PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 14, 2017 13:55:47 GMT
If a child is incapable of informed consent and because of this pedophilia is immoral then the following questions should be answered.
1. if a child drugs a woman and rapes her should he or she go to jail or be punished? 2.if children are incapable of informed consent then should children having sex with eachother be illegal as they are raping eachother? 3. if yes to no.1 and 2 then shouldnt both participants be punished or put in prison for rape?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 14, 2017 23:06:51 GMT
1. Of course. Just because someone is too young to drink, smoke, vote, drive or give informed consent doesn't immunize them from being guilty of committing a crime. 2. Generally yes, although the severity of the crime can vary. In California if the minors are less than 3 years apart in age it is a misdemeanor, otherwise a felony. 3. Which participants? You mentioned different scenarios in 1 and 2, and didn't specify in 3.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 15, 2017 11:39:46 GMT
1. Of course. Just because someone is too young to drink, smoke, vote, drive or give informed consent doesn't immunize them from being guilty of committing a crime. 2. Generally yes, although the severity of the crime can vary. In California if the minors are less than 3 years apart in age it is a misdemeanor, otherwise a felony. 3. Which participants? You mentioned different scenarios in 1 and 2, and didn't specify in 3. 1. if informed consent does not matter here then why does it matter with regards to sex with adults? Why do you make the distinction? Would you say minors commiting rape should be treated no different then an adult commiting rape? 3. I meant should minors of the same age be charged with rape just like in no.1. If not why?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 18, 2017 17:45:20 GMT
The real answer is that people are forwarding ad hoc justifications based on ultimately unanalyzed emotional dispositions/reactions. The various norms for these scenarios weren't arrived at via any rigorous, consistent rational process of thought. Of course, all moral stances are ultimately about emotions anyway--they're ultimately simply a matter of how we feel about behavioral interaction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 19:22:55 GMT
If a child is incapable of informed consent and because of this pedophilia is immoral then the following questions should be answered. 1. if a child drugs a woman and rapes her should he or she go to jail or be punished? 2.if children are incapable of informed consent then should children having sex with eachother be illegal as they are raping eachother? 3. if yes to no.1 and 2 then shouldnt both participants be punished or put in prison for rape? 1. Not jail, necessarily. More some sort of mental health deal. 2. Yes it should. 3. No. Again, probably better from a mental health kind of deal.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 20:41:28 GMT
If a child is incapable of informed consent and because of this pedophilia is immoral then the following questions should be answered. 1. if a child drugs a woman and rapes her should he or she go to jail or be punished? 2.if children are incapable of informed consent then should children having sex with eachother be illegal as they are raping eachother? 3. if yes to no.1 and 2 then shouldnt both participants be punished or put in prison for rape? 1. Not jail, necessarily. More some sort of mental health deal. 2. Yes it should. 3. No. Again, probably better from a mental health kind of deal. 1.Ok well why does informed consent not matter here but it does with regard to sex with adults? Why make the distinction? Also why do you think minors raping adults should be treated differently then adult on adult rape with regards to punishment? 3.Again just like No.1 why make the distinction? Do you believe a minor raping an adult should be treated differently then a minor having sex with minors with regards to punishment?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 20:49:34 GMT
1. Not jail, necessarily. More some sort of mental health deal. 2. Yes it should. 3. No. Again, probably better from a mental health kind of deal. 1.Ok well why does informed consent not matter here but it does with regard to sex with adults? Wh ymake the distinction? Also why do you think minors raping adults should be treated differently then adult on adult rape with regards to punishment? 3.Again just like No.1 why make the distinction? Do you believe a minor raping an adult should be treated differently then a minor having sex with minors with regards to punishment? 1. The reason we say that a child can't consent is that we judge a child's mind as being incapable of understanding the situation, yes? By the same turn, we don't judge children as being responsible for their actions - or at least not to the same extent that we do for adults. So sticking the kid in a prison somewhere is a stupid idea. You need a situation where he can't be a threat to people, along with some attempt to rehabilitate / treat him. 3. Same deal.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 21:08:08 GMT
1.Ok well why does informed consent not matter here but it does with regard to sex with adults? Wh ymake the distinction? Also why do you think minors raping adults should be treated differently then adult on adult rape with regards to punishment? 3.Again just like No.1 why make the distinction? Do you believe a minor raping an adult should be treated differently then a minor having sex with minors with regards to punishment? 1. The reason we say that a child can't consent is that we judge a child's mind as being incapable of understanding the situation, yes? By the same turn, we don't judge children as being responsible for their actions - or at least not to the same extent that we do for adults. So sticking the kid in a prison somewhere is a stupid idea. You need a situation where he can't be a threat to people, along with some attempt to rehabilitate / treat him. 3. Same deal. 1.Ok well you said "not necessarily jail" in your original reply. Didnt you mention mental health? Why did you mention that? ]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 21:13:09 GMT
1. The reason we say that a child can't consent is that we judge a child's mind as being incapable of understanding the situation, yes? By the same turn, we don't judge children as being responsible for their actions - or at least not to the same extent that we do for adults. So sticking the kid in a prison somewhere is a stupid idea. You need a situation where he can't be a threat to people, along with some attempt to rehabilitate / treat him. 3. Same deal. 1.Ok well you said "not necessarily jail". In your original reply. Didnt you mention mental health? Why did you mention that? Yes I did. Because if a child drugs a woman and rapes her, there's something wrong with his mind. If it's the minor raping the adult, then broadly yes. So is there supposed to be some point to all this? Just wondering if you're ever planning to get to it?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 21:22:23 GMT
1.Ok well you said "not necessarily jail". In your original reply. Didnt you mention mental health? Why did you mention that? Yes I did. Because if a child drugs a woman and rapes her, there's something wrong with his mind. If it's the minor raping the adult, then broadly yes. So is there supposed to be some point to all this? Just wondering if you're ever planning to get to it? How can there "be something wrong with his mind" if he doesn't understand what he is doing? This is what the informed consent view proposes no? No, I am just asking questions as I find nearly all who conclude children are incapable of informed consent hold inconsistent views. You are a lot more consistent then others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 21:30:15 GMT
