原帖由 Guest from 219.78.77.x 於 2008-1-19 15:26 發表
個牙SIR係好人泥+!!!佢對男仔定女仔都咁好!!!!

你識佔個阿sir?

weakest

Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher because of the difference in age, and thus impose a heavier punishment. That's why I said "I agree with you" (only for the conclusion that the punishment would be heavier than normal cases, but not for the reasons)

  When compared to older students, those aged 11 would have less chance to know about sex. That's why I believe that schools should give proper sex education to young children. But, would those senior students really get more information about sex in formal education (especially in those schools with religious background. As I remember, we made a post about sexual education (http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... &extra=page%3D2) previously)? It seems to me that students would simply get their "knowledge" about sex from other means (other than formal education). (For me, embarrassing to speak, the "knowledge" about sex is get when I accidentially watched AV, when others was playing it, and I was passing by ...). If so, it seems to me that it is also well possible for the girl to get her information about sex by her own means also.

  Of course, it is a case very different from rape. But it maybe arguable if the girl is rational enough or not (for me, she is; for you, she is not (i guess)). For me, she maybe as rational as those much older ladies that have sex with their boyfriends after they boyfriends say something very sweet (I want to ask 沙文兄 about his case as reference, but not dared to ask...Could anyone ask that for me?? ), but it seems that those ladies who are "乙水-ed" would not be irrational. After all, those ladies would not just have sex with anyone who "乙水" them. Having sex with each other are likely to be based on some good relationship before one party "乙水" another.

  Also, I think it would be unfair to compare those of 11 years old with those baby. In fact, we would usually judge people's rationality by their behaviours (after all, we can't just "view" their mental states). We would regard babies as "irrational" since we observe that without guidance, they would do some dangerous things, e.g. approach to fire with their own hands. But we would seldom observe such silly things to be done by those 11 years-old children. In addition, it is more likely that those comes from mainland would be more independent, also, I would guess that she is more likely to be independent and rational as she have to live on her own (as her parents would always be away from her). Therefore, I think that she does have the ability to make rational choices.

  The girls may have not sufficient income to raise the child, but the teacher should have (it doesn't necessary for both parents to have job to raise a children). In addition, there should be some social subsidy if she accidentially gets a baby. Otherwise, should those low income people's right to have baby be deprived?

  I agree with you that "Two wrongs do not make a right", but those irresponsible older ladies would mean that ages should not be the underlying difference for people to judge for the rightness in cases.

  The law (or at least, the judgement) would not be necessary reflect the social norms. Otherwise, how come so many people have dispute on legal judgements? For example, the cases of 中大學生報 and the bible leads to some dispute, right?

抽刀斷水

我對這段新聞有感而發，部分可能因為我的一名中學女老師，與我的中學男同學結了婚，年齡可能差很遠（女大男小），但亦不能阻止他倆真心相愛。

他倆都是待男同學完成學業才結婚，但我就不知道感情在那個時候開始萌生了。

法例的定位有一定的原因，尤其兒童色情對兒童成長的傷害很大，在世界上仍有很多販賣兒童的地下貿易在發生。

總括來說，我假設了以下可能性：

• 兩情相悅：技術上應該要等待到女童的合法年齡才進一步，對事件發生表示同情和感到不幸
• 男騙女：男教師利用自己受人信任的身分，和牧師神父搞細路無分別，都是十分無恥，我十分同情女童的遭遇
• 女主動：在感情上我同情男教師，但亦要為他的自主性失控負責

據我估計，無論如何，這男教師的餘生都要在牢獄中渡過了。

dye

"兩情相悅：技術上應該要等待到女童的合法年齡才進一步，對事件發生表示同情和感到不幸"
The teacher has a wife and hild himself.  But since we have no mind reader, we will never know.
"男騙女：男教師利用自己受人信任的身分，和牧師神父搞細路無分別，都是十分無恥，我十分同情女童的遭遇"
It would look like so.  Do you give the same doubt when the priest molest the altar boy?
"女主動：在感情上我同情男教師，但亦要為他的自主性失控負責"
Sure, if you can also sympathize manslaughter who murder because they lost control of their emotion.  (Do you sympathize with the VICTIM?)
---------
Note the the 3 are not mutually exclusive.
--------------
According to Dakins interview with victim, having church life as a children is actually worst then being molest... (Hence Dawkins argue that child indocrination is child abuse.)
-----------------

dye

"Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher because of the difference in age, ......the reasons)"

For such a serious criminal case, we may have jury (the public).  Law is design BY the people for the people, ofcourse they know about this.

"When compared to older students, those aged 11 would have less chance to know about sex. That's why I believe that schools should  ... ...If so, it seems to me that it is also well possible for the girl to get her information about sex by her own means also."

