mean that the first decision was justified, rational, or could be considered informed consent.  It doesn't give us any useful information.  Your argument is basically "well they did it a second time, so clearly it was a rationally considered informed decision the first time".   I'm sorry, but that's stupid.

One last thing though.  She actually got arrested the second time.  Because, they were having sex in public, despite the fact that it was a violation of her parole.  Let's set aside the morals for a second.  They did it somewhere where they could clearly be caught knowing the consequence would be years of jail time.  Based on this, I'm going to go ahead and say that this kid wasn't a super genius capable of rationality and impulse control far beyond his years.  

Ok.  So there's your answer.  And that's all I have to say about that.  If you agree, great.  If you don't agree, then learn more about the subjects, and see if it changes your opinion. But that's about all I could say on the matter.

You insisted on an answer, and I gave you one.  So now I'm going to insist that you respond to this syllogism.

Premise 1:  If a child is incapable of giving informed consent, an adult having sex with them is immoral, regardless of any other factor.

Premise 2:  When a child is below a certain age, for example when they are 5,  we can ALWAYS conclude that a child is unable to give informed consent.

Conclusion: When a child is below a certain age, we can conclude it is immoral for an adult to have sex with them based solely on age and regardless of any other factor.

Do you agree with this?  If not, which premise do you object to?

Your insistiance in analysing humans as nothing more than a uniform bag of meat without any free will or individuality is disturbing not to mention completely disregarding of mutation and evolution. We might aswell stop thinking and do whatever our impulses urge us to do because no matter what we do we are all just slaves of our hormones without any capability to resist their urges.

Sorry, i still disagree on your one panacea for all remedy. While i do understand and agree that we should try to limit these cases, i am also understanding of special circunstances when they happen.

We will just have to disagree.

But i will answer your questions, wich you see as yes and no and i dont.

1. Depends on the age, depends on the circunstance, but it should be avoidaded if possible.

2. Yes. The defining factor here on the case we debated is the difference between child and teenager and their degree of cognitive and physical development.

It doesn't ignore mutation, but we're not talking about X-Men here.  We may see people who are somewhat outside of the norm, but we don't see giant leaps to the point where our knowledge of brain science no longer applies.  But if you have some kind of reason to believe that this kid was a genius that defies the conventions of brain development, then let me know.  I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.

I didn't claim we don't have free will, and that is not the conclusion I draw from these facts.  But houghts are not made up of rainbows and magic.  They are not ethereal.  They are made of chemicals and electricity. There are people who study how those chemicals and electic impulses work.  By studying this, they gain insight that helps us make more informed decisions on things like whether or not we should be having sex with 12 year olds.  If you don't like it, then that's too bad.  You don't get to throw away neuroscience because it doesn't give you a warm fuzzy.

This is kind of the reason why I didn't feel it would be worth addressing this in the first place.  You asked me to analyze a human behavior, and then you complain when I use neuroscience and psychology... you know, the fields that deal with this stuff.  Because it's too darn scientific and that disturbs you.  Well fuck me sideways.  I don't know how to address a thing without using the body of facts related to that thing.

1. Wait... what the fuck?  Sorry, I read this a few times and it gets more confusing each time.   Adults should avoid having non-consentual sex with children when it's possible?

When is it impossible to avoid having sex with children?  I've never been in a situation where it was impossible not to have sex with a child unable to give informed consent.  Have you?  Do you know anyone who has been in that scenario?   Unless we're talking about an adult who is actually being coerced (which we clearly weren't), I can't think of a single possible scenario where an adult can't avoid having sex with a child.  It's not like walking through a minefield or something.  "Sorry judge, I tried to maneuver my dick out of the way, but it was just too late to swerve."

So... if we should always avoid it when possible, and it's always possible to avoid it... then it's always wrong?  I don't know what you're trying to say here.

2.  You agree that below a certain age a child cannot give consent.  So where do you draw that line, and why?  What expertise do you have that has enabled you to determine that 12 year olds are able to give informed consent?  What research have you done about the decision making process or child development?  Why is your opinion an informed one that I should consider?

I just want to clear up that on question 1, you did say child, so it is indeed a "no". But your definition of child and mine don't seem to coincide and you often lead the conversation into the topic of children in over to appear more self-righteous, wich is why i misinterpreted.

On 2, the line is not clear and we need to find a way to determine it. This isn't by tracing an arbitrary age but some sort of individual test.

Ok.  So we accept number 1.  Although, I don't see why it matters if I said child or not... I don't think it's ok to have sex with adults who are incapable of informed consent either, if the other person knows they are incapable...

Premise number 2 is not about any line.  It's a syllogism, so they're binary questions.  True or false, yes or no.

At certain ages, a child is young enough that we can automatically conclude that they are unable to give consent, without any further consideration or testing.  Do you agree with this?  Or do you think that we need to test anyone age 0-100 to see if they are capable of consent?

That is a whole different can of worms. I am talking about 12 to 18 (general puberty age). Though truth be told, many people older than that are not fit to make decisions.

It's not a can of worms.  It's a simple yes or no question.  Do we need to run an individual test at every age or not?

Sigh... what is the point of asking something you already know the answer for? You know i have been talking only of puberty.