islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 13, 2018 10:10:53 GMT
Yes and Yes.
Prepubescent children, have the right to protection from adults taking sexual advantage of them and in the technical sense of the term, that is what pedophilia represents.
I am totally in agreement with you. (I had made a slight edit in my previous post I hope your answer stays the same even after my edit).
I hope you are all fine and happy with Toastedcheese's position. Hu? I wasn't having a discussion with Toastedcheese, nor do I think him or Terrapin pedophiles. That being said, puberty begins around 8-9... so while it's a step in the right direction to say prepubescents have a right to that protection I think that children in puberty have the right to protection also.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 10:12:58 GMT
Terrapin Station So let me try to understand your position one more time. I am not even interested in understanding whether paedophilia is morally right or wrong. You believe in consent based approach to sex. According to you if a child gives consent to an adult to have sex with him/her then there should be no law punishing the adult for having sex with the child. Am I correct? Yes, as long as the child has the ability to consent per my criteria of consent. I posted my criteria above somewhere. I could search for what post # it is if you want. (I wouldn't expect you to search for it.) In a nutshell I'm basing consent on ability, not age, and partially because I hate ageism period. (For example, I also think it's ridiculous that there are age cutoffs for becoming a police officer or entering the military. It should be based on ability, not age. Another example: I'm against there being an age requirement to run for president. I'd not determine anything on age if I were in charge of things. I also have a problem with many of the age conventions and norms that people loosely enforce socially.) So, I agree that there must be intellectual and emotional requirements for consenting to something, because that's wrapped up in the general concept of what it is to consent in the first place. However, part of my argument is that the actual intellectual and emotional abilities, as evidenced behaviorally (which is the only way anyone else can know others' intellectual and emotional abilities), of the people that folks are fine allowing to consent (that is, 18-year-olds and above), can be easily matched by younger people. The way we'd demonstrate this is by actually looking at the behavioral abilities with respect to this issue of people 18+ in general, and then look at the behavioral abilities of people younger than 18. This is part of the (behavioral) demarcation criterion aspect of my argument and stance. (Again, keep in mind that what I'm referring to here is the utterances folks are making about intellectual and emotional content.) The practical upshot would be that most teens, though not all, would be capable of consenting. Babies/toddlers certainly wouldn't be unless we were to discover a "Boss Baby"--which of course is unlikely. Most younger kids probably wouldn't be capable of consenting. It would need to be an unusual younger kid who would be capable. Preteens are more iffy. Probably some would be capable of consenting. Probably many would not. Another upshot of my position (an upshot that no one ever cares about) is that you're not capable of consenting to sex just because you're 18, or even just because you're 40. At any age, it's still based on ability per my criteria, not age. And definitely some 18 and 40-year-olds would not be capable. That's not basing consent on age even though it would be roughly equivalent to basing consent on age. The same thing would go for police/military requirements, for example. If we base it purely on ability, probably a lot of 40-year-olds would be capable, though not all, and it would be a very rare 80-year-old who could cut it. It would be roughly equivalent to an age criterion, but it wouldn't literally be an age criterion.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 13, 2018 10:22:54 GMT
Why do you think a body goes through puberty? What is the function of Puberty? There is no why in that sense factually. Aside from our thinking about it this way, the world isn't actually teleological (goal/purpose-oriented) in any sense. The only factual "why" is a description of the causal physical mechanisms involved. Really. Then why does a body go through this stage? I have no idea as to what teleogical means, so if I'm being an idiot again I'm sure you will let me know. If there is no goal/purpose oriented in any sense, would that not mean that women grow breast for no purpose at all, and not with the goal of feeding their offsrpings?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 13, 2018 10:29:10 GMT
I am totally in agreement with you. (I had made a slight edit in my previous post I hope your answer stays the same even after my edit).
I hope you are all fine and happy with Toastedcheese's position. Hu? I wasn't having a discussion with Toastedcheese, nor do I think him or Terrapin pedophiles. That being said, puberty begins around 8-9... so while it's a step in the right direction to say prepubescents have a right to that protection I think that children in puberty have the right to protection also. I am not saying you are alleging anyone is paedophile. As a matter of fact even I had defended Terrapin Station from allegations of Paedophilia in another thread last year. I believe that Toasted Cheese's position was not understood well (not by you but by others) and so I clarified it to make it simple. Again, in such matters I never give a thought about what is morally right and wrong. That's too philosophical. That law protects the children is the first thing that matters to me or I believe to most of us.