It does not matter whether the older ones gets the informaion or not, once they are given the chance, it is THEIR responsibility to grasp the information.   For the 11 years old, she is not even given the chance.

It is like predestian who insist on crossing the road on a red light.  They will deserve all the consequences.  Whereas if it is only a little children below 9 year old crossing, their guardian will e responsible (negligence).

"Of course, it is a case very different from rape. But it maybe arguable ...... are likely to be based on some good relationship before one party "乙水" another."

If a social worker lures a mentally disable woman into sex, is that not rape?  What about someone who drugged a woman into sex in her disoriented state?  The girl is only 11, the parent can be charge for child negligence if she is left alone at home.

"Also, I think it would be unfair to compare those of 11 years old with those baby. In fact, we would usually judge people's rationality by their behaviours (after all, we can't just "view" their mental states). ... I think that she does have the ability to make rational choices."

Quite the reverse, without parents, she will be even more dependent as she will have no one to learn the life lesson from.  Who will be more mature?  A person who live in a loving family, or a person that live alone in the wild?  

Do we need scientific report to support the obvious? (I have read before about it)

If having sex with the teacher (who has a wife and child) is rational, what is not?  I see 11 year old doing silly things all the time.  Yes, they no longer do many things that causes immediate danger, but their foresight is still very short.  I suppose you note that we ALREADY places many place off limit for 11 year old to make it impossible for them to be silly.  Currently (in Canada at least), it is a crime to leave an 11 year old at home alone.

" The girls may have not sufficient income to raise the child, but the teacher should have (it doesn't necessary for both parents to have job to raise a children). In addition, there should be some social subsidy if she accidentially gets a baby. Otherwise, should those low income people's right to have baby be deprived?"

Sorry, if a person income cannot support a baby, they should not have a baby.  Planning to get welfare for your baby is just irresponsible.  It is irresponsible to force the society to pick up the tab for irresponsible  individual behaviour.  

Will the teacher pay for it?  the teacher has a wife and child.  It is what is so irrational about the girl.  Did she has the life experience to judge WHO can be trusted and who cannot?  The teacher is PLACED in a place of trust, not by his merit, but by the guardians.  Should he be any stranger on the street, the chance of the girl trusting the bull will probably drop.

"I agree with you that "Two wrongs do not make a right", but those irresponsible older ladies would mean that ages should not be the underlying difference for people to judge for the rightness in cases."

Not really.  We must understand the differemce in the underlying causes.  For the older ladies, it is because of their owned INFORMED choice.  For the 11 year old, she is not properly informed.

"The law (or at least, the judgement) would not be necessary reflect the social norms. Otherwise, how come so many people have dispute on legal judgements? For example, the cases of 中大學生報 and the bible leads to some dispute, right?"

The bible issue is not a legal fight.  The agency is a government agency backed by the law, but the ruling is not.  (You notice there is no judges in the case since the beginning)

The dispute is not whether we should have such an agency or not (which is law), but how the details on agency should operate (which is not exactly law, but government administration).

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-1-20 12:01 編輯 ]

weakest

1. "Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher because of the difference in age, ......the reasons)"

For such a serious criminal case, we may have jury (the public).  Law is design BY the people for the people, ofcourse they know about this.

---> But practically speaking, it is individual persons who make legal judgement. Therefore, even though the judges should make judgements as if a totally fair judges do, it is still possible for the judgement to be affected by the judges' personal impression. After all, there is no "God" here to judge every cases. This is a matter about judicial aspect of the law.

2. It does not matter whether the older ones gets the informaion or not, once they are given the chance, it is THEIR responsibility to grasp the information.   For the 11 years old, she is not even given the chance.

It is like predestian who insist on crossing the road on a red light.  They will deserve all the consequences.  Whereas if it is only a little children below 9 year old crossing, their guardian will e responsible (negligence).

---> Even if the focus is not on if the girls actually get the info., but on if they get the chance to get the info. (since people would be responsible for their negligence if they can, and should find out the info., but they didn't), a 11 year-old girl should be viewed as the same as those who are of older ages. It is bad for girls that they could not get the relevant info. in formal education, no matter how old they are (I don't trust those "sex education" in moral/religious lessons in those schools with religious background). Therefore:
a. it seems that the responsibility that the girls should bear would be smaller (although not to the level of ignorance, but should not be as severe as those negligence) since the students could not get the info. they need in formal education. 唔通叫D女仔個個去家計會排隊?定係叫D女仔排隊買AV??
b. If the girls could just get the info. about sex by means other than formal education, why can't the 11-year-old girl get the info. by other ways?

3. If a social worker lures a mentally disable woman into sex, is that not rape?  What about someone who drugged a woman into sex in her disoriented state?  The girl is only 11, the parent can be charge for child negligence if she is left alone at home.