Yes I did. Because if a child drugs a woman and rapes her, there's something wrong with his mind. If it's the minor raping the adult, then broadly yes. So is there supposed to be some point to all this? Just wondering if you're ever planning to get to it? How can there "be something wrong with his mind" if he doesn't understand what he is doing? This is what the informed consent view proposes no? It's a matter of degree. We judge kids to have reduced understanding as compared to an adult, not necessarily none at all. Kids may not really grasp the reality of murdering people and what that means, but if a kid slices a person's throat open it's pretty obvious something has gone badly wrong in there, is it not? Well that's nice to know. Consistency is fun.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 21:33:26 GMT
How can there "be something wrong with his mind" if he doesn't understand what he is doing? This is what the informed consent view proposes no? It's a matter of degree. We judge kids to have reduced understanding as compared to an adult, not necessarily none at all. Kids may not really grasp the reality of murdering people and what that means, but if a kid slices a person's throat open it's pretty obvious something has gone badly wrong in there, is it not? Well that's nice to know. Consistency is fun. Well how much understanding are we talking about here? When a kid decides to drug and rape a woman how much of an understanding do you think he/she have of the situation and hiow did you arrive at this conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 22, 2017 0:10:11 GMT
It's a matter of degree. We judge kids to have reduced understanding as compared to an adult, not necessarily none at all. Kids may not really grasp the reality of murdering people and what that means, but if a kid slices a person's throat open it's pretty obvious something has gone badly wrong in there, is it not? Well that's nice to know. Consistency is fun. Well how much understanding are we talking about here? When a kid decides to drug and rape a woman how much of an understanding do you think he/she have of the situation and hiow did you arrive at this conclusion? My question would be would the kid have understanding that if someone drugged and raped his mother, sister or grandmother that would be a crime?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 22, 2017 20:23:34 GMT
1. The reason we say that a child can't consent is that we judge a child's mind as being incapable of understanding the situation, yes? That's the argument, but really, that argument is kind of ridiculous, given some of the far more complicated and abstract things that we assume that children can understand in an academic context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 20:47:43 GMT
1. The reason we say that a child can't consent is that we judge a child's mind as being incapable of understanding the situation, yes? That's the argument, but really, that argument is kind of ridiculous, given some of the far more complicated and abstract things that we assume that children can understand in an academic context. I agree to some extent. It's certainly not true that a person has zero understanding of the world until s/he turns 18, and on the stroke of midnight gains perfect understanding. But at the same time, I don't think anybody would disagree that a two year old has the same understanding of the world that you and I do. In practice kids understand things to a greater or lesser degree, with that degree usually improving over time. But the law just can't deal with that. You can't expect a law to be written so as to treat every individual differently, it would be completely impractical. Laws are written to generalities and legal fictions - and that's not a bad thing, they have to be written that way. So the law rolls out adult responsibilities at whatever ages we think are the best compromise to produce a workable system. Is it perfect? Hell no, but what work created by the hand of mankind ever is?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 22, 2017 20:54:44 GMT
That's the argument, but really, that argument is kind of ridiculous, given some of the far more complicated and abstract things that we assume that children can understand in an academic context. I agree to some extent. It's certainly not true that a person has zero understanding of the world until s/he turns 18, and on the stroke of midnight gains perfect understanding. But at the same time, I don't think anybody would disagree that a two year old has the same understanding of the world that you and I do. In practice kids understand things to a greater or lesser degree, with that degree usually improving over time. But the law just can't deal with that. You can't expect a law to be written so as to treat every individual differently, it would be completely impractical. Laws are written to generalities and legal fictions - and that's not a bad thing, they have to be written that way. So the law rolls out adult responsibilities at whatever ages we think are the best compromise to produce a workable system. Is it perfect? Hell no, but what work created by the hand of mankind ever is? I don't think that laws that figure that teens, say, can't understand things like murdering or having sex with people have any rational or evidential basis whatsoever, though, given what we do believe that teens are capable of understanding (and what they pretty clearly can understand given their performance) in school. Those laws stem purely from emotional dispositions that aren't very rational.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 21:25:51 GMT
Perhaps. But what would you suggest? Tell me what change to those laws would make them still workable and yet more rational?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 22, 2017 22:11:34 GMT
Perhaps. But what would you suggest? Tell me what change to those laws would make them still workable and yet more rational? Well, the problem is that people aren't going to be able to get past their emotional reactions to this stuff very easily, and the cultural tide in the last 20-25 years has been to bolster/encourage those sorts of emotional reactions--in particular, emotional reactions of offense, moral outrage at the slightest infractions, etc. So we're moving in the wrong direction for change in my opinion. The only way it would work is by slowly building up a contrary cultural tide that encourages rationalism against the emotionalism of offense. There would need to be a focused movement for that--a focused PC movement is what kickstarted the mess we're in now, and it's going to take a lot of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 22:21:08 GMT
Fair enough, but I'm not asking whether you think change could happen or what it would take to achieve it.
My question is what specific change do you think there should be with regards to murder and sex involving teenagers that would make the law more rational?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 23, 2017 16:04:19 GMT
Fair enough, but I'm not asking whether you think change could happen or what it would take to achieve it. My question is what specific change do you think there should be with regards to murder and sex involving teenagers that would make the law more rational? For one, there's no need to treat teens any different from adults there.
|
|