Of course even children in puberty have the right to protection (Child abuse cases in England tells us a lot) but the way the thread has gone with sometimes words 'babies' being used and sometimes kids and sometimes children I first tried to make it clear that Toasted Cheese certainly in anyway doesn't support consensual sex with children being allowed by law.
Now regarding Terrapin Station's views: It is clear that he supports adults having consent based sex with children. We have already gone through it since 2016 on old Boards. My call is that we are in no position to change Terrapin's views. It's not going to happen. It's a very stressful discussion so my advice for everyone is that give your viewpoint once and for all. There's no point in continuing this endless debate which can be very stressful. We are here to enjoy our time on this board. It is extremely bad if we get upset by anyone's pov (even if that is wrong) and keep upsetting ourselves for long. We can switch the conversation to other topics where we might even agree with Terrapin.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 10:33:46 GMT
There is no why in that sense factually. Aside from our thinking about it this way, the world isn't actually teleological (goal/purpose-oriented) in any sense. The only factual "why" is a description of the causal physical mechanisms involved. Really. Then why does a body go through this stage? I have no idea as to what teleogical means, so if I'm being an idiot again I'm sure you will let me know. If there is no goal/purpose oriented in any sense, would that not mean that women grow breast for no purpose at all, and not with the goal of feeding their offsrpings? Re teleological that's why I added the parenthetical. It refers to being goal or purpose-oriented. Why bodies go through those developments would have two sorts of answers. One, we describe the mechanisms as best as we can re an individual's genetics, how those are correlated to chemical triggers, etc. Two, we describe as best as we can how those developments evolved in various species historically. Or in more technical biological terms, we describe them as best as we can both in terms on ontogeny and phylogeny. There is no why to it other than that. And yes, nothing in nature has any purpose at all. Purposes are purely ways that humans think about things. Attributing purposes to nature is an example of anthropomorphizing --that is, metaphorically seeing nature itself as human.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 13, 2018 10:36:11 GMT
I get where you're coming from. I try to not let previous discussion carry over to new topics myself, as everyone has diverging views on a number of issues.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 13, 2018 10:39:11 GMT
Are you saying that people are not able to consent until they graduate college? High school? How exactly do you define "capable" of consenting? I've posted my detailed criteria for consent many times, including earlier in this thread. I don't expect you to search for it. Would you like me to post it again? If you write it again I will read it this time.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 13, 2018 10:41:18 GMT
Really. Then why does a body go through this stage? I have no idea as to what teleogical means, so if I'm being an idiot again I'm sure you will let me know. If there is no goal/purpose oriented in any sense, would that not mean that women grow breast for no purpose at all, and not with the goal of feeding their offsrpings? Re teleological that's why I added the parenthetical. It refers to being goal or purpose-oriented. Why bodies go through those developments would have two sorts of answers. One, we describe the mechanisms as best as we can re an individual's genetics, how those are correlated to chemical triggers, etc. Two, we describe as best as we can how those developments evolved in various species historically. Or in more technical biological terms, we describe them as best as we can both in terms on ontogeny and phylogeny. There is no why to it other than that. And yes, nothing in nature has any purpose at all. Purposes are purely ways that humans think about things. Attributing purposes to nature is an example of anthropomorphizing --that is, metaphorically seeing nature itself as human. what is the function then of breasts?
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 13, 2018 10:54:15 GMT
I am not saying you are alleging anyone is paedophile. As a matter of fact even I had defended Terrapin Station from allegations of Paedophilia in another thread last year. I believe that Toasted Cheese's position was not understood well (not by you but by others) and so I clarified it to make it simple. Again, in such matters I never give a thought about what is morally right and wrong. That's too philosophical. That law protects the children is the first thing that matters to me or I believe to most of us.
Of course even children in puberty have the right to protection (Child abuse cases in England tells us a lot) but the way the thread has gone with sometimes words 'babies' being used and sometimes kids and sometimes children I first tried to make it clear that Toasted Cheese certainly in anyway doesn't support consensual sex with children being allowed by law.
Now regarding Terrapin Station's views: It is clear that he supports adults having consent based sex with children. We have already gone through it since 2016 on old Boards. My call is that we are in no position to change Terrapin's views. It's not going to happen. It's a very stressful discussion so my advice for everyone is that give your viewpoint once and for all. There's no point in continuing this endless debate which can be very stressful. We are here to enjoy our time on this board. It is extremely bad if we get upset by anyone's pov (even if that is wrong) and keep upsetting ourselves for long. We can switch the conversation to other topics where we might even agree with Terrapin.