---> I think the 2 cases you listed are very different in my view. The former could simply be a case that a boy skillfully ask (or pursuade) the mentally disabled woman for sex. In the case, if the two parties both agree in this sexual arrangement, I see no point to object it. After all, some mentally disabled could still have their own thinking, and have their own right to get want they want (as long as they don't harm others). I don't believe that mentally disabled = irrational. On the other hand, the guy who drugged woman into sex is simply a case of rape. It is simply the man use drug to make the woman to be unable to escape from his rape. If the woman do not want to have sex with the man, I would certainly against it. This man is simply using his force to make the woman to have sex with him, without her agreement. This cause harm to the woman.
For me, the 11-year old girl should have the ability to make her own value judgement, she is not infant after all. Even if she is not so experienced as those 4x year-old woman, I think we should respect her own choice.

4. Quite the reverse, without parents, she will be even more dependent as she will have no one to learn the life lesson from.  Who will be more mature?  A person who live in a loving family, or a person that live alone in the wild?  

Do we need scientific report to support the obvious? (I have read before about it)

--->I belief is quite opposite as yours. Without parents, the children have to train (or even force) themselves to be more mature and to be independent as soon as possible so as to be able to live on their own. Otherwise, how come the "overseas experiences" or "exchange experiences" be so important for students? In fact, students could be more dependent and be more mature if they are placed into a situtation that they have to live on their own, and that's why the "overseas experiences" and "exchange experiences" are so important for the student's personal growth, and so important for the employers in selecting candidates. If the "overseas experiences" are simply those "experience" of living overseas together with parents, it seems not quite useful for students' development (except for leisure). I am living in the love of my family members, it is very 幸福. But it seems that those children without parents are more mature by everyday "training".
In fact, learning from parents is one way of learning, but it is not the only way of learning. People could learn from talking with friends, from some undesirable experiences, etc.
Of course, I am quite interested in your scientific report. Would you mind sharing it with us? Thanks.

4. If having sex with the teacher (who has a wife and child) is rational, what is not?  I see 11 year old doing silly things all the time.  Yes, they no longer do many things that causes immediate danger, but their foresight is still very short.  I suppose you note that we ALREADY places many place off limit for 11 year old to make it impossible for them to be silly.  Currently (in Canada at least), it is a crime to leave an 11 year old at home alone.

---> Having sex with others, once considered all possible consequences, and adopting suitable measures, and could get mutual agreement of all parties involved, it seems that this is nothing "irrational". Even if the sex partner is her teacher (or former teacher), if the girl have taken into consideration of all relevant factors, she would still be rational. The target (or the profession of the target) is, for me, quite irrelevant in deciding if the act of sexual behaviours are rational or not.
In fact, for me, I could only see the teacher as "irrational", but not the girl. As some of you said, the teacher could just wait for 7 years more before having sex with the girl such that he could be not liable legally of 衰11. Therefore, it seems to me that the teacher is "irrational" (or "foolish") to miss out the possibility of being caught. On the other hand, the girls are liable on 衰11, and she will not be legally punished. Therefore, I don't see any point to say the girl is "irrational" (of course, i don't mean that the girl MUST BE rational. What I mean is simply that there is no evidence to show that the girl is irrational).

5. Sorry, if a person income cannot support a baby, they should not have a baby.  Planning to get welfare for your baby is just irresponsible.  It is irresponsible to force the society to pick up the tab for irresponsible  individual behaviour.  

Will the teacher pay for it?  the teacher has a wife and child.  It is what is so irrational about the girl.  Did she has the life experience to judge WHO can be trusted and who cannot?  The teacher is PLACED in a place of trust, not by his merit, but by the guardians.  Should he be any stranger on the street, the chance of the girl trusting the bull will probably drop.

---> In fact, for the low income people, it seems that when they engage in sex, they would consider the consequences. And if they adopt some safety measure (e.g. condoms), they should be regarded as "rational" since they are already doing something to minimize the risk, and this is what they think is the best for them. In addition, of course, there is a chance that the teacher will leave if the girl has a baby afterward. But to make this worse case happens, it have to be: 1. The safety measures fails (<10%), and 2. the teacher will leave (which I believe that the chance is low, in the girl's subjective evaluation, at least). But would a normal person simply give up their sexual needs simply because of this worse case's probability is >0? I don't think so. Some people would take into account of this risk when making choice, and some may believe that this chance is too impossible to think of. It seems that normal people having sex would not consider for this worse situtation also...
For the point that the teacher have a wife and a child. I think it is only that the teacher is bad since he do this kind of thing behind his wife. But if he do leave the girl after she has a baby, this would means that the teacher would be even worse. However, it is not sufficient for me to show that the girl is irrational. As I said, a noraml person would also not consider that worse to happen since it is quite unlikely.
For the point about life experience to judge who should be trusted, I think it is perfectly possible for the 11-year-old student to make rational judgements basically. I think they won't be so foolish to follow a stranger that they randomly meet in street. They would "trust" (or at least, make some utterances similar as those trusting the hearer) to people only under some grounds. For example, they would "trust" people in the same school. Of course, there maybe some cases that people trust the wrong person, but such cases also happen even if the victim is much older, and the cheater is within some "reliable organizations" (e.g. some employees in a famous company). Therefore, for me, it seems to me that the girl's ability to judge is under-estimated.

