|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 12, 2017 21:12:09 GMT
I think plenty of people would deny that children were capable of understanding what they were consenting to. That's kinda the whole point of having an age of consent at all. Eddie disagrees. He finds the idea of children not being able to understand sex as ridiculous. I know he disagrees. TBH, I'm not even sure what you think we're arguing about here anymore. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 21:14:34 GMT
Eddie disagrees. He finds the idea of children not being able to understand sex as ridiculous. I know he disagrees. TBH, I'm not even sure what you think we're arguing about here anymore. How do you know that? I have no idea why you wouldn't understand what we are talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 12, 2017 21:15:54 GMT
I know he disagrees. TBH, I'm not even sure what you think we're arguing about here anymore. How do you know that? I have no idea why you wouldn't understand what we are talking about. ^It should be obvious to everybody by now that this guy is nothing but a time-wasting imbecile. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 21:19:07 GMT
How do you know that? I have no idea why you wouldn't understand what we are talking about. ^It should be obvious to everybody by now that this guy is nothing but a time-wasting imbecile. Go slaughter a deer or something you sick fuck. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 12, 2017 21:19:25 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:His (i) (ii) and (ii) could easily apply to a multitude of 4 year-olds. And "4 year-olds" has been a common age he has used in his advocacy. And then there's the whole community service for rape thing.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. I'm not saying his concept of consent couldn't theoretically (I don't recall him making any age-based claims about actuality) apply to 4-year-olds; but, again, "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" and advocating for a consent-based approach to sex are two different things. The former makes it sound as if Eddie was saying all 4-year-olds are capable of consenting, or that it should be OK to have sex with all 4-year-olds even if they can't consent, when that clearly wasn't his position. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 21:22:55 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:His (i) (ii) and (ii) could easily apply to a multitude of 4 year-olds. And "4 year-olds" has been a common age he has used in his advocacy. And then there's the whole community service for rape thing.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. I'm not saying his concept of consent couldn't theoretically (I don't recall him making any age-based claims about actuality) apply to 4-year-olds; but, again, "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" and advocating for a consent-based approach to sex are two different things. The former makes it sound as if Eddie was saying all 4-year-olds are capable of consenting, or that it should be OK to have sex with all 4-year-olds even if they can't consent, when that clearly wasn't his position. Yes technically those statements are different but one is a hyponym of the other. So by saying that he is saying a four old can be allowed to have sex. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 12, 2017 21:24:40 GMT
Aw shucks, you got me. I didn't realize that some authority decided to make the concept of "cognitive milestones" official. When your daughter is ready for sex, is it really so hard to imagine that it will not be at the same time as other children? "Hey, junior learned to read before she did! Let's shackle him!" How can you think that's a solution? Of course actual readiness is a continuum, we have a line that society (and research) agrees is a bets fit, some people are ready earlier some much later. This is the same with every age based law. I agree that is the case. However, that means you must awknowledge the line and the weakness of it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist. CDC doesn't get to divine some new concept called "Cognative Milestones" and say "sex isn't allowed because we didn't put it on our list". Isn't that a red flag for you? That someone would cite such a thing instead of making a case directly as you did? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 12, 2017 21:25:18 GMT
I know he disagrees. TBH, I'm not even sure what you think we're arguing about here anymore. How do you know that? I have no idea why you wouldn't understand what we are talking about. How do I know what? I don't understand what we're arguing about because the discussion had this weird progression: 1. I made the claim that Eddie's position was about the ability to consent rather than age 2. You claimed under Eddie's position 4-year-olds could have sex 3. I corrected with "only if they were able to consent." 4. You posted a link to Eddie's position about consent. 5. I noted it didn't say anything about age, as per my original claim 6. You then claim you didn't think anyone would deny that a 4-year-old would be able to agree to sex and understand it. 7. I said most people disagree with that, hence age of consent laws. 8. You said Eddie disagreed with that majority view. 9. I said I know Eddie disagreed with the majority view. So what, precisely, do you think we're disagreeing about? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 21:31:37 GMT