We all have our own understanding and perceptions of the world around us how it operates. This is our own illusion\delusion to deal with. None of it is right or wrong, it is all subjective and I would like to think we are all intelligent, or reasonably intelligent adults here. Resorting to pedophile accusations towards other posters, by other posters when there is a disagreeance, when none of this can be factually supported is juvenile. It is a cheap shot and those that do it lose any credibility they have in their argument. Emotions is ruling the day and that is Terrapin Station pov as well. It all boils down to emotion, which clouds judgement and clarity.
I think the name slinging went on, on both sides of this thread, to me it is just as emotional to call people assholes or idiots or to mock them as it is to jump to pedophile or any number of things that went on here.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 10:57:18 GMT
Yes, as long as the child has the ability to consent per my criteria of consent. I posted my criteria above somewhere. I could search for what post # it is if you want. (I wouldn't expect you to search for it.) In a nutshell I'm basing consent on ability, not age, and partially because I hate ageism period. (For example, I also think it's ridiculous that there are age cutoffs for becoming a police officer or entering the military. It should be based on ability, not age. Another example: I'm against there being an age requirement to run for president. I'd not determine anything on age if I were in charge of things. I also have a problem with many of the age conventions and norms that people loosely enforce socially.) So, I agree that there must be intellectual and emotional requirements for consenting to something, because that's wrapped up in the general concept of what it is to consent in the first place. However, part of my argument is that the actual intellectual and emotional abilities, as evidenced behaviorally (which is the only way anyone else can know others' intellectual and emotional abilities), of the people that folks are fine allowing to consent (that is, 18-year-olds and above), can be easily matched by younger people. The way we'd demonstrate this is by actually looking at the behavioral abilities with respect to this issue of people 18+ in general, and then look at the behavioral abilities of people younger than 18. This is part of the (behavioral) demarcation criterion aspect of my argument and stance. The practical upshot would be that most teens, though not all, would be capable of consenting. Babies/toddlers certainly wouldn't be unless we were to discover a "Boss Baby"--which of course is unlikely. Most younger kids probably wouldn't be capable of consenting. It would need to be an unusual younger kid who would be capable. Preteens are more iffy. Probably some would be capable of consenting. Probably many would not. Another upshot of my position (an upshot that no one ever cares about) is that you're not capable of consenting to sex just because you're 18, or even just because you're 40. At any age, it's still based on ability per my criteria, not age. And definitely some 18 and 40-year-olds would not be capable. That's not basing consent on age even though it would be roughly equivalent to basing consent on age. The same thing would go for police/military requirements, for example. If we base it purely on ability, probably a lot of 40-year-olds would be capable, though not all, and it would be a very rare 80-year-old who could cut it. It would be roughly equivalent to an age criterion, but it wouldn't literally be an age criterion. Consent being a concept, shouldn't even be part of the equation. It is about the adult taking advantage of a younger person and needs to be based on the younger person who is below the legal adult age of 18 and are they emotionally and intellectually prepared for what is, or has happened to them. Each child is different and while children do need protection, I think another issue is adults projecting onto the child how they are supposed to feel about something or anything. The trauma of 'any' incident, could be great, it could be moderate, it could be mild, or it could be erasable. It all needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
The pedophile—and I am using this term in the technical legal definition of pre-pubescent children, which is never the same for all children either—is also most likely a damaged individual in these cases. We see in the news how they are jailed for their crimes, but what is this really solving regarding the issue of pedophilia? It's not a preventable measure, only a punishment. It doesn't address any core issues. I think any person who has sex with a young or younger child, needs psychiatric care\incarceration more than anything else, depending on their own background.
