No, I’m talking about pointing out the use of the sorites fallacy, the point that tests can be cheated, that children are easily coerced, that children are not developmentally able to understand the full ramifications of their choices, that there are wild power imbalances between adults and children, that being unable to legally consent is only a temporary constraint… Need I go on?
At best, Cesario’s arguments amount to dismissive sophistry. So yeah, I think it’s fair to yawn when he posts another novella on the topic with nothing substantial in it. At best, the guy’s a huge bore and a smug prick to boot.
The only person to directly reference any form of the continuum fallacy was you, just now.
As for the other points, sure they were made, but usually in the middle of more hysterical raving than in a gun control thread colliding with a circumcision thread in the middle of a parade of gay libertarians.
Spoken like two guys who never had to sit two first-graders down and explain that even though boys and girls are different and that’s understandably fascinating when you’re six, comparing equipment at any point is not what polite people do while they’re at (vacation bible, in this case) school.
You find me a nice neat line (naturally, supported by research) ANYWHERE in child development, let alone child sexual development. I realize we’ve had a discussion upthread on the difference between “sensual” and “sexual” desires, but where’s the line?
I’m not even going to address the rest of your “points.” You’re obviously a sick fucker who refuses to acknowledge it. Instead you want to strap on your thinking cap and come up with all these retarded rationalizations, with big 50-cent words, which only in your twisted fantasy world even approach rational thought, for the sole purpose of legitimizing your urget to molest children.
So one can only hope you remain in your mom’s basement where you belong, with your anime collections, your {wink -wink} specialized erotica, and your stained underwear, and that the society that exists here in the real world won’t have to actually deal with you at all until it’s time for the mugshot.
I wrote: “No, not with those premises if they are possible - I just don’t think it’s realistic, which is why I don’t think it’s a reasonable position to hold, ultimately. I think the child would be damaged.”
Notice the qualifier? Because I certainly did. The qualifier makes your subsequent statement about my position being irrational, moot. You see, what I was stating is that while the formulation may be valid, it was not sound since I do not think that it’s realistic for the proposed scenario to reflect reality.
Which would include adults.
Yes, the relationship between children and adults. In fact, there is a whole host of things we have not mentioned which deal with child psychology. Are you seriously trying to say that we’ve mentioned all the relevant factors?
So you are suggesting a system which no child can be coerced into cheating? A system that tests their physical and emotional knowledge based on a test? How do you go about doing that?
True, but so what? It doesn’t mean that it’s not as well. Laws against drunk driving attempt to protect the populous, even though some individuals can drive well while inebriated. The law is meant to protect the masses in both cases, even if it deprives some hypothetical people of their wants.
Interesting test. I don’t really see a reason to make sex with someone under 10 legal, even with what you are proposing, since I doubt they could qualify.
Okay, that doesn’t mean that they don’t.
Yes, those adults are (hence my “Nell” scenario). Also, your point about juvenile punishment seems a non sequitur. Why would dimished capacity entail a wanton disregard for the child’s actions?
So you see no difference in a murder committed by a fully reasoned adult killing someone by hitting them in the head with a shovel and a murder committed by someone who was not mentally able to comprehend that hitting someone in the head with a shovel would end their life?
An age line makes it easier to differentiate. As I pointed out, there are definite ‘heaps’ that you seem to be ignoring. No one year old could be said to be mentally up to par with an adult. So an age line would be appropriate. Right?
Three year olds should vote?
You could argue that they do not have anything to do with intellectual capacity in all cases - but you would have to provide evidence to convince anyone that in most cases children 12 and under are mentally up to par with adults.
This is a little vague - what do you mean by ‘intrinsic harm’ here? Also, can you point me towards any studies with ‘fully consensual sexual encounters’ where there was no harm?
Again, this is the real world Cesario - in the world of logical argumentation, the person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof. In the world of debate, the burden of proof is shared when two sides are making two different arguments.
However, in the real world, this isn’t the case. You want the world to change, you are arguing for this position and you want to convince people of your position.
Ergo, the burden of proof lay with you.
Well, at least your position is consistent.
So you believe that age has no relevance in the amount of psychological harm a person has when they are raped? Ie, a 10 year old being raped is no more psychological harmful then a 40 year old?
Do you think that there should be any counseling or social work to determine that the child is remaining in the relationship out of their own free will?
So on what basis can you say that such a relation can do no harm? On what basis can you claim that all the harm is done via society?
Yes, but this is irrelevant, unless you plan on arguing that a nine month old is going to be able to give consent?
