Did I read your replies to my questions in post #88 correctly?
Do you actually believe there are some 5-year olds who are mature enough to decide on their own to pose for pornography and to have sex with adults?
I take it you’re unfamiliar with Cesario’s posting history.
Maybe in messed-up or dysfunctional families, but I still think most (“normal”) people’s parents are acting in their children’s interests.
Several reasons. Firstly, adult women contribute to society in exactly the same capacity as adult men, and often have completely differing political points of view and ideas about how things should be done.
And- this is really very important- given enough time, a child will grow into an adult and can therefore vote as they see fit. A disenfranchised woman, however, will always* be a woman, regardless of her age. She won’t be able to vote regardless of whether she’s 18 or 21 or 56. This is clearly unacceptable in a civilised country.
Granting women suffrage (1893) was one of the Great Milestones of Civilisation, IMHO, and it’s in no way comparable to what the OP is proposing.
What sort of issues do you think weigh so heavily on children (say, those under 16) that make their enfranchisement such a vital thing?
*Let’s leave Emily Howard and trans-sexuals out of this, OK?
I am familiar with his(?) acknowledgement of sexual attraction to children. That is, or I thought it was, a different issue from claiming that a 5-year old can competently consent to sex. I mean, I have a strong sexual attraction to Halle Berry, and I have as much chance of nailing Halle as I do a 5 year old child, which is zero it I behave lawfully.
So Cesario, have we hit a conversation stopper here?
Hmmm… Cesario has a sexual interest in children, and by sheer coincidence also believes that mere antiquated societal prejudices are what makes it impossible for many young children – at least as young as five going by post #88, and perhaps younger – to consent to have sex with adults. Adults like Cesario.
What are the odds of two such thought processes in the same person? Go figure.
That Cesario would have a generic interest in enfranchising children that may, actually, be not so generic in our opinions is, umm, not startling. At the same time, tossing out the argument because of the perceived motive of the person who made it is the very definition of argument ad hominem, is it not?
In this case, perhaps, one is presuming that Cesario MAY have alterier motives.
Sadly, it’s not uncommon for Youth Rights activism to be a cover for something considerably more sinister. That said, I don’t think the debate would have gone any differently, especially since many participants in this thread were clearly unaware of Cesario’s orientation. For what it’s worth, I myself put that knowledge aside and only argued the topic itself – I’m not against the concept of youth suffrage, but the fact that there’s been so few genuine activists in that arena (in particular from the youths themselves) should tell you something.
That should have been ulterior, not altier. Christ, what is WRONG with me today? (Then again, you probably don’t want to know…)
I personally have always found the idea of Youth Rights for the most part noble in theory (for those who are sincere), but impractical in the real world. (As others have said, 10 years olds voting, serving on juries, performing brain surgery, etc – can’t see it.) And as for the so-called “line in the sand”, no, there is no magical age. However, we are not psychic beings who can read everyone’s minds and tell who’s ready and who’s not, and that’s generally the best we can do.
I cannot see treating children as miniature adults at all realistic. Comparing it to baring blacks or women their rights is the proverbial apples and oranges.
And having been on that “Taking Children Seriously” website years ago, back when they had a forum, let me tell you, it was pretty disturbing. I posted about it before – there were five year olds still in diapers. There was an entire family with headlice and the youngest REFUSED to let anyone touch his/her head, so everyone kept getting reinfected. The worst was a young girl who was depressed and cutting. So they suggested that her mother help her find a “safe way” to do it. (Oh, and “forcibly changing a child’s diaper is rape.”)
I merely assumed you meant he was from a different solar system. 
Exactly. Martini Enfield makes an excellent point, in that childhood is a temporary thing, and all children will mature to a point where age limits no longer matter. It’s not at all comparable to prejudice against gender, creed, color, or sexual orientation.
I wouldn’t object to giving 16-year-olds the right to vote (certainly, no younger) but I just don’t see a lot of 16-year-olds demanding the right to vote.
I scanned those links just briefly, and they come across as a bunch of people who refuse to take their parenting duties seriously…to say the least. Yeah, scary. :eek:
The fact of the matter is you want to deny basic human rights to 100% of a demographic, you have to demonstrate that 100% of that demographic is unworthy of those rights. If you can’t meet that standard, you don’t get to deny them their rights. That’s all there is to it.
Oh, you have a nonarbitrary standard? This ought to be good.