6. Not really.  We must understand the differemce in the underlying causes.  For the older ladies, it is because of their owned INFORMED choice.  For the 11 year old, she is not properly informed.

---> Both are not informed "properly" in the formal education. I don't see any distinctive differences between the 2 groups.

7. The bible issue is not a legal fight.  The agency is a government agency backed by the law, but the ruling is not.  (You notice there is no judges in the case since the beginning)

The dispute is not whether we should have such an agency or not (which is law), but how the details on agency should operate (which is not exactly law, but government administration).

--->According to the post:
http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... 1388&extra=page%3D1
淫審處 is a judicial institution. The dispute is something about law.


P.S.: I think one of the main differences between our view is that if the 11 year-old girl is "qualified" to be "rational". For me, she is; for you, she is not. From my personal experience, the girls (and boys also) are very 早熟, and are not as naive as the children before. I don't know if it is a good sign or not. But I think they do have the basic ability to make judgements

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-1-20 18:28 編輯 ]

weakest

"兩情相悅：技術上應該要等待到女童的合法年齡才進一步，對事件發生表示同情和感到不幸"
The teacher has a wife and hild himself.  But since we have no mind reader, we will never know.
---> I also feel the teacher is bad since he do this thing behind his wife...

"女主動：在感情上我同情男教師，但亦要為他的自主性失控負責"
Sure, if you can also sympathize manslaughter who murder because they lost control of their emotion.  (Do you sympathize with the VICTIM?)
---> This analogy is a bit inappropriate. In this case, it seems that the girl is not victim (different from a murder, the people killed are the victims). Consider an analogy: if a girl (action doer) rape a boy (action doee), who is the "victim"? The girl or the boy?

prussianz

原帖由 weakest 於 2008-1-20 18:25 發表
1. "Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher beca ...

>> --->According to the post:
>> http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... 1388&extra=page%3D1
>> 淫審處 is a judicial institution. The dispute is something about law.

ThANKe 4 quoting my post ,

有沒人知果個教師係咪真係教徒啊 ﹖﹖

抽刀斷水

事前我不知道男教師已有妻兒，昨日看報才知，而幾天來妻子仍願意為丈夫奔波張羅，在下十分欣賞妻子的氣魄。

報章上指教師一直低頭，給我感覺是表現深深後悔。反而女童向警方供出曾有四次性交及一次非禮，又令我感到她知道自己不會有事，似乎在侃侃而談她的威水史。（對不起，這只是我的感覺）

原帖由 dye 於 2008-1-20 11:19 發表
Sure, if you can also sympathize manslaughter who murder because they lost control of their emotion.  (Do you sympathize with the VICTIM?)

我較傾向「先撩者賤，打死無怨」的精神，死者因蓄意挑釁對方至令其失控，因而表現失常而錯手殺人的話，我也會同情被挑釁的人。

抽刀斷水

原帖由 Guest from 218.208.230.x 於 2008-1-21 01:37 發表
有沒人知果個教師係咪真係教徒啊 ﹖﹖

新聞指男教師名字為趙憲暢，似乎是任教路德會聖十架學校（[url=http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:RZk9tsx7PZgJ:www.hcls.edu.hk/index/fastlink/p%20...%20B2%E6%9A%A2&amp;hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=hk%5Dhttp://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:RZk9tsx7PZgJ:[url]www.hcls.edu.hk/index/fastlink/p%20...%20B2%E6%9A%A2&amp[/url];hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=hk]參考連結[/url]）：

我想上有關學校網頁查詢，卻似乎Down了，大家可以在另一時間試試：
http://www.hcls.edu.hk/

教會學校果然行事迅速！

dye

The research I hear is from Open University on TVB Pearl

But anyway, here is a bit of information:
http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/p ... -0010/default.asp#4
"Who is at risk for conduct disorder?"
"Separation from parents, without an adequate alternative caregiver;"
"Family neglect;"
"Parental marital discord; "

"What are the signs of conduct disorder?"
"Precocious sexual activity. "

"Conduct disorder affects 1 to 4 percent of 9- to 17-year-olds, depending on exactly how the disorder is defined (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). The disorder appears to be more common in boys than in girls and more common in cities than in rural areas."

---------
I am an oversea student myself.  I see xactly the opposite.  It is even reported repeatedly on school's newpaper on the kind of things that can happen to oversea student once they are seperated from their parental love.  (Gamble, speeding and drug.. my brother's school for example, is a school with a total population of such student.  Drug is as prevalent as coca cola in the school...)