How do you know that? I have no idea why you wouldn't understand what we are talking about. How do I know what? I don't understand what we're arguing about because the discussion had this weird progression: 1. I made the claim that Eddie's position was about the ability to consent rather than age 2. You claimed under Eddie's position 4-year-olds could have sex 3. I corrected with "only if they were able to consent." 4. You posted a link to Eddie's position about consent. 5. I noted it didn't say anything about age, as per my original claim 6. You then claim you didn't think anyone would deny that a 4-year-old would be able to agree to sex and understand it. 7. I said most people disagree with that, hence age of consent laws. 8. You said Eddie disagreed with that majority view. 9. I said I know Eddie disagreed with the majority view. So what, precisely, do you think we're disagreeing about? Ah I see. i thought you were claiming that Eddie doesn't believe four year olds could be allowed to have sex. My bad. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 21:32:36 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I have, and I'm saying his criteria practically, not just theoretically, encompasses vast numbers (perhaps the bulk) of 4-year olds. I don't think it implies "all" 4 year-olds at all, not that it makes any difference in the enormity of the position.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 12, 2017 21:34:15 GMT
Of course actual readiness is a continuum, we have a line that society (and research) agrees is a bets fit, some people are ready earlier some much later. This is the same with every age based law. I agree that is the case. However, that means you must awknowledge the line and the weakness of it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist. CDC doesn't get to divine some new concept called "Cognative Milestones" and say "sex isn't allowed because we didn't put it on our list". Isn't that a red flag for you? That someone would cite such a thing instead of making a case directly as you did? yes we acknowledge the weakness of the line, but the fact that there are Cognitive milestones does not change that we need an age to protect the kids and that age is going to aim for the greatest benefit it can, is old enough that they should understand, but not too old that mature people are criminals. incidentally cognitive milestones are hardly a new thing, and no matter how you look at it there has not yet been advanced an alternative to the current system. I find it interesting that the main proponent of this stance is incapable of defining a minimum age he thinks is likely to be appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 12, 2017 21:34:26 GMT
I'm not saying his concept of consent couldn't theoretically (I don't recall him making any age-based claims about actuality) apply to 4-year-olds; but, again, "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" and advocating for a consent-based approach to sex are two different things. The former makes it sound as if Eddie was saying all 4-year-olds are capable of consenting, or that it should be OK to have sex with all 4-year-olds even if they can't consent, when that clearly wasn't his position. Yes technically those statements are different but one is a hyponym of the other. So by saying that he is saying a four old can be allowed to have sex. I don't think you're using the term hyponym correctly* here, but disregarding that: the entire point of the consent-based approach is to make age irrelevant, but by phrasing it as "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" you're ignoring the consent aspect and making it all about age. I don't understand why you don't see the problem there. One can make objections to a consent-based approach without strawmanning it. *and by "correctly" I mean "according to standard definitions and usage." I'm not going to get into a linguistics argument. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 12, 2017 21:39:01 GMT
 Stop it. I can't. Both the CDC and the APA cover this fully and you're bitching about not having a wiki on it? Talk about failing school systems. Learn how the vagina works then rejoin the conversation. As to the "appeal to authority" nonsense - sorry to place the consensus of decades of research over your "feels right" debate points. You quoted some source and didn't link to it. I search google and none of the results are from CDC (pro circumcision) or APA (pro circumcision), and importantly, none seem relevant. The first result is blog entry titled "Important milestones in cognitive development". There's no authoritative "Cognatve Milestones". You keep referencing "Cognitive Milestones", as the final (and ONLY) word on the subject. Does that mean Piaget and his Develomental Stages are out? It wouldn't even matter if you could just recognize how off the wall it is to claim that kids aren't ready for sex because it isn't on some list of suggested goals. The appeal to authority puts it over the top. You didn't place "decades of research". You AVOIDED placing decades of research. You placed an authority instead of relaying any actual information. "Read the Bible!" "Don't question the pope!" Are you that threatened by conflicting ideas? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 21:39:29 GMT
