|
Post by Vegas on Jun 7, 2018 14:27:11 GMT
Jesus Christ. Even if we establish the differences between "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" and "B.Y.O.B.".... Music still isn't sex. I'm sure this runaround is amusing as you go house to house letting people know that you just moved into their neighborhood and all, but... JUST TELL WHY YOU THINK THAT AN ADULT CAN PORK A CHILD AND BE DONE WITH IT.... No one is saying that music is sex.THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT MUSIC AND STICK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. Said every pedophile rotting in a jail cell. 'Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 14:31:05 GMT
No one is saying that music is sex. THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT MUSIC AND STICK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. Said every pedophile rotting in a jail cell. The topic at hand is the charade of there being a consistent, coherent, rational objection to consent involving minors, and part of that is claims made about emotions/emotional capabilities, including in relation to the emotions/emotional capabilities of the persons that folks are okay with allowing to consent (18-year-olds, for example). Some people who are in jail for having sex with minors had unconsensual sex, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 7, 2018 14:38:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 14:40:23 GMT
What does what you're saying above have to do with my definition of consent?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 7, 2018 14:45:34 GMT
What does what you're saying above have to do with my definition of consent? Beings how since that you haven't actually offered up your definition of consent... And.... nobody really gives a shit about your definition of consent.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 14:46:54 GMT
What does what you're saying above have to do with my definition of consent? Beings how since that you haven't actually offered up your definition of consent... And.... nobody really gives a shit about your definition of consent. You didn't ask. Apparently you're not interested given your second comment. Just mock the straw man, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 7, 2018 14:49:42 GMT
Beings how since that you haven't actually offered up your definition of consent... And.... nobody really gives a shit about your definition of consent. You didn't ask. Apparently you're not interested given your second comment. Just mock the straw man, I guess. Jesus Christ.. JUST SPIT IT OUT ALREADY, YA BIG FUCKING BABY.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 14:54:34 GMT
You didn't ask. Apparently you're not interested given your second comment. Just mock the straw man, I guess. Jesus Christ.. JUST SPIT IT OUT ALREADY, YA BIG FUCKING BABY. Okay, here it is. I have to run out for a couple hours, so I wouldn't be able to respond until after then. So that gives you some time to read and absorb this: What I require for consent (and keep in mind that this is not at all just about sex): Of their own "free will", and not due to the direct or indirect force initiation of another agent or criminal threatened force from another agent, (i) the persons can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to, (ii) they can and do say, "Yes, I'd like to do that" (again verbally, or in writing, signing, etc.), or an equivalent, regarding those actions, and can demonstrate (by at least attesting to the fact) that they so agreed, (iii) In the situation at hand, the persons would be/would have been capable of but doesn't/didn't say "No" either linguistically or via body language, including (re consensual physical interaction) a la attempting to push or fight off etc. the person doing whatever they initially agreed to above, and where we're not talking about a formal, legally binding contract the person entered into. (In the case of formal, legally binding contracts, the person is legally obliged to hold up their end of the bargain as they agreed/consented to in the contract.) (iv) the consenting parties are able to state some of the commonly accepted beliefs about potential physical, psychological and situational risks and consequences of consenting to the act at hand, at least comparably to the average person (where that's not age-specific. education-specific, etc.). * If any of the above conditions can not be met for any reason then consent isn't possible. * If any of the above conditions are not met, for any reason, then consent wasn't given. * Forcing someone to do something they couldn't or didn't explicitly consent to wouldn't be consent obviously. * I'd have no age of consent, including for contracts. However, note that for all contracts, I'd limit the maximum duration to n*1.5 the length of the previous contract with that same party, with the first contract maximum being 1 year. So a first contract can't be longer than 1 year, a second contract 1.5 years, a third contract 2.3 years, a fourth 3.4 years, a fifth 5.1 years, etc. There would be an exception