Exchange student is valuable because they live in an area with different experience, not because they are seperated and un-cared for.  If they only need a state of living alone, they do not need to move to another country, all they need is sent the kids to a (poorly functioning) boarding school. (Well functioning boarding school take care of their student better than their mom, physically.)  Cheap and efficient?

---------
For more, we have study on psychopath...

http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=crime&cdn=newsissues&tm=49&gps=446_757_1020_568&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html%3Fsect%3D19

Poor parenting is certaining a key factor.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-1-21 13:43 編輯 ]

dye

If the question is about whether or not we should have a 淫審處, I think the public will side with me and think it is neccessary.  It is a totally different question on how 淫審處 operate within (which is government adminstration).

To put it straight, the question is not whether or not we should seperate children from obscene material, but in HOW to determine if something is obscene.

----------
When a student attend a class on sex education, it is considered they are informed about it.  Whether they really listen in class or not, is not the question.  

When a police officer told the driver to stop the vehicle, he is considered informed about it.  (Assuming the driver is not disabled) Whether the driver listen or not is not the question.

The 11 year old is not informed.  And I wonder if she can be informed about complicated matter as such and truly grasp the gravity of it.

-------------
Here is a bit of math:

Suppose there is 10% of having a baby.  The girl have sex 5 times.

10% for the first time
10% + 9% for the second time =19%
10% + 9% + 8.1% for the third time = 27.1%
10% + 9% + 8.1% + 7.39% for he fourth time = 34.49%
10% + 9% + 8.1% + 7.39% + 6.651% for the fifth time = 40+%
(As the number of times of sex increase, the chance of having a baby will become a certainty or 100%)

In any case, the chance of the girl having a baby is not so low after 5 times of sex.  Fortunately, if they use condom properly, the chance is below 0.1% each time.  But has the girl been taught about the use of contraception.  Both on the gravity of the situation, and the know-how?

Least we forget there is also STD standing on the door.
--------

For legal system, the jury is slected at random.  And lawyers on each side can reject a certain number of them.  The decision is not made by an INDIVIDUAL, but by a random sampling of the society at large (if everything is running smoothly).  That is, YOU too can be selected to become the jury and judge.

If the judge is not fair, he can repeal the ruling and try again.  New judge, new jury.

The law is made by the people for the people, they know about that too.  (Hey, it is a few thousands years of experience with many trial and errors.  It is quite refined system)

weakest

1. The research seems to suggest that with bad (or no) parents' care, children are more likely to have conduct disorder.

2. For the overseas students case, I don't doubt your description about the school(s) overseas. But it seems that there are not so much of this behavior in HK. Would it be also possible that the mis-behavior are of common because of the different culture in the 2 places (of course, this explanation is your mutually exclusive to yours. That means, it is possible for both explainations to apply for this case). But it is also perfectly possible that the students who are originally being "too cared" by parents would conduct mis-behaviors also when they are overseas, since they would want to "try new things" once they are not under supervision of parents. If it is the case, should the students be trained to be independent as early as possible?

3. For the exchange experience. I agree that having another experience is an advantage, but it is not the only advantage. Being independent is also frequently used as a selling point for those engaged in exchange program. Although students will be independent also if they are in poorly functioning boarding school, but the impression of other people would be different for the 2 choices (exchange and poorly functioning boarding school). For the boarding school case, it would simply make others to think of poor parents; but for exchange, others would think of independent.

4. For the 淫審處 case, it have the judical power. If it is also a government adminstrative matter, would it means that the judical and the adminstrative matter are not separated? In fact, I really wonder if the group is really selected at random (just because the government say it is selected at random (in the general description doesn't mean that it is really selected at random). If it is really representative to the social's view, why the 中大學生報, or even 大衛像 are problematic? I don't know if the rumor that thisfunction is 外判 to an organization is true (as I remember, there is a news article about it, there is a link (about the bible case) in this forum could lead to that article). But if it is true, won't that would be a case that the organization could make use of its judical power to supress the opposing opinions?

5. But the problem is that: there is no formal education about sex, no matter is it of lower, or higher form, at all. How can those 11-year-old students be different to the older people? If there is such a difference, the difference should not be on the formal education, but on other means. (The only "sex" education I have received in formal education is that: 夢遺 is similiar as 水杯is too full, when I was in primary school). But can't those 11-year-old students get their own info. in the "other means"?

