But Cesario doesn’t think anything’s wrong with his fantasy. He thinks it’s society that’s wrong and that screws up rape victims by telling them they’re damaged. Most people know it’s wrong to hit the crying brat or stuff the cell phone down the asshole’s throat. (Well…mostly wrong.)
Then it follows that you would be quite happy, if Cesario were known to you and knowing of his fantasies, to let him babysit your children. And if not, why not, given that you have just said that his fantasies pose no threat to anyone?
I’ll gladly own up to stupidity when it’s pointed out. Would that the same could be said of you.
For the latter, I don’t really think it’s wrong, i’m just conforming to society’s relatively strict rules against beating the living hell out of rude motherfuckers. On the other hand, I HAVE had therapy for anger management (and as said elsewhere, haven’t administered any beatdowns since the playgrounds or gym class)
Does it? It looks like you’ve drawn six or seven conclusions in your last four posts and they’re all, to be generous, suspect.
It was and you didn’t, but no matter.
You are correct, of course, that the mere thought is not the deed. We should take Cesario at his word, just as we would take our friends at their word if they told us that they were attracted to our spouses.
I think the difference is that, as a society, we view our children as innocent and unable to take care of themselves and as such, they cannot protect themselves adequately (or in some cases cannot even ask for help), whereas my spouse could - theoretically - ward off attackers/manipulations or ask for help.
Is this a rational/reasonable distinction to have? Probably not, but even though I acknowledge that it’s generally the same sort of attraction without action, I realize that I’m a hypocrite and would treat the two situations different.
I cannot absolve my emotional need to protect my child with the salve of reason that suggests there might not be anything to protect my child from.
Apples to oranges. It’s actually quite difficult to murder someone, whereas fondling a young child who crawls into your lap is absolutely trivial. Plus, there’s the whole “fear of punishment” thing which prevents most rational people from breaking the social contract. Therefore, a person who fantasizes about murdering and torturing people is highly unlikely to encounter a situation where he/she has that opportunity, and is willing to act on it.
Cesario, on the other hand, already has access to young children, as he himself has stated. He’s also stated that he has NO FEAR of being punished by the law, if he’s caught. Therefore, our concern that he is currently at high risk for molesting a child is well-founded.
I’m not so sure about the comparison to begin with, but if you make the comparison with a person who is ‘typical’ (ie, attracted to adults), it might be closer. If a woman fell asleep in the typical person’s lap, I do not think that the person would be any more apt to molest the woman then the pedophile would be to molest the child.
He’s also stated that one of the primary reasons for his abstaining is the potential societal harm inflicted onto the child AND the idea that there probably isn’t any child that could give him consent to the level he’s said he would accept.
And you take him at his word? How marvelously innocent of you.
So I should just assume that no pedophile can control his sexual impulses? Or are you referring to him in particular?
Frankly I admit that I’m not an expert on the psychology of pedophilia, so if you have some relevant studies that I could access that support the idea that pedophiles have poorer impulse control then the average citizen, then I’d like to see them.
Do we have anything other than his word? I’m asking seriously.
Well, you’re taking him at his word that he’s a) a paedophile and b)in contact with children. So what’s the difference?
I’d welcome the chance to draw any conclusion from your answers to my questions, but since you haven’t answered them it’s rather difficult.
Cesario is a self-confessed pedophile who finds the bodies of young children (from 0-10) sexually desirable. Nobly he has stated that he would not act on these desires, the poor child would be terribly damaged by the reaction of a callous society and in any case he would keep his cock in his pants until he happens upon a child capable of informed consent.
Wow, just the kind of pedophile you could bring home to tea with the family, certainly at the Eckers household, and engage in lively philosophical debate. A tame pedophile.
So tame, in fact, that you accuse me of advocating the criminalizing of thoughts for suggesting that it might be in his best interests to avoid putting his high principles to the test by being alone with the objects of his sexual fantasies.
Judging by you former posts I certainly don’t expect you to address anything I’ve actually said. Why break precedent? I just want to underline the silliness of your accusation.
Quantum sufficit.
Here’s the thing … what the hell do you expect him to say? That he’s a proud, noble, celibate pedophile, and fuckin-A right he’ll molest a child the first chance he gets?
Of course not. Of course he’s going to float the, “gee whiz, I would never really do anything like that.”
Choose to believe him if you want. Not me.
Case in point. You don’t know anything about the “Eckers” household, but you’re basing your position on what you assume would happen there. You make many many such assumptions.
Fine, let’s be dead serious. What do you mean, exactly, by “should concern us as the thought is often father to the deed” ? What form should this concern take? Aren’t all deeds “fathered” by thoughts? Are you suggesting some thoughts are bad? Aren’t laws that undermine individual freedom of thought “fathered” by the thoughts of someone who thinks those caught with overwrought thoughts ought be fought?