Is this your position?
Because if it’s not, then you still have to address what I brought up:
Because you seem to be attempting to get around a sorties paradox by saying there is no such thing as heaps. In short, while their are certainly elements of gray in regards to sexual development and knowledge, there do seem to be definite boundries. For example, I do not think you could convince anyone that a child between 0 and 4 has any awareness of sex, any knowledge about it, etc. I would argue that ages 5-10 would be only slightly more aware - but still well within the ‘heap’ of ignorance.
No, not at all, my point is that she would be the equivalent of a child (roughly speaking); ie, unable to give informed consent. I’m not totally against the idea of a test, I think that it’s impractical and useless for all but the “amazing prodigy” child under 10, ergo there is no need for it.
It looks interesting, but I don’t think there is a need for getting rid of the age line. Maybe revamping it in light of teenagers who pass the test - but I see no reason to apply it to all children, since there are definitive age lines that exist (ie, no 9 month old could pass the test, for example).
You think that there exists a possibility for a 5 month old to be able to give that sort of consent?
I can appreciate the proposal for older teenagers, but I see no value and only potential harm in abandoning all age lines.
It seems to me that there are definitive age lines, despite what either of us believe. For example, it is not possible for a 5 month old to give consent. They simply aren’t mentally developed to that point.
Perhaps - however they are also one of the drivers for sexual attraction to begin with.
You think that when a child goes through puberty they remain blissfully ignorant of the changes that are going on in their bodies or do you think they may want to ask an adult what is going on? Yes, you can have sexual education before that point, but that would be a different type of knowledge. I’m referring to physical knowledge.
Would these classes be available for those children that wanted to learn the material, or would they be mandatory?
If there is no point in explaining the concepts to preverbal infants, then isn’t that an age line that could be drawn?
Fair enough.
My two year old says ‘no’ to just about anything. It is not indicative of whether or not she actually wants something. For example, I was attempting to fix her dinner yesterday and I asked if she wanted macroni and cheese. She said ‘no’, even though she understands the word the majority of the time. So I picked her up and brought her to the counter where some food items were. I asked her what she wanted and she indicated the mac & cheese.
I will grant you that from a technical standpoint you seem to be correct - however when I try to point out that there do seem to be definitive age lines (ie, a 5 month old) it’s like pulling teeth with you.
Has the pedophile said yet whether or not he’s actually touched a young child sexually?
I know he has said he has never “molested” anyone, but I think we clearly have different definitions of that word.
Pedophile, have you ever touched a childs genitals, or had a child touch yours?
To be clear - why would a dimished capacity entail a disregard for the actions, as opposed to taking the dimished capacity into consideration when determining a punishment?
I think he’s denied having such relationships outright - but if not, he’s implied it a few places, as, presumably, if he had such a relationship it would be one he could point to as a relationship with a child where there was no psychological damage.
So? If the guy wants to appear convincing, he should at least seriously address these real points instead of blowing them off with a bunch of hand-waving rationalisations. All he’s doing at present is convincing me he’s fucked in the head.
The guy’s a one-trick pony whose one trick is justifying his own pathological fantasies. Furthermore, he has no interest in intellectually honest discourse, and his tone is pretty odious to boot. Really, the thread title says it all: when you’re advocating something that has to be one of the hottest of hot buttons, the onus is on you to keep things calm and rational.
Feel free to point out anything you don’t feel I’ve sufficiently addressed.
Irony.
You don’t need heaps when you can judge individual grains. Try to keep up.
You explain to me how someone can fake a theory of mind and we’ll talk.
This is illegal to do to adults under the current system. Doesn’t become legal under my proposed changes.
That’s the point of requirement 2.
I don’t see why you approve of this situation.
So we raise the age of consent to 60. It’s only a temporary constraint, so I’m sure you won’t be bothered by the slight inconvenience. Besides, if you’re really mature and love your partners, you can wait a few years.
Please do. If you have anything more, please present it. I’d like to shoot down all your arguments at once if you don’t mind.
When you proudly declare you haven’t read my arguments, you don’t get to comment on their content.
I’m still waiting for some substance from your end. Was that coming any time soon?
Well, the best I can say for you is that you’re on topic here.
You should really read through some of the threads on this board. Here we have an individual describing their sexual behaviors from age 5-10, reaching the point of full intercourse at 12 or 13. You don’t have to look very far for this sort of thing. Which only leads me to conclude that your ignorance is a direct result of you not bothering to look.
Also incidentally, noting a sexual relationship started well under the age of consent that has continued to the point of resulting in two children.