6. The maths would be a better description of the choice "I will have sex for 5 times", but not the situtation that "I consider to have sex this time. After having sex for 1 time, then, when time goes, I consider to have sex again. After having sex for 2 times, when time goes, I consider to have sex again again.... (repeat the process until people have sex for 5 times)". What I mean is that: in economics, there's a principle that "bygones are bygones", and people would make choices only by forward looking, and won't be influenced by things in the past. As such, when people are having sex in the 2nd time, they would simply ignore the 10% in the 1st sex they had (in past). The only matter that concerns them is the risk that they have to bear IN FUTURE (that means, the 10% (2nd time) + 9% (3rd time) + ...). However, it seems this would not be a good description of the decision making process of normal people when they are considering about having sex. Having sex is different from having meal. When having meal, people would consider future meals (e.g. in 19/1 morning, it is possible for some individuals to consider the breakfast in 20/1, even if the guy doesn't have the breakfast in 19/1 morning yet). However, when having sex, it seems that people would not consider future sex(s). For example, before having sex for the 1st time, people would consider only if he would have sex for the 1st time. But it seems that the guy is likely to consider also about the 2nd time sex, the 3rd time sex, etc., unless he have very strong desire for sex, and just treat sex as a normal thing, as normal as having everyday meal... Therefore, for me, the maths should be like:
1st. time: 10% ---> cost-benefit analysis
2nd. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
3rd. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
4th. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
5th. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
...
For me, it seems that even if a normal people of older ages would perform this consideration when thinking of having sex. Of course, It would be better for some people who have the experience to share his/her view in here also...
Hopefully, my words in here is not too confusing...

dye

4. 淫審處 is NOT selected at random.  The governement is not even saying that.  But the judicial court's jury IS selected at random (presumably by machine)  The task given to them is to GRADE, not to RULE or JUDGE.  The question has been ask in Legco before.

6.  That will be horrible decision making.  Exactly the irrational thinking the 11 year old may get into.  Exactly what the type of mistake sex education in school is trying to teach people NOT to make (Perhaps why AV is not a good replacement for sex education).

I understand what you mean by "sunk cost" in economic, but it is applying it incorrectly.  The correct model is to make your desision without cosidering the LOST of the past.  The 10% in the past is already LOST.  But what I calculating here is an ACCUMULATED lost of the whole plan and it is the accumulated lost that the girl will get at the end, NOT the lost of any particular decision.

You only need to have baby once to get into problem.  Once pragenent, you will have to register on a hospital.  They will send cops and social worker to "investigate".

There is also a very low risk for traffic accident each time you speed, or not wearing the seat belt, or getting healh problem when you smoke opium, or cigarette, or weed..etc  That is what I mean foresight of an adult.  While an adult may not have foresight, a children can easily be dis-oriented in the world of mathematics.

5.  There is sex education in Health class and Physical Eduation class at around grade 8-9 in Canada.  I have "seen" student beginning these classes at around form 1 in HK.  Again, most students I observe still do not have the maturity to understand the gravity of the issue and listen carefully.  The same leeson is taught (in Canada) again in first year university and last year of highschool where people are most likely to make a error in judgement.

Sadly, just like simple idea such as wearing your seat belt, some people just never manage to understand it.

1. and 2.  I have friends that is overprotected by their parents and is "released to the wild".  Unlike the popular impression, these fellows behave much better than the other group.  They have better emotion control, "superior" social skills, work habit, sleep habit, etc..  The difference is they lack the hard survival skills (such as the know how of how to wash their clothes.. I am amused when I first met my friend staling in front of the washing machine.  I am teaching a 20 years old how to use a washing machine!)  I suspect that is what give people the wrong impression.

weakest

1. I think "maturity" could mean a.: some superior social skills to make people susscessful in careers; or b. some "hard skills" of independency (like what you have mentioned).
For a, I tend to agree your view. If children are cared by the parents, they are more likely to be a better person (at least, morally). If they are better person morally, they are more likely to be susscessful in careers, interpersonal relationship, etc. (Of course, I believe it is the case, but I can't show a strong proof of that. It is because to be a successful person, people must also know how to tell lies, how to hide some undesirable fact, etc. Therefore, a purely good person seems unlikely to be successful person also. But in general, I think the better the person, the more likely to be successful is the person). But it is of somehow "long-run" effect of the parents.
For b, I think my previous beliefs are based on this idea on "maturity". When there are no parents living with student, the student have to pick up this "hard skills" immediately very rapidly (otherwise, the students' life will be severely affected). Therefore, when compared to (a), it is of a relatively short-run effect. However, having acquired the "hard skills" would also associate that the students' mind-set would also be changed. Noone would expect that the students would simply perform the machine-like skills only, but without the mind-set to live on his/her own. At least, those students without parents would be more tough, independent, in both the "hard-skills" and the mentality in order to be able to live on their own. I think it would also be a reason for their mis-behavior since they have to be "tough" in order to live. Therefore, I believe that those without parents would be more independent, even if they are in very young age. (But independent =/= morally good. Such as those conduct mis-behaviors). Indeed, for those children in 60,70s, they always declare themselves as "independent, mature" because they have to take up the job of taking care of themselves, and their little brothers, sisters.