Re the part I bolded, we need to be able to actually specify what it is to be emotionally and intellectually prepared and what behaviorally (in terms of statements and/or other behavior) evidences it, or the requirement is completely vacuous. Part of my argument is that when we specify these things and look at the behavioral evidence, the age of consent as it is now has nothing to do with this supposed requirement.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 11:01:41 GMT
I've posted my detailed criteria for consent many times, including earlier in this thread. I don't expect you to search for it. Would you like me to post it again? If you write it again I will read it this time. 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 Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 11:06:49 GMT
Re teleological that's why I added the parenthetical. It refers to being goal or purpose-oriented. Why bodies go through those developments would have two sorts of answers. One, we describe the mechanisms as best as we can re an individual's genetics, how those are correlated to chemical triggers, etc. Two, we describe as best as we can how those developments evolved in various species historically. Or in more technical biological terms, we describe them as best as we can both in terms on ontogeny and phylogeny. There is no why to it other than that. And yes, nothing in nature has any purpose at all. Purposes are purely ways that humans think about things. Attributing purposes to nature is an example of anthropomorphizing --that is, metaphorically seeing nature itself as human. what is the function then of breasts? There is no design, purpose, goal, etc. to nature. It just is. Designs, purposes, goals, and so on are ways that persons think about things. It's not any way that the world is outside of persons thinking about things. There's nothing a breast can do or that can be done to it that's not natural, that's not part of how nature is. (Hence why arguments based on whether something is "natural" or not are just inane (for example, some arguments against homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.). They reflect a prescientific, often religious, way of thinking.)
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 13, 2018 11:17:17 GMT
what is the function then of breasts? There is no design, purpose, goal, etc. to nature. It just is. Designs, purposes, goals, and so on are ways that persons think about things. It's not any way that the world is outside of persons thinking about things. There's nothing a breast can do or that can be done to it that's not natural, that's not part of how nature is. (Hence why arguments based on whether something is "natural" or not are just inane. They reflect a prescientific, often religious, way of thinking.) Whether or not there is a design to nature is not the discussion here. I'm talking about functions. I do not believe that it is my thinking that makes my anus's purpose to poop. That is the way it works. Organs functions according to what they are. hearts pump blood, ovaries produce eggs, etc.. etc... And since we are talking about humans, it is kind of against purpose to put aside how humans view things.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 11:28:16 GMT
There is no design, purpose, goal, etc. to nature. It just is. Designs, purposes, goals, and so on are ways that persons think about things. It's not any way that the world is outside of persons thinking about things. There's nothing a breast can do or that can be done to it that's not natural, that's not part of how nature is. (Hence why arguments based on whether something is "natural" or not are just inane. They reflect a prescientific, often religious, way of thinking.) Whether or not there is a design to nature is not the discussion here. I'm talking about functions. I do not believe that it is my thinking that makes my anus's purpose to poop. That is the way it works. Organs functions according to what they are. hearts pump blood, ovaries produce eggs, etc.. etc... And since we are talking about humans, it is kind of against purpose to put aside how humans view things. I understand that you believe it's not just your thinking that there are purposes, but nevertheless, there are no purposes in the world outside of us thinking in terms of purposes. There's nothing that a breast or anus or anything else can do or that can be done to it that's not its "function" if you want to use that term. You're thinking about it in terms of some subset of the things that a body part can do--so that you're excluding the body part itching, getting cancer, bouncing, being an entryway for various things etc.--and seeing that as the "function." But everything that a body part can do, including all of the stuff that I mentioned, would be its "function" if you want to call it that. It's not "putting aside" how humans view things. It's locating phenomena accurately. In a typical kitchen, beers don't cool outside of the refrigerator. They cool inside the refrigerator. It's pegging the location of a phenomenon. And in our universe, purposes do not occur outside of persons' minds. They are a phenomenon of persons' minds. We're simply locating things accurately.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 13, 2018 11:42:36 GMT
If you write it again I will read it this time. 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. While those conditions do reflect a widespread attitude toward marriage and sex lately, they do not consider the gravity of the situation at all as recognized by responsible adults for much of history including today. Sex is not just a physical act with significant physical consequences such as creating life, it is a social act of monumental significance. Although many idiots today do not appreciate the importance of keeping sex within the bounds of marriage, it still matters in ways that children (and many adults today obviously) cannot understand. Children who cannot consent to marriage because the concept is beyond their understanding should also not be allowed to consent to sex. You need to establish that the person understands that sex outside marriage is an affront to social order, marriage is not to be entered into lightly, and the complete list of reasons for and against marrying someone is not available to them without considerable education. You will recall I mentioned high school and college. Is all that really news to you or something you were only trying to draw out?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 11:53:56 GMT