made for contracts involving single projects that would take longer than the duration otherwise allowed by the contract, in which case, the contract would be over at the conclusion of the project. * For contracts and consent in general, fraud would still be fraud--you can't "sneak something in" that the person isn't explicitly consenting to (without threat of being prosecuted for fraud). * And yes, I'd hold children responsible for murders and other crimes just like adults. I'm in favor of sentencing reform, however, and I'd even change the core structure of imprisonment/the social separation of criminals. * Consent violation for physical interaction, such as sex, in order to be successfully prosecuted after the fact, requires evidence of a consent violation--at least evidence of physical violence, where physical violence isn't a documented aspect of what was consented to. In other words, this means that if you're consenting to violent interactions with someone else, and you want to make sure that you can't be double-crossed and successfully prosecuted later, you need to make sure that you have documentation (notarized, etc.) of the involved parties consenting to violent interaction.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 7, 2018 15:06:09 GMT
Okay, here it is. I have to run out for a couple hours, so I wouldn't be able to respond until after then. So that gives you some time to read and absorb this: What I require for consent (and keep in mind that this is not at all just about sex): Of their own "free will", and not due to the direct or indirect force initiation of another agent or criminal threatened force from another agent, (i) the persons can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to, (ii) they can and do say, "Yes, I'd like to do that" (again verbally, or in writing, signing, etc.), or an equivalent, regarding those actions, and can demonstrate (by at least attesting to the fact) that they so agreed, (iii) In the situation at hand, the persons would be/would have been capable of but doesn't/didn't say "No" either linguistically or via body language, including (re consensual physical interaction) a la attempting to push or fight off etc. the person doing whatever they initially agreed to above, and where we're not talking about a formal, legally binding contract the person entered into. (In the case of formal, legally binding contracts, the person is legally obliged to hold up their end of the bargain as they agreed/consented to in the contract.) (iv) the consenting parties are able to state some of the commonly accepted beliefs about potential physical, psychological and situational risks and consequences of consenting to the act at hand, at least comparably to the average person (where that's not age-specific. education-specific, etc.). * If any of the above conditions can not be met for any reason then consent isn't possible. * If any of the above conditions are not met, for any reason, then consent wasn't given. * Forcing someone to do something they couldn't or didn't explicitly consent to wouldn't be consent obviously. * I'd have no age of consent, including for contracts. However, note that for all contracts, I'd limit the maximum duration to n*1.5 the length of the previous contract with that same party, with the first contract maximum being 1 year. So a first contract can't be longer than 1 year, a second contract 1.5 years, a third contract 2.3 years, a fourth 3.4 years, a fifth 5.1 years, etc. There would be an exception made for contracts involving single projects that would take longer than the duration otherwise allowed by the contract, in which case, the contract would be over at the conclusion of the project. * For contracts and consent in general, fraud would still be fraud--you can't "sneak something in" that the person isn't explicitly consenting to (without threat of being prosecuted for fraud). * And yes, I'd hold children responsible for murders and other crimes just like adults. I'm in favor of sentencing reform, however, and I'd even change the core structure of imprisonment/the social separation of criminals. * Consent violation for physical interaction, such as sex, in order to be successfully prosecuted after the fact, requires evidence of a consent violation--at least evidence of physical violence, where physical violence isn't a documented aspect of what was consented to. In other words, this means that if you're consenting to violent interactions with someone else, and you want to make sure that you can't be double-crossed and successfully prosecuted later, you need to make sure that you have documentation (notarized, etc.) of the involved parties consenting to violent interaction. The fact that you have all of this saved on your computer to use in defense of "Children CAN consent to sex" is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo fucking creepy. The fact that you think that this can apply to any person of any age.. And you think that an 8-year old can do all of that... - "WHAT?... I made her sign the contract before I gave her the candy bar, your honor!"
