Quote - What the both of you have basically said was
"Oh there was this one person...."
   meaning the exception to the rule.  I know a man that's in his late 30's and looks 15....so does that mean every 15 year old I see in 38, nope.

Yes, I said I knew someone like that. I did not say it was the only example I knew of. I did not use it as a reference to the apparent age of the character in your image. I did not say it to espouse any sort of general guideline for any images whatsoever. 

I would be much happier if you wouldn't say "what you are basically saying". I would be happy to further explain myself, if you like, but we'll have a much better conversation if you don't translate and summarize my words. I'll assume that you were just presenting your own perception of what I intended, and I'll of course try to extend you the same courtesy.

Quote - So rather than make a point, you've proved the opposite by showing that no matter what you're going to say underage using you're "I once knew a "  or "a serious glandular problem"

Possibly I misunderstood. I couldn't imagine that you were being serious with your image test, but it seems to me now that perhaps you were. My "glandular problem" comment was meant to be a humorous description of the image overall, and was not in any way an indicator of why I felt the character looked a certain age.

There are several reasons why I think the character looks a certain age; about 15 years, in this case. In this particular image, and this particular image only, the criteria I used were clearness of skin tone, apparent tautness of the skin (particularly around the eyes, cheeks, and neck), and size of the eyes in proportion to the head. In addition to the physical markers, the character has the guise of a young person. As Billy mentioned, the apparent age of the character in any given image is not solely dependent on the physical characteristics of the person, but to some degree on the environmental factors, such as clothing, stance, hair style, and environment.

Now, while I might (or might not) use those same criteria in judging another image (I say "might not", because another image might present in a wholely different mode, such as the character not showing a head). I am not in any way discussing a set of rules whereby images in general can be judged, merely stating what criteria I used in judging your particular image.

Quote - Using those ideas one could say if you are a Priest then that means you must like little boys, because you're basing your thoughts and opinions on the extreme cases.

 

Really? Uh... well-- No, really? Are you serious? If you're kidding, I wish you'd use a smiley or something. Have you had any sort of training in formal logic? If so, I'd like to know what method you're using to connect your thoughts, because I'm a bit bewildered by your comparison. You seem to have run together two useless generalizations into a conglomerate of ideation that borders on the bizarre. Or so it seems to me. If you could connect those dots for me a little bit, I would very much appreciate it.