You think this is some terrific revelation for me? You think this is some idea I’ve never considered? Let’s dispell that misconception right now. I’m perfectly aware of this fact. This fact is irrelevent to my arguments, as not one of those arguments assumes people being born with intelligence or capability for judgement. Not in this thread or any other.
Or they can treat their children like the subhuman chattel the law says they are. The fact that anyone gets to make this decision for any or no reason is unacceptable. And I suspect that the fact that minors would oppose this system had they any political power whatsoever is one of the key motivators for people opposing youth suffrage.
When it comes to basic rights, you don’t put any limit at all. Age lines are still a test. They’re just a piss-poor test.
So do minors.
Seems to me, that ought to be up the the five year old.
It’s also important to note that the 4 year olds you don’t think would have weighed the issues, are also not so likely to show up to the polls in the first place.
See this thread for more details on that one:
Just as in most normal families, fathers and husbands will be acting in the interests of their daughters and wives. So no reason to let women vote.
Ah, so it’s about “contributing to society”? Poor people should be denied the vote? The unemployed? The retired? Anyone on goverment assistance? Disability? If not, this is just an excuse, not an actual argument.
And you don’t think children have a different political viewpoint on this?
So by that logic, slavery would have been A-okay, if we just granted slaves their freedom when they turned sixty. After all, it doesn’t matter if you’re denied a right, as long as you get it eventually, right? And if some of them don’t survive long enough to earn that right, well, that’s not really different from what you’re arguing. After all, you’re not under the false impression that children are invulnerable, and never die before they reach the age of majority, are you?
It is exactly what I am proposing. Yes, women’s suffrage was a good thing. I’m just proposing we finish the job and grant suffrage to all our citizens.
What issues weighed so heavily on women that made their enfranchisment such a vital thing?
The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of issues that are vitally important to minors which are invariably overlooked by mainstream politics, but the presence of these issues shouldn’t matter to the core moral issue that is before us.
If you want me to give some examples anyway, we’ve got forced incarceration without due process. Being suffled into a separate criminal justice system lacking the due process protections granted to adults. Systematic denial of constitutional rights. Lack of a voice in determining their living arrangements, both in custody battles and in general, day-to-day situations. Emancipation laws. Property rights laws in which they are treated differently soely on the basis of their age. Labor laws. Compulsory education, the standards and structure thereof. The lack of police protection they enjoy. Age of consent laws (contractual, medical, and sexual). Guardianship laws.
Just to name a few dispite the existence of these issues being irrelevent to the moral issue of suffrage. Look up the term “Youth Rights” on any search engine and you’ll no doubt find more.
You are correct. It is a completely different issue. I certainly don’t claim to know for certain that any 5 year old child exists who would be competent to consent to sex. I do think that if they can demonstrate they are competent to do so, they ought to be able to rebut the presumption of incompetence, and have proposed a method for reforming the age of consent laws accordingly (along with addressing some other issues), but that doesn’t mean I think it’s going to result in me getting laid by a 5 year old, no.
No, I just have other things to do with my time than post on these boards all day, every day. Much as I enjoy these debates, I do have a life off this message board, and that will, occasionally, interfere with my ability to rapidly respond to arguments people pose.
Pretty good, I’d say. Obviously I’m more motivated to consider the situation, and spend more time thinking about it than I otherwise would. Doesn’t make the conclusions I’ve reached any less valid soely because of why I was considering the question.
You know my bias. Now look at my proposals and find the logical flaws in them that are present because I’ve been blinded by my bias.
I hardly think I’ve been unclear about the fact that I might benefit from a pleasant side-effect of empowering minors to control their own destiny. Doesn’t change the relevence.
Oh please. Won’t it be so satisfying for you when they’re fully empowered and they decide, on their own, to categorically reject my advances?
That seems likely.
Good to have you aboard on this very important issue. Nice to see we can put asside our mutual mistrust and animosity for the greater good at times like this. It warms my heart.
While I acknowledge a potential benefit to me from their empowerment, any benefits I might acheave from that are secondary at best. I’ve cared about youth rights way longer than I’ve been attracted to children.
As for your laughable implication that no one actually cares about youth rights, except pedophiles with an agenda, I will remind you that there are youth rights organizations who deliberately threw the wholistic concept of youth rights under the bus by supporting the age of conscent soely to shut up ignorant accusations like that.
There is nothing impractical about it. I’m more than willing to give you a full break-down of how it works, practically, for each and every current arbitrary-age-line-based-on-nothing.