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. While those conditions do reflect a widespread attitude toward marriage and sex lately, they do not consider the gravity of the situation at all as recognized by responsible adults for much of history including today. Sex is not just a physical act with significant physical consequences such as creating life, it is a social act of monumental significance. Although many idiots today do not appreciate the importance of keeping sex within the bounds of marriage, it still matters in ways that children (and many adults today obviously) cannot understand. Children who cannot consent to marriage because the concept is beyond their understanding should also not be allowed to consent to sex. You need to establish that the person understands that sex outside marriage is an affront to social order, marriage is not to be entered into lightly, and the complete list of reasons for and against marrying someone is not available to them without considerable education. You will recall I mentioned high school and college. Is all that really news to you or something you were only trying to draw out? As a guy in his mid-50s, I don't at all agree with your views on sex, marriage, "social order" etc. in general. (And that's the case with many other adults, by the way. They don't agree with you either.) Obviously I'm not going to advocate something that I don't at all agree with. Aside from that, if you're going to say that "Only people who understand F in way x will be allowed to consent to it," then you'd need to outline just what counts as understanding F in way x, and we'd need to be able to demonstrate that the people you're allowing to consent to that thing actually understand it in that way (while the people you're not allowing to consent to that thing are not understanding it in that way). For some reason (well, I know the reason, which I'll get to in a moment), no one who advocates a view like that actually specifies just what understanding is required (that is, in terms of the sorts of things that we'd need evidence of people saying when we query them about their intellectual/emotional understanding). The reason for that is that the vast majority of adults (a) wouldn't say anyting at all like what the person would propose (and thus they'd be disqualified per the criteria suggested), and (b) wouldn't say anything that the average teen couldn't just as easily say. It's not exactly as if most people are that articulate about their emotions, or articulate period. You'll note that my criteria actually cover this in a practical way: we'd literally look at how most people are understanding the things in question, and use that as our baseline.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 11:58:34 GMT
While those conditions do reflect a widespread attitude toward marriage and sex lately, they do not consider the gravity of the situation at all as recognized by responsible adults for much of history including today. Sex is not just a physical act with significant physical consequences such as creating life, it is a social act of monumental significance. Although many idiots today do not appreciate the importance of keeping sex within the bounds of marriage, it still matters in ways that children (and many adults today obviously) cannot understand. Children who cannot consent to marriage because the concept is beyond their understanding should also not be allowed to consent to sex. You need to establish that the person understands that sex outside marriage is an affront to social order, marriage is not to be entered into lightly, and the complete list of reasons for and against marrying someone is not available to them without considerable education. You will recall I mentioned high school and college. Is all that really news to you or something you were only trying to draw out? Now you have lost it again Arlon, equating sex with marriage. Not at all unexpected from Arlon. He often seems like he's a time traveler from the mid 1800s--and someone who'd even be curmudgeonly and conservative for that time.
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 13, 2018 12:16:58 GMT
I understand that you believe it's not just your thinking that there are purposes, but nevertheless, there are no purposes in the world outside of us thinking in terms of purposes. There's nothing that a breast or anus or anything else can do or that can be done to it that's not its "function" if you want to use that term. You're thinking about it in terms of some subset of the things that a body part can do--so that you're excluding the body part itching, getting cancer, bouncing, being an entryway for various things etc.--and seeing that as the "function." But everything that a body part can do, including all of the stuff that I mentioned, would be its "function" if you want to call it that. It's not "putting aside" how humans view things. It's locating phenomena accurately. In a typical kitchen, beers don't cool outside of the refrigerator. They cool inside the refrigerator. It's pegging the location of a phenomenon. And in our universe, purposes do not occur outside of persons' minds. They are a phenomenon of persons' minds. We're simply locating things accurately. Honestly I am totally lost in your argument. I have no idea what you mean by locating things accurately, however since that is the term you used, how do you locate breasts accurately? in layman's terms please I am not a scholar. If i were to follow your argument "typically breast do not produce milk until a body has gone trough pregnancy" "pregnancy does not occur until a body has gone through puberty" My stance is simple and you can label it however you like. Just because you can force a penis through a vagina at any age, does not mean the vagina is prepared for it. There are reasons why a body matures and grows (wheter it's nature or my perception or my emotions) and that body goes through changes, through different stages and each stages has the ability for more complex behavior (that includes mentally). The age at which a body is judged to have reached final maturity is the early 20's, the stage which the body is judged to have passed puberty is 15-18. Puberty is a process which converts the body from childhood to adulthood, capable of procreation. Yes one can have sex with a body before during and after puberty, however what one thinking person can do and should do are not the same thing. And i'm done with this topic, because there is no way for me to follow your thinking as I think it's needlessly convoluted.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 14:15:39 GMT