You said, “if I had the chance to have sex with a person that I’m attracted to I would”. No mention of requiring her consent. Try to keep up, you used that omission as a means to attack me, after all. You aren’t nearly as stupid as you seem to want to pretend to be.
Concession accepted.
I didn’t see any particularly complicated words in my previous response to you. Feel free to ask questions about any of them you don’t understand and I’ll try to break down the conept into smaller words for you. Best we understand one another’s arguments, after all.
Good news, I close on my first home next week. I feel like celebrating.
Eh, I tend to watch then move on, so watching them on TV works out just as well. That or Crunchyroll. The only one I’ve really kept on DVD was the Fullmetal Alchemist movie. I think I’ll probably end up getting the sequil series of Kiddy Grade if it ever comes out, since my odds of one of my cable networks showing it seem slim. If I end up doing that, it makes sense that I ought to grab the first series to go with it.
Do you have something in your eye.
Huh? I keep up with my laundry just fine. Do you have some issue with your detergent that you assume stains like that are normal? You should try a stainstick or, if you’re talking whites, bleach.
So your goal is for me to do nothing to harm anyone, then be arrested for no reason. Interesting.
Validity is all that is required of my position. Your guesses as to the truth value of the premises are irrelevant.
You train your children to obey any random adult on the street? And you wonder why your kids are in danger?
Mention all the relevant factors. It’s getting tedious shooting down your arguments one at a time. If you have a fully realized argument, present it. The only thing that is gained by your continuing to obfuscate your argument is you get to hold on to the slim hope that the next thing you put forward will be the one thing I can’t respond to. If you have something I can’t beat, put it on the table and shut me up for good. If you don’t, stop pretending and drawing out your inevitable defeat.
Because no child could ever be coersed into lying about their age under the current system…
As to the actual cheating, how do you fake a theory of mind?
For starters, we use real words. “Physical and emotional knowledge” is a meaningless phrase.
More to the point, if you don’t know how to test it, you can’t know that adults have it, so it’s a moot point to begin with.
You have demonstrated neither the good intentions of the law, nor any good results, nor have you constructed an argument for why my proposal wouldn’t do everything an age of consent does but better. Was there anything I’ve missed?
If they wouldn’t pass, then you’ve no reason to fear them taking it. Seems we have a win-win.
The paralells aren’t diminshed regardless of how well meaning and paternalistic the legislation’s justification is. Need I bring up sincere quotes from slave holders about how blacks are naturally incapable of self-governance, and that they need the firm hand of the white man to keep them from starving on the streets?
Not familiar with the defense of infancy? That is what you were trying to invoke after all.
You think that someone who had no criminal intent in that case ought to be held criminally liable?
Like I said, I don’t find the government’s convenience to be a compelling reason to opress a minority.
Because they are irrelevent and unecessary.
Then there’s no harm in letting them take the test and try to prove you wrong.
Wrong.
If they want to, yes. Please, see the thread in question. That is where we should be taking our suffrage arguments.
In any case. Intelectual capacity is referenced in neither definition. Merely age. Since age is not intelectual capacity, it’s proven by definition.
I have no need to prove anything of the sort. You seem to love putting words in my mouth. Seems to suggest you can’t actually beat the arguments I’m actually presenting.
Harm derived soely from the act itself, which was demonstrably not caused by society’s reaction to the act. Is that clear enough?
Can’t make your argument so you demand I prove a negative?
Deal with it.
And since your side has utterly failed to meet its burdon of proof…
Oh, this is pathetic. You’ve realized you can’t win the argument, so instead you try to change the format of the debate.
There’s something rather simple you need to grasp. I don’t need to prove a negative for you. I’m not going to make up your arguments for you. If you don’t want to present evidence from your side, I’m more than willing to accept your concession.
I’m willing and able to provide evidence supporting each of my positive assertions, and I’m willing to respond to any evidence you care to present in support of yours, but this utterly laughable tactic of declaring the rules of debate invalid because you’re losing is going to get you nowhere.
You don’t get to make an argumentum-ad-popularum fallacy just because you can’t win without resorting to fallacies.
I try.
The studies I’ve read suggest exactly the opposite, in fact. Children are more resilient to many forms of psychological trauma.
Shall we get your date a shrink to make sure she’s not just staying with you because she’s afraid you’ll beat her worse if she leaves?
On the basis that in all the years I’ve been arguing with people just like you, not one of them has ever presented a damn thing that shows intrinsic harm. You’d think that if there were all these mounds of evidence of this universal, intrinsic harm you types keep blathering on about, someone, at some point, would have been able to produce some when asked.