Okay, that last line is a little silly, but I’d appreciate it being addressed anyway.
Hey, just you wait till he makes his first award-winning movie and moves to France. Then you rightious folk will change your tune!
All this pedophile chatter is well and good, but when this thread veer off into the crazy talk about NOT hitting or shaking kids to get them to SHUT THE FUCK UP?
I mean, if it’s debatable to have sex with kids, certainly it’s ok to beat on them! Am I right or am I right?
Beat on them – beat off on them – these are minor quibbles!
Are you familiar with the Turning Test? If something can “fake” having certain cognitive abilities, then it’s just as accurate to say it really has those cognitive abilities.
I seem to recall mentioning my former job as an elementary school teacher.
So you don’t actually have anything to present. Just empty lies and a bluff you get huffy about being called on. What a surprise. :rolleyes:
So this has no basis on what’s actually written, just on what you assumed before looking at it. Got you.
Then there’s no harm in letting them take the test and fail if they so choose.
And you see no issue with that?
So you have nothing to present? In that case, it seems safe to drop this conversation thread.
That wasn’t one of the premises.
Once again, I find we have a fundamental disagreement on the function of law. I do not find it to be a legitimate use of the law to oppress minorities, however small their numbers, for the convenience of the government.
Also, since there is no evidence of harm in the first place, then please explain how anyone is being protected, masses or otherwise.
In large part, by virtue of the fact that if you can “cheat” your way to operating as though you have a theory of mind, you actually have a theory of mind.
It isn’t. It’s only necessary to enact on anyone who wants to have sex at some point and thinks they’re ready for that.
If they’re preverbal, they aren’t capable of expressing consent anyway, so it’s a moot point.
If you don’t recognize that other people have different knowledge and thoughts, you can’t understand that people are capable of lying to one another and believing lies. This is just one convenient cognitive assessment tool that helps establish whether requirement 3 is met or not.
If you are requiring knowledge that can only be gained through having sex in order to be able to consent to sex, that’s an obvious catch-22, and obviously wouldn’t bear discussing.
As to the other physical experiences, why do you claim that knowledge of how an errection feels (your example) is at all relevant?
I take no issue with a defacto age line of this sort. I take extreme issue with codifying any of this into the law itself, tacking on meaningless requirements and restrictions to who is and isn’t allowed to take the test.
My issue is with legally mandated age lines, not defacto ones that crop up simply as a result of no one under a certain age passing the test. Is this more clear?
Because there is no sound reason for them not to be allowed to take the test, since anyone who you would disqualify from taking it could just as easily take it and fail (or do something surprising and pass it).
You’d be surprised at how easy it is to take the test and fail it. That’s possible pretty much from the point that you gain the ability to ask to take the test.
Universal restriction requires universal harm to justify it.
No they don’t. When you present an unrebuttable presumption, you declare that the presumption is true in all cases, not just the majority of cases. When you want to declare something to be true in the majority of cases, you introduce a presumption, but you make it rebuttable.
I’m attempting to convert universal childhood incompetence into a rebuttable presumption, for example, whereas right now it is an unrebutable presumption.
Why in the world do you keep using that blood alcohol content thing as though I actually supported that sort of thing?
Present me with positive evidence that adult-adult relationships are actaully good, productive, and do not harm those involved. That way I’ll see what sort of evidentiary standard you think I need to meet.
What do you mean by “could not take the test (due to lack of cognitive development)”? I’m not sure exactly what scenario you are reffering to.
You didn’t seem to grasp that I was employing one, so it seemed important to check this point.
So what you’re saying is, based on the racist evidence avalible at the time, slavery was morally appropriate. Because the science at the time suggested precisely that slaves were lacking in vital cognitive capabilities, and were generally incapable of governing themselves. I’m not seeing the distinction here.
They are mentally equivalent to the mentally developed children. Just like whites are.
I’m phrasing it that way because that’s what it is.
No. Age is irrelevant, physical development is irrelevant. The only way those tie into anything resembling relevance is that they tend to correlate with mental development, which is the ONLY thing which actually is relevant.
Again, what the hell are you talking about declaring people incapable of taking the tests, when I’ve repeatedly explained that anyone can take it if they so chose. If they don’t or can’t chose to take it, then they can’t take it, but that’s the only requirement.
No, it’s a basic, underlying tennet of a free society.
It’s their time to waste. Also, I’ve pointed out several reasons that even people who take it and fail are benefited.
The only reason needed is that they desire to do so, and there is no valid reason to prevent them from doing so.
There is ZERO justification for arbitrarily denying the rights of every human being under ANY age. NONE. It is NOT justifiable to oppress a minority just because they’re a minority. So fuck that.
Are we speaking the same language?
You’re the one who was going to provide evidence. I presume that this means you have none. Got it.
