Instigator / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#5131
Abolishing statutory rape laws.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
0
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
A minimum of five arguments from the affirming side that would reason for any government to abolish said laws.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Thank you.
Just to get your thoughts before getting into the main topic, why do you think individuals that don't establish strict parameters of a topic in the beginning complain about how the ones they're debating are not adherent to arguing in parameters they clearly