I’ve done more than my due diligance looking for the evidence that would disprove my belief, not all of my searching relying on dishonest debators like yourself. But if you care to prove me wrong, feel free to present one of these mountains of studies that you type love to claim exist and shut me up for good.
It is my position that one ought to be allowed to attempt to prove they are able to give consent if they so chose. I doubt they could meet the standard, but that is not sufficient justification for denying them the oportunity to make the attempt.
I realize this is threatening to your worldview, but we don’t need heaps if we can determine where each individual grain belongs. You only need heaps when you’re too incompetent to figure out which grains are red and which ones are blue. Trying to use heaps in that case really just leaves you with various shades of purple.
You don’t see the advantage of being able to tell a teenager “you aren’t ready for sex because”, and have something concrete to point to? You don’t see the advantage of routinely protecting developmentally delayed adults from sexual predation?
And more to the point, you still haven’t started thinking outside the box of my age of attraction? That one in particular baffles me.
If no nine month old could pass the test, there’s no harm in letting any nine month old take the test and fail.
I’m not prepared to discount the possibility entirely. And even if no 5 month old could do so, that’s no reason to prevent them from taking the test and trying to prove the presumption wrong.
Again, where is the harm in allowing anyone to take the test and fail it? Where is the value in denying huge tracts of people access to the test?
More to the point, what are you prepared to tell someone who has taken the test illegally and passed? You drew a bright line, and someone under it passed it. What do you say to that person who has just proven they are capable of consent?
If there are definate age lines, the test will identify them, and no one who’s below them will pass anyway. No harm done there.
One. Not all. Plenty of people with hormonal abnormalities still desire sexual intimacy. Doesn’t change a damn thing.
Adults have been known to lie and conceal information. Never heard of this phenomenon?
Again with that undefined term. Provide a definition or stop using it.
You are aware we already have a mandatory sexual education in plenty of areas, right?
“Verbal” is not an age. Try again.
Also known as requirement 4.
Thank you. Concession accepted.
Because the entire concept is irrelevent. If no one under 5 months can pass the test, no one under 5 months will pass the test. I can’t break an axiom down any further.
Nope.
Considering the impossibility of pregnancy in a prepubescent, and the likely lack of exposure to STDs at that point, if they’re fully informed, the reasonable course of action would be to avoid going in to buy condoms. (Setting asside the sad lack of condoms properly sized for 5 year old boys in your average CVS.)
Again, defense of infancy. Look it up.
And since you proudly admitted to not actually reading my arguments, you’ll forgive me if I find this carries little weight.
Come now, you were convinced of that long before you actually read any of my arguments. I didn’t need to do anything to convince you of that.
Was there something else you’d like to talk about?
Traditionally, intelectually honest discourse involves actually reading your oponent’s arguments.
I’m not interested in taking responsibility for your irrational behavior. Deal with it.
I really wish he would just shut the fuck up and go away. He’s a completely worthless human being who will more than likely one day hurt a child. He has no value here and should simply slither off into nothingness.
Ceserio, you missed my point 100%… Those developmentally delayed adults view sex the way CHILDREN do! You say that there are some kids who can handle sex …but when you look at developmentally delayed adults who are at the same emoitional-social-developmental level as a kid…meaning they are essentially a kid that way, there’s no way in hell that a kid functioning that way could even understand the concept of sex the way adults view it!
I have quite a bit of experiance with MR and other developmentally delayed adults…they are always " My boyfriend kissed me on the lips! Are we taking things too fast?" Kids view sex the same way a developmentally delayed adult views it!
Ummmm NO. They aren’t fixtated on females the way that pedos are fixtated on kids.Pedos are fixtated on kids in an extreme Asperger’s Syndrome/ extreme paraphillia way. They don’t care about the child as a person…but rather as a potential sex toy.
And Guni…RIGHT ON!!! Pedos are so self centered that they’ve managed to convince themselves that kids want it. It’s ONLY about THEM and their pleasure and their oregasm.
Oh an for those who are advocating a lower AOC…sorry but teenagers are still developing in so many ways. It feels good to be all " rah rah rah…teens are mature enough to have sex with an older person…but fact of the matter is that teens (even many older teens) are still learning about romantic relationships.
Heck I know a girl who thought she was hetro up til she graduated high school…then she met a girl and felll in love in college.
Heck tons of twentysomethings are still learning abt realtionships…right after college kids who you’d thought would be togehter forever had broken up…