Prove to me no adult will ever be harmed as a result of being allowed to consent to sex. Then I’ll provide the same standard of evidence for children.
Do you want anecodotal case studies? We’ve got them being posted here on this forum? Do you want published metaanalyses? Someone already posted Rind. What exactly is it you want?
I’m not appealing to my ignorance. I’m pointing out that you’re appealing to yours every time you suggest that this harm exists and that this justifies oppressive laws which lack any meaningful basis.
If there are no studies demonstrating harm, where are you getting the idea that we need to restrict behavior on the basis that there is harm? The basis is undermined by the lack of evidence itself. Is this unclear to you? Well, of course it is, but I’m afraid I can’t explain it any more clearly than that.
This is giving me such a headache.
Let’s start again with whether or not we have a meaningful defintion of consent. You’ve accepted (for the sake of argument, apparently, though your desire to limit acceptance to that seems odd) that the RMSC provides a suitable definition for informed consent.
Now, if a child passes the RMSC, they will have provided evidence of point 1. You arbitrarily denying them access to the RMSC is really just you hiding evidence of point 1, which is part of what pisses me off about your continuing to push age line requirements into this.
As to point 2, if this isn’t the case, WHY THE HELL DO WE CARE ABOUT CONSENT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Another appeal to majority. Can you argue this without resorting to these fallacies? Seems to me your inability to avoid using them isn’t helping your argument one whit.
See, I can go meta on your arguments’ effectiveness too. :rolleyes:
You forgot what you were asking in the first place, didn’t you?
When you present the studies that show universal harm from fully consensual encounters.
Considering we’ve already had postings of Rind which contains multiple such examples, it seems pointless for me to continue to add evidence when you’ve refused to do a thing to support your side’s assertions.
Then you don’t operate under that position. You’re just using “creative” defintions to get around that fact. Sort of like the “slaves aren’t citizens” meme actually…
No. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
You’ve already agreed that my test is adequite at determining consent.
As to the other, it doesn’t really matter if there is harm, since any harm that results was fully consensual. Same reason we let people engage in BDSM.
You really have no idea how to judge the effecacy of an argument, do you? You can’t just take a snapshot, see how many people agree or disagree with the argument, and call it a day. Doing that proves nothing either way. You need to take a before and after shot to determine if people are changing their minds on the subject as a result of being presented with the arguments.
Then why is it good enough if she’d been younger?
Invoke your fallacies all you like. At the end of the day, your arguments are unsupportable and lacking in anything resembling substance.
That’s them being unmotivated. That isn’t a third option, that’s the first option.
Because that’s the assertion, and the reason that we have an unrebuttable presumption of incompetence and an unrebuttable presumption of harm written into our legal system.
I don’t believe you do.
Just for the sake of argument? What, in particular, about the requirements do you find to be insufficient? Is there some requirement you feel I’ve overlooked that you view as relevant?
You agreed that it is evidence in your previous sentence.
Someone not passing the test is evidence that they can’t provide meaningful consent. How is this not clear to you by now?
You give them the test and if they don’t pass it, they can’t give consent. What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp?
No idea. You’re the one who brought it up. I’m only suggesting we administer it if they want it administered to them, which I can’t see a 1 year old asking for.
It’s a line because you’re drawing a line, not because there is anything special or relevant about the age you’re describing, nor because there’s any justifiable reason to prevent them from taking the test just because of your failure of immagination.
Why bother to use it at all if you’re just going to arbitrarily declare anyone under a certain line to have failed it anyway? It doesn’t matter where you put that line, its very presence undermines the entire concept.
If that were obvious, you wouldn’t seem to assume it.
You assume incorrectly.
This is a value judgement, and in all cases where my value judgements come into conflict with someone else’s, my value judgement is correct and the other person’s is incorrect.
You’ve got me, but you keep bringing them up. I only think people who want to take the test need to be considered. Got a bunch of 5 month olds who are banging on your door demanding to be tested?
Yes it does. The rigid “because I said so” concept applies just fine to people who see a five month old arbitrarily denied as it does to a 15 year old arbitrarily denied. It undermines the entire concept of the test and just proves that you aren’t giving people a fair shake (meaning they have zero reason to listen to you when you tell them you’ve got a good reason why they shouldn’t be doing this).
Then why do you continue to try to make a distinction?
I don’t think it’s come up in this forum yet because it isn’t part of the proposal itself.
You really don’t want to get into drunk driving laws with me. You may assume I support this rediculus arbitrary standard, but you assuming I do is really baseless, and frankly willful blindness at this point considering everything else I’ve been arguing thus far regarding arbitrary lines. Trust me, you don’t want to get into this one.
People who understand those concepts but still lack the ability to provide meaningful consent, obviously.
Also, for the really ignorant, it gives them a milestone to work towards that they can perceive themselves as approaching through effort and education, rather than an arbitrary line that they can do absolutely nothing to accellerate or slow their progress towards.