Every bit as valid as 30 year olds voting.
Seems useful, since we need peers to compose jurries of when we’re trying minors.
If they’ve passed the medical exams and have their degree (somehow) why bar them based on age? Are the medical exams not strict enough for you?
Then there’s no justification for age lines. Period.
This isn’t the best we can do.
Get rid of the word “miniature”, then. Solves a lot of problems right there. Adults come in plenty of sizes, after all.
Denying a population of people rights that are granted to another population based on nothing more than a general concensus that they are inferior. Seems pretty similar to me.
The answer to these is pretty simple. How would you respond if your adult room-mate behaved in this manner? Reinfecting you with lice, and the like. Treat children the same way and the problem goes away.
Because we all know
Ah, so you were lying in the previous post where you claimed not to be against youth suffrage. Got it.
I can’t really speak to that. I’ve really only read one article there, which I felt summarized a lot of arguments for and against an age of consent very nicely (with two people debating the subject at length in a calm, respectful fassion, which made it easy to read), but the rest of the site I’m largely unfamiliar with.
I will reiterate, Cesario, that your standards are unrealistically high. Attaining 100% on anything with a large enough sample is practically impossible. Statistics, and specifically, decision theory, tells us that for the most part we can only mitigate our risks, not eliminate them 100% (stay with me, I know this may not seem relevant yet but it’ll get there). The best we can do is limit risk, so we declare by fiat that a p-value < 0.05 on a statistical test is “significant” and anything greater than that is “not significant.” This is an arbitrary standard that has become almost universally accepted in all fields that use statistics to conduct research (which is basically every field save art, literature, music, and even then it may have some purpose in these fields). Whether you get Drug X depends on whether there is a significant positive effect of the drug over a placebo or a competing drug.
So what does this have to do with your desire to grant suffrage? It goes back to your demanding 100% probability as justification for denying rights. Do you think that we have anything close to that in the U. S. prison system? If we did, very few people would ever go to jail, even if they were guilty as sin, because the standard of proof would be impossibly high. But we see that it works pretty well most of the time, and we make incremental improvements to it. But we don’t adopt the idea that 100% proof is the only way to get someone convicted.
Going back to the drug example, sure, we could also demand that 100% of patients in clinical trials improve using Drug X before we approve it. If just one in our study doesn’t get better, so sorry, back to the drawing board. We wouldn’t have any medications on the market if this were the standard. It doesn’t work for everyone, but it does for a majority in our study, which is meaningful enough to argue for its release. Uniformity is paralyzing.
So what about other historically disenfranchised groups? I’d wager that if we were to ask these groups to articulate their political views, they would be able to make arguments for and against things on par with white males. Not all of them, certainly, but a good majority. Now let’s give that same poll to children 10 and younger. I’d wager that their ability to articulate their views and understand issues would be far less than the other groups. Not 0, of course. There are always the prodigies and the mature ones. But, in the aggregate, they aren’t on par with adults.
Minor rant: I don’t think you’ll win anyone over to your side by comparing the so-called plight of children in the 21st century to that of slaves in the 19th century. Slavery was a brutally repressive, dehumanizing institution that had no basis in science whatsoever. Not treating 5-year-olds as 45-year-olds has a scientific justification. And remember, children have a lot of perks that I don’t have–the law demands they be taken care of until a certain age, they cannot be swindled into sham contracts, and physical harm to a child carries a heftier legal and social penalty than harm to an adult. Kids have it pretty good these days.
Let me try to end this on a conciliatory note. I agree that we have some ability to make finer differentiations among groups, which would support the idea of case-by-case assessments of maturity. I was one of those kids who thought about politics and adult things far before by 18th birthday, but going to high school in the U.S. convinced me that I was in the minority. So I was content to wait a few years. But I just don’t see how your test (on another thread) could be implemented in a cost-effective manner.
What do you mean, children do not have police protection? The hell they don’t. :dubious:
As for med school, first, even IF you had a child mature enough, you’d have to go through the years of schooling – INCLUDING grade/high school/college, etc.
So it’s okay if we don’t have 100% of the participants of that study agreeing to participate in that study? There’s no moral or legal problem with a handful (statistically insignificant) of people being exposed to Drug X against their will? We don’t need to worry if less than 100% of people get a fair trial before sending them to jail, since they’re statistically insignificant, right?