2. For the decision making problem, I know that "You only need to have baby once to get into problem.". However:
a. For the past sex experience, if the girl doesn't have a baby in the past, the decision of "having sex now or not" should be independent with the past experience. The risk of having a baby in the past experience should be considered ALREADY IN THE PAST, but not in the present. After all, the risk of having a baby in the past sex experience should not be affected by present (and future) sex experiences. If the girl have a baby in past sex experience, the risk she should consider is "having another baby", but not "having the existing baby" (since the baby would be born, no matter she choose to have sex now or not).
b. For the future consequences, I think normal people would just consider the risk of "this sex", but not "future sex". The "future sex" is not considered not because they feel the future sex is of no risk, but because they would not expect to have another sex in the future. Not like having meal, normal people would have breakfast, lunch, dinner (or some more...) everyday; having sex, should not be treated as a regular behavior. Indeed, even the rational people would not know when (even if a rough guess) to have "future sex", and how many times in total to have sex. The risk of "future sex" is there because of "future sex", but not on "this sex". That's why I construct the previous model.

3. For the education matter, I personally don't experience your idea that the sex education is started early. Indeed, when students are in young ages, they don't receive sex education since they are thought as too young to have this kind of education. But when they are senior, they don't receive sex education since they are assumed to know about that knowledge (but they don't get the info. about sex in formal education in young age at all! Is it good to assume that they could get the info. from other means?) . Therefore, no matter how old they are, they don't get the info. in formal education system at all in HK.
In addition, to education someone, the teacher have to have two seemingly contradictory beliefs in mind: 1. Students have to be foolish enough since they don't know the materials to be taught, and 2. Students have to be smart enough in order to be able to learn the materials to be taught. For me, 11-year-old students should be smart enough to learn things about sex.

dye

2) the habbit of having sex is NOT an independent behaviour.  When a person have sex, endorphine will be release.  It is a highly addictive drug.  Besides, the brain will also release chemical emotionally bonding the person with the person who you have sex with.  Please consult Helen Fisher (leading scientist in the area) web page for scientific information on the issue.

a) For the same reason, the risk of killing yourself in an car accident without wearing the seat belt should be consider as past.  Since the chance of getting into a car accident and killing yourself because of not wearing a seat belt is extremely low, people should never wear seat belt.  OFCOURSE NOT.

3) I have attend those class.  So the education IS there.  The question is whether you have attend it or not.  

It is not foolish to not know something before it is taught.  It is precisely because the student do not know that you need to teac them.  The teacher who think the student is foolish is just silly.  It is just like math, the student must be smart enough to grasp the material, but noetheless they should be taught.

-----
1) Oh, those who pick up the hard skill alone?  They are WEAK emotionally.  And the skill is not optimal (I would self decribe myself into this category).  the one who do not know how to use a washing machine will and have try over and over again even under repeated failure, whereas the not protected simply give up and seek escape from failure (such as drug, video arcade.. etc).

Supply do not automatically arise from demand.  Just because a person deperately need something, does NOT mean he can learn it.  Throwing a baby into the water in order to learn how to swim is not a bright idea.  Something that survivor would figure out...

Besides, those that do come with me through stages are those that survive.  There are many that simply do not survive (literally dead , or in a ruinous state of crime or proverty.. My best friend in Canada is in such state of proverty and at the edge of crime.. drug trafficking.  I have lost contact with him now, I wish nothing happen to him).  I am comparing the BEST of the survivor with the WEAKEST of the protected.

weakest

2. I haven't consulted the scientific web. Sorry... I buy your point about her scientific discovery so that the rational decision making should include the consideration of the increased sexual behaviours and the consequences. However, would normal person (even in older ages) would take this in account also? Or the older the people, the more of them would take this into account also?

a. Not all people would make the same decision (not waring the seat belts) since their value judgement on the risk (being injuried in accidents) and benefit (of not wearing seat belts) are different. Also, even if it is the same individual, his decision would also be changed over time as his preference changes. Should we say those decision different from ours are irrational simply because their value judgement are different from ours?

3. In fact, I didn't attend this kind of classes (in my primary school, secondary school and university). Both of my primary school and secondary school are with religious background. Of course, in my impression, there is no such lessons about sex education from my experience. There are so many explanations for this: For example: a. I was "day-dreaming" in lessons; b. I have been absent in these lessons; c. I have forgotten about these lessons; or d. There is in fact no such lessons at all.
However, according to:
http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... &extra=page%3D2
there are some schools wants to avoid students from getting the relevant info. from formal education. I am not sure that if I am the "lucky" one ("lucky" because I can avoid such info...), or you are the "lucky" one (that you can know about sex in formal education). From my personal experience, it is rare that students could get the info. in formal education (no matter how senior they are). Of course, my own personal experience doesn't mean that this is a good description of the general case in HK. My own experience may be not representative. However, it seems to me that sex education in formal education is rare.