Is there some reason this wasn’t obvious to you already?
You tell me, you’re the one positing that they’re asking to take it, after all. Otherwise you wouldn’t have to throw in a clause legally mandating that we tell them “no”.
Hormones aren’t a pertinent factor. If they were pertinent, people with hormonal abnormalities oughtn’t be allowed to consent.
I’m saying that since puberty is not deterministically correlated with sexual education, and that this education can be present before puberty and absent after it, you can’t use the presence of sexual education to declare that puberty ought to be a dividing line. Is this really so hard to understand? I mean, I’ve always thought of myself as intelligent, but I never really put myself in the superhuman genious category.
If you want to declare that no one who’s never had sex should be allowed to consent, you either declare that no one ever be allowed to consent again after the current generation, or that people need to be raped before you’ll allow them to have consensual sex.
And the response is still “no”.
I don’t speak latin, and the word origin is not at all relevant.
What standard do you use to determine if your partners want to have sex with you, if you’re not using “yes” and “no”? Just guessing and finding out later when they file rape charges?
Because you’re arguing that we shouldn’t be allowed to even look for said evidence. That’s what I’m fighting you about. Was this unclear?
Was this unclear? I’ve been saying it rather consistently from the start, so I can’t imagine where you got the idea that this might not be the case.
If they can’t physically do it, then what possible cause would you have for needing to declare that they aren’t allowed? Do we need a law that says people aren’t allowed to fly over the grand canyon on the back of a purple dragon?
They’d also be familiar with their transmission mechanism, and likely their prevelence in certain demographics. If they really know what’s what, they’ll recognize clearly that they risk far less from their slim chance of contracting STDs from one another than they do by it being learned that they’re having sex in this society.
And since they aren’t unrecognized by allowing them to take the test, you don’t need an age line.
And you accuse me of not supporting my arguments.
The whole point is that you are denying anyone the ability to prove your assumption wrong by denying them access to the test. If you don’t let them take the test, they can’t prove you wrong, but only because you are hiding/destroying/suppressing evidence against your point of view, not because your view is actually on solid ground.
That’s because you don’t. You see value in some other propsal that includes a worthless, arbitrary age line who’s sole function is for you to deny people access to legitimately deserved rights in the name of convenience. But you don’t see value in my test.
Then you’ve repeatedly lied.
Where is the potentially allowing it? If your assumptions are correct, they won’t be allowed to consent, since they won’t pass the test. The only scenario where they get allowed to consent is if your assumptions are wrong.
Thus the only reason for you to deny them access to it is because you aren’t so sure of your assumptions, but you’re damn sure that you don’t want to back off on your prejudices about what they ought to be allowed to do regardless of whether the underlying reasoning for those prejudies pans out.
Considering your proposed method for testing that, I’d say it’s almost guarenteed.
Come back when you’ve got something constructive to contribute then. Until then, I’m sticking with my plan.
I’m applying the school desegregation model. There the acceptance came after the law change, and it was by far the most effective at enacting social change in the areas where politicians provided the fewest concessions to the entrenched bigots who wanted to block or undermine it.
Bullshit. If they were, you’d have been able to present the studies they’re based on. Since you haven’t done that, you are either unable, or unwilling. The only possible answer that still leaves it possible the laws are based on something is the answer that you are unforgivably lazy in your arguments. Not so far fetched, I suppose, considering your repeated appeals to majority and tradition dispite acknowledging that they are fallacies, but your laziness is not, in itself evidence that this evidence exists.
Then you won’t see people being classified outside the category you would have expected anyway. If you do happen to see something like that, go ahead and investigate, and confirm it wasn’t a fluke, but something defying your expectations is not a good enough reason to declare it impossible and therefore illegal to test.
You have stepped outside the realm of science and entered the realm of herricy when you do that.
It’s a philosophical conclusion I came to long before my orientation became apparent, and my subsequent struggles haven’t convinced me to abandon the philosophy.
Did you read your logic?
The fact that you’re arguing against raising the age of consent to 90 suggests that you apparently think you shouldn’t have to wait. Guess that makes you possibly dangerous.
If adult-adult sex is as dangerous as you are claiming, we ought to just ban sex outright.
Once again, people. Not raping people isn’t something that’s particularly difficult.
Denied access to consenting partners, how long before you would resort to rape?
You’re basing this on what?
She did want me to herself. Doesn’t mean she wanted me. There is a difference, you know.
It takes effort to misread my posts so consistently. I said I had no fear of punishment because I assume I wouldn’t get caught. Seriously, is what I actually said not bad enough for you?
I wouldn’t rape them because they CAN consent. A lot of pedophiles tell themselves that just fondling or touching is okay because it’s not rape, though. And it’s not, even though it’s illegal and unethical.