The fact of the matter is, you’re the one arguing that we should arbitrarily take away someone’s rights, and you’ve got no evidence that them having rights is harmful in any way. Just a gut feeling that they’d be somehow unworthy in your view, and not even a clear definition of what it means to be unworthy. You have to explain why they should be denied their rights, and why they should be denied rights based on a prejudiced steriotype about their demographic they don’t fit.
If you can’t provide a good reason we should deny them their rights, we grant them those rights. Think of it as an incentive for you to come up with better arguments, if you’re so adamant that we should deny a large demographic of human beings their most essential of political rights.
And you assume they could do this while they were still a politically opressed minority?
And if I can find a demographic of adults who are generally less capable of formulating a political argument than white males, I get to deny that entire demographic the vote? That’s an interesting position to take.
People are indeed openly hostile to the idea that there are parallels, and bringing them up does make people shut down and stop thinking rationally. Still, it’s the elephant in the living room, and nothing is really served by letting that go unmentioned.
Oh come now, they had their junk science to back them up. Phrenology, I believe, was one they were forwarding a lot in those days. Along with the lovely medical diagnosis of Drapetomania.
Science makes no judgements whatsoever, including the judgement of how we should treat one another in a social and legal context. To presume that there is scientific justification for any policy is a fundmental misunderstanding and abuse of science. Science tells us how the universe is, not what we should do with that knowledge.
But then, you’re talking about the science that says the 5 year old is inherently inferior to the 45 year old, not science telling people how they should treat eachother. So tell me, what science are you bringing to the table on that front?
Only reasonable since it denies them the right to take care of themselves before that age.
Because it’s legal for me to swindle adults into sham contracts. :rolleyes:
I seem to recall having most of the bones of my face shattered and having required reconstructive surgery. The legal response amounted to “boys will be boys”. You’ll forgive me if I don’t take your assertion here seriously.
Only as compared to the abuses of yesterday. Not when compared with the actual standards of what “pretty good” means these days for everyone but children.
We’ve already covered this. The due process clause makes voting tests illegal. Even if I were inclined to think that there was some minimum level of education or awareness that ought to be required for someone to vote (which there most certainly should not be), no test can ever be used (except, apparently, one including only the question “when was your birthday?”)
I was not content. There is no “maturity” requirement for adults to be allowed to vote, so there is no justification for denying minors the right to vote on those grounds. Period. No matter how stupid or immature my peers were, there is no justification for denying them the vote.
As I said in the OP, the system is designed on the assumption that voters are morons who aren’t capable of slogging through all the political issues out there.
Fuck the test in the other thread. If you want to talk about the test in the other thread, post in the other thread.
See “boys will be boys” as the standard response to many common assault and battery cases minors face.
So why are you so worried about them ending up as brain surgens?
Politically oppressed minorities that campaigned for civil rights include W.E.B. DuBois, Susan B. Anthony, Russel Means, Caesar Chavez, and Gandhi just to name a few off the top of my head.
The problem is that there is no elephant in the room and comparing the way we treat minors today to the plight of African slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries demonstrates a gross lack of perspective.
These are individuals, not minority groups. He’s addressing the capbility of the average member of the minority group to meet certain “standards” about how well they can argue politics versus the opressive majority group. Was that unclear?
A well treated slave is still a slave. Minors are still legally chattel. Degrees of abuse are utterly irrelevant, since I hardly think you’ll agree that it’d be okay to reinstatute black slavery if we were just nicer to the slaves.
Really? Well, child trafficking seems frowned upon, in any case.
I’ve hardly ever seen that used as an excuse in child abuse cases – mostly in domestic SPOUSE abuse cases. When women are raped/abused/assaulted, what have you. Not minor children.
Obviously I’m not, since it ain’t happenin’.
BTW, what about youths ending up going to war? Would you be comfortable sending a four-year-old to fight in Iraq? Or doing away with the juvenile justice system. (If I missed this, I appologize!). If a six year old commits first-degree murder, should he be exempt from the death penalty? (Regardless of your feelings on capital punishment, if you believe in “youth suffrage”, what about children and the death penalty?)
Unfamiliar with adoption?
These were the exact words of the authorities after most of the bones in my face were shattered back in grade school.
See, nothing to worry about.
If they can be effective combatants, and are willing to volunteer (since we don’t currently have a draft), why not?
I’m quite in favor of doing away with the juvenile “justice” system, yes.
I don’t believe the identities of the victim, nor the perpetrator should have any impact whatsoever on anyone’s sentencing.