1. Well, for the hard skills, those students alone are not likely to give up if the skills are required for their living (or important for their living). Take the washing machine as an example. By the law of demand (if the price of a good falls, the quantity demanded of the good will be increased, holding other factors constant), the "cost" of giving up is much higher for those student without parents (For those with parents, students' cost of giving up is lower, since the parents would take up the job even if they choose to give up; on the other hand, for those without parents, no parents would take up their job if they choose to give up), therefore, those with parents are more likely to give up and escape from failure.

Again, I don't think using a baby to compare with those of 11-year-old is appropriate. If we consider the swimming case, a baby don't have the ability to escape when a people throw them into water. However, if a parent tries to throw a 11-year-old into water, won't the child escape and run away if he feels that there is a danger? If the child wants to try, but get accident, he should make efforts to survive, and shout for help, but a baby don't (since he would just cry, maybe...). They have the basic ability (or potential) to survive, and without parents, they have to train themselve to explore this ability.

By the way, hope that your fd. is alright.

dye

1.  
a) If there is NO supply, raising the demand to infinity do not help.  
b) When the supply curve is asytompotic, rising the demand a liitle would raise the cost indefinitely.
c) The un-protected is facing a problem of not enough resources!  They cannot pay a price no matter what.  The common economic model would suggest they attempt an alternative.  If you cannot get an LV (no matter how much you need it), you will try get a fake one.  If you cannot get the kidney transplant in the market in India (even if it is vital to you),  you will try to get a kidney washing machine.  (If neither work, as many have, we have one unstaisfied customer...)

For student that laern how to use the washing machine, many learn to use the machine incorrectly (eventually breaking the machine, a common phenomenon)

THere is 3 phenomenon:
1) The well protected and well trained.  They use the machine properly and nothing happen
2) The well protected but not trained. The cannot use the machine but will try.
3) The un-protected and clever.  They can use the machine but will break it.
4) The un-protected and "pragmatic".  They cannot use the machine, give up, and seek alternative.  (Anything from changing your clothes less often, to attempting a hand wash.)

It is just a matter fact that I observe they will give up.

2. Then a parent throw an 11-year old intot he water, he/she will drown just like the baby.  We already heard of young children drowning themselves in ponds and pools.  In fact, according to freakonomic, it is a rather common household harzard for children to have a pond in the backyard.  You are not suppose to put an 11 year old alone besides a pond or he/she will have a high chance of getting himself/herself drown (statistically speaking, high then having a gun).

The baby will struggle when in water.  It will make an effort to survive.  The instinct to survive is a natural for young and old.  Only that it is just like the mentally disable - they both lack the ability to survive (for the mentally disable, they lack the mental capacity, for the baby and child, he/she lack the skills and muscles.)

3.  My elementary school is al a Christian school.  They have such lessson.

For you question, it is deiscuss in Legco in 2006

（一）教育署（現為教育統籌局）於１９９７年編訂《學校性教育指引》，目的為提高學校對推行性教育的關注。此指引主要是在推行性教育時，給學校作參考之用，不應被視作一般學科的課程指引。其後，在２００１年的課程改革中，教育統籌局強調整全的教育，將已往不同的跨學科課程，例如：公民教育、德育、性教育、健康教育、環保教育等作出統整並歸納在德育及公民教育之下。德育及公民教育重培養學生正確的價值觀和態度、建立健康的生活方式、掌握生活技能，去面對和處理日常生活和社會的問題；同時幫助學生學習怎樣面對自己成長的挑戰，與及處理他們對性的疑惑和困擾，例如：約會和戀愛、性別意識、性騷擾等。德育及公民教育已涵蓋絕大部分培育學生全人發展的重要經歷，足以配合現時年青人的發展需要。

They have been working on it all along!  It is there for quite some time.

2.  They are not wrong because they are different, no where did I say that.  They are incorrect in not wearing the seat belt because it affect their survival much more than what they think.

If after they understand the gravity of the issue ans still insist on doing it, it is their responsibility morally.  (But the society will still need to foot their bill since they cannot take the responsibility physically.  The current option in escaping it is to buy a much much much higher insurance.  Unfortunately, there is no such insurance as the policy is difficult to make.)

--------------
It is NOT increase sexual behaviour, but sex is just like eating.  There is a drive behind it.  It is a habit.  (For teens, it is a habit to be developed that will have a life long effect.)  A person become addicted to sex much more easily than food (it is the same chemical, just much heavier doses)

dye

Below is the type of sex education for grade 6 student in HK

http://www.ied.edu.hk/pse/teach_sex_con_1.html




[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-1-23 10:03 編輯 ]