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 16:14:05 GMT
Physically 8 year olds are not that different. There might be exceptions of course due to genetics but those are rare and few between. Even genius children still have the emotions of a child even if they have genius IQ's or are a prodigy in something. Their are children Simply asserting type realism isn't actually an argument against nominalism. I doubt you know much about nominalism or that you care at all, but under nominalism two electrons aren't even the same. Well they are the same in a way. By virtue of a group of people believing they are 8 year olds they all have something in common and are the same in a way.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 18:17:43 GMT
Okay, here it is. I have to run out for a couple hours, so I wouldn't be able to respond until after then. So that gives you some time to read and absorb this: What I require for consent (and keep in mind that this is not at all just about sex): Of their own "free will", and not due to the direct or indirect force initiation of another agent or criminal threatened force from another agent, (i) the persons can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to, (ii) they can and do say, "Yes, I'd like to do that" (again verbally, or in writing, signing, etc.), or an equivalent, regarding those actions, and can demonstrate (by at least attesting to the fact) that they so agreed, (iii) In the situation at hand, the persons would be/would have been capable of but doesn't/didn't say "No" either linguistically or via body language, including (re consensual physical interaction) a la attempting to push or fight off etc. the person doing whatever they initially agreed to above, and where we're not talking about a formal, legally binding contract the person entered into. (In the case of formal, legally binding contracts, the person is legally obliged to hold up their end of the bargain as they agreed/consented to in the contract.) (iv) the consenting parties are able to state some of the commonly accepted beliefs about potential physical, psychological and situational risks and consequences of consenting to the act at hand, at least comparably to the average person (where that's not age-specific. education-specific, etc.). * If any of the above conditions can not be met for any reason then consent isn't possible. * If any of the above conditions are not met, for any reason, then consent wasn't given. * Forcing someone to do something they couldn't or didn't explicitly consent to wouldn't be consent obviously. * I'd have no age of consent, including for contracts. However, note that for all contracts, I'd limit the maximum duration to n*1.5 the length of the previous contract with that same party, with the first contract maximum being 1 year. So a first contract can't be longer than 1 year, a second contract 1.5 years, a third contract 2.3 years, a fourth 3.4 years, a fifth 5.1 years, etc. There would be an exception made for contracts involving single projects that would take longer than the duration otherwise allowed by the contract, in which case, the contract would be over at the conclusion of the project. * For contracts and consent in general, fraud would still be fraud--you can't "sneak something in" that the person isn't explicitly consenting to (without threat of being prosecuted for fraud). * And yes, I'd hold children responsible for murders and other crimes just like adults. I'm in favor of sentencing reform, however, and I'd even change the core structure of imprisonment/the social separation of criminals. * Consent violation for physical interaction, such as sex, in order to be successfully prosecuted after the fact, requires evidence of a consent violation--at least evidence of physical violence, where physical violence isn't a documented aspect of what was consented to. In other words, this means that if you're consenting to violent interactions with someone else, and you want to make sure that you can't be double-crossed and successfully prosecuted later, you need to make sure that you have documentation (notarized, etc.) of the involved parties consenting to violent interaction. The fact that you have all of this saved on your computer to use in defense of "Children CAN consent to sex" is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo fucking creepy. The fact that you think that this can apply to any person of any age.. And you think that an 8-year old can do all of that... - "WHAT?... I made her sign the contract before I gave her the candy bar, your honor!" The whole point of it is to make consent not at all based on age. I said nothing about an eight-year-old being able to consent per my criteria. Maybe no eight-year-old would be able to. Maybe plenty of eighteen year olds wouldn't be able to consent per my criteria. It shouldn't be about age, it should be about ability.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 18:19:44 GMT
Simply asserting type realism isn't actually an argument against nominalism. I doubt you know much about nominalism or that you care at all, but under nominalism two electrons aren't even the same. Well they are the same in a way. By virtue of a group of people believing they are 8 year olds they all have something in common and are the same in a way. They'd be the same in what way?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 18:34:19 GMT
Well they are the same in a way. By virtue of a group of people believing they are 8 year olds they all have something in common and are the same in a way. They'd be the same in what way? Mentally in a way because they all have the same particular label they give themselves. That's the extent of the uniqueness of 8 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 18:36:30 GMT
They'd be the same in what way? Mentally in a way because they would all have a particular label they give themselves. Two instances of the same label are not the same ontologically, though. Again, under nominalism, even two electrons are not the same.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 18:37:55 GMT
Mentally in a way because they would all have a particular label they give themselves. Two instances of the same label are not the same ontologically, though. Again, under nominalism, even two electrons are not the same. They would have to be to have the same belieF though.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 18:38:37 GMT
Two instances of the same label are not the same ontologically, though. Again, under nominalism, even two electrons are not the same. They would have to be to have the same belieF though. It's not possible for them to literally have the same belief.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 18:44:47 GMT
They would have to be to have the same belieF though. It's not possible for them to literally have the same belief. How would "I am 8" in John's mind be any different to "I am 8" in Aoife's mind?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 18:46:27 GMT
It's not possible for them to literally have the same belief. How would "I am 8" in John's mind be any different to "I am 8" in Aoife's mind? I'll go through some of the ways. See if you agree with these: first off, they're numerically distinct, right?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 18:48:03 GMT
How would "I am 8" in John's mind be any different to "I am 8" in Aoife's mind? I'll go through some of the ways. See if you agree with these: first off, they're numerically distinct, right? Yeah
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 18:51:30 GMT
I'll go through some of the ways. See if you agree with these: first off, they're numerically distinct, right? Yeah Okay, and they obtain via distinct brains, right? One is one set of synapses, neurons, etc. being in some state, and the other is a different set of neurons, synapses etc. being in another state, right?
|
|