I understand that you believe it's not just your thinking that there are purposes, but nevertheless, there are no purposes in the world outside of us thinking in terms of purposes. There's nothing that a breast or anus or anything else can do or that can be done to it that's not its "function" if you want to use that term. You're thinking about it in terms of some subset of the things that a body part can do--so that you're excluding the body part itching, getting cancer, bouncing, being an entryway for various things etc.--and seeing that as the "function." But everything that a body part can do, including all of the stuff that I mentioned, would be its "function" if you want to call it that. It's not "putting aside" how humans view things. It's locating phenomena accurately. In a typical kitchen, beers don't cool outside of the refrigerator. They cool inside the refrigerator. It's pegging the location of a phenomenon. And in our universe, purposes do not occur outside of persons' minds. They are a phenomenon of persons' minds. We're simply locating things accurately. Honestly I am totally lost in your argument. I have no idea what you mean by locating things accurately, however since that is the term you used, how do you locate breasts accurately? in layman's terms please I am not a scholar. If i were to follow your argument "typically breast do not produce milk until a body has gone trough pregnancy" "pregnancy does not occur until a body has gone through puberty" My stance is simple and you can label it however you like. Just because you can force a penis through a vagina at any age, does not mean the vagina is prepared for it. There are reasons why a body matures and grows (wheter it's nature or my perception or my emotions) and that body goes through changes, through different stages and each stages has the ability for more complex behavior (that includes mentally). The age at which a body is judged to have reached final maturity is the early 20's, the stage which the body is judged to have passed puberty is 15-18. Puberty is a process which converts the body from childhood to adulthood, capable of procreation. Yes one can have sex with a body before during and after puberty, however what one thinking person can do and should do are not the same thing. And i'm done with this topic, because there is no way for me to follow your thinking as I think it's needlessly convoluted. Well, and we're not going to get anywhere, because, for example, when you formulate an argument based on ideas like "final maturity" and so on ("full understanding" is another, similar phrase that was used by other people earlier), we need to specify what exactly is going to count as "final maturity," "full understanding," etc., in terms of observables (observed behavior, observed states, etc.), as well as presenting an argument why those states whould matter and an analysis of whether they really work as demarcation criteria. I've explained this many times, but it's simply ignored every time I mention it. I don't know if people don't understand what I'm saying, but if that's the case, then folks should stop and ask for clarification until they understand it. I don't know what your or others' goals would be in a conversation like this, but if the goals have anything to do with trying to persuade me of anything, simply ignoring stuff like that sure isn't going to work.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 13, 2018 21:48:20 GMT
Honestly I am totally lost in your argument. I have no idea what you mean by locating things accurately, however since that is the term you used, how do you locate breasts accurately? in layman's terms please I am not a scholar. If i were to follow your argument "typically breast do not produce milk until a body has gone trough pregnancy" "pregnancy does not occur until a body has gone through puberty" My stance is simple and you can label it however you like. Just because you can force a penis through a vagina at any age, does not mean the vagina is prepared for it. There are reasons why a body matures and grows (wheter it's nature or my perception or my emotions) and that body goes through changes, through different stages and each stages has the ability for more complex behavior (that includes mentally). The age at which a body is judged to have reached final maturity is the early 20's, the stage which the body is judged to have passed puberty is 15-18. Puberty is a process which converts the body from childhood to adulthood, capable of procreation. Yes one can have sex with a body before during and after puberty, however what one thinking person can do and should do are not the same thing. And i'm done with this topic, because there is no way for me to follow your thinking as I think it's needlessly convoluted. Well, and we're not going to get anywhere, because, for example, when you formulate an argument based on ideas like "final maturity" and so on ("full understanding" is another, similar phrase that was used by other people earlier), we need to specify what exactly is going to count as "final maturity," "full understanding," etc., in terms of observables (observed behavior, observed states, etc.), as well as presenting an argument why those states whould matter and an analysis of whether they really work as demarcation criteria. I've explained this many times, but it's simply ignored every time I mention it. I don't know if people don't understand what I'm saying, but if that's the case, then folks should stop and ask for clarification until they understand it. I don't know what your or others' goals would be in a conversation like this, but if the goals have anything to do with trying to persuade me of anything, simply ignoring stuff like that sure isn't going to work.
I put what you said into my own words once so seek clarification that I understood what you said (I did), and you berated me for it.
|
|