Yes technically those statements are different but one is a hyponym of the other. So by saying that he is saying a four old can be allowed to have sex. I don't think you're using the term hyponym correctly* here, but disregarding that: the entire point of the consent-based approach is to make age irrelevant, but by phrasing it as "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" you're ignoring the consent aspect and making it all about age. I don't understand why you don't see the problem there. One can make objections to a consent-based approach without strawmanning it. *and by "correctly" I mean "according to standard definitions and usage." I'm not going to get into a linguistics argument. Yeah I misunderstood you my bad. I am in agreement with you here. Why do you think I am using it incorrectly? I am not looking for a debate here I genuinely just want to know why you think I am using it incorrectly so I don't make the same make mistake in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 12, 2017 21:46:00 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I have, and I'm saying his criteria practically, not just theoretically, encompasses vast numbers (perhaps the bulk) of 4-year olds. I don't think it implies "all" 4 year-olds at all, not that it makes any difference in the enormity of the position.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. You have what? No 4-year-olds that I know even know what sex is, so I'm not sure how his criteria could apply to the bulk of 4-year-olds. In any case, I think there are plenty of objections to be made to the consent-based approach without misrepresenting it, which I very much think "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" is doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 12, 2017 21:50:33 GMT
I don't think you're using the term hyponym correctly* here, but disregarding that: the entire point of the consent-based approach is to make age irrelevant, but by phrasing it as "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" you're ignoring the consent aspect and making it all about age. I don't understand why you don't see the problem there. One can make objections to a consent-based approach without strawmanning it. *and by "correctly" I mean "according to standard definitions and usage." I'm not going to get into a linguistics argument. Why do you think I am using it incorrectly? I am not looking for a debate here I genuinely just want to know why you think I am using it incorrectly so I don't make the same make mistake in the future. Because I don't think "advocating for sex with four-year-olds" is a more specific subcategory of "advocating for consent-based approach to sex" like "chair" is for "furniture." |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 21:54:54 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I have seen him make claims about actuality via the criteria he provided. Most 4 year-olds don't know what sex is because it hasn't been explained to them, generally for good reason, not that they couldn't satisfy his criteria if it was explained to them. And the misrepresentation is in the shift to talk of some generalized "consent-based approach" as opposed to his specific stated ideas.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 22:00:16 GMT
Why do you think I am using it incorrectly? I am not looking for a debate here I genuinely just want to know why you think I am using it incorrectly so I don't make the same make mistake in the future. Because I don't think "advocating for sex with four-year-olds" is a more specific subcategory of "advocating for consent-based approach to sex" like "chair" is for "furniture." Hmm you do have a point there. Just a few things, I couldn't resist. I guess if you believe that four year olds can consent and you advocated both of those things it then it would be a hyponym. It depends on the context I suppose. If we are going by beliefs, the beliefs "all kids who can consent should be allowed to have sex" and "Four year olds can have sex as they can consent" are definitely hyponyms and hyperonyms of eachother. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 12, 2017 22:06:04 GMT
Because I don't think "advocating for sex with four-year-olds" is a more specific subcategory of "advocating for consent-based approach to sex" like "chair" is for "furniture." Hmm you do have a point there. Just a few things, I couldn't resist. I guess if you believe that four year olds can consent and you advocated both of those things it then it would be a hyponym. It depends on the context I suppose. Although if you dont think the reasons someone advocates something is a criteria for something being a hyponym then it wouldn't matter what one's views (the context) is. If you believe someone can't consent to sex and reasons for advocacy don't matter then no there is hyponym but if you believe four olds can consent to sex then regardless of the reasons it is a hyponym. So is four your minimum age? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 22:15:28 GMT
Hmm you do have a point there. Just a few things, I couldn't resist. I guess if you believe that four year olds can consent and you advocated both of those things it then it would be a hyponym. It depends on the context I suppose. Although if you dont think the reasons someone advocates something is a criteria for something being a hyponym then it wouldn't matter what one's views (the context) is. If you believe someone can't consent to sex and reasons for advocacy don't matter then no there is hyponym but if you believe four olds can consent to sex then regardless of the reasons it is a hyponym. So is four your minimum age? Do I really have to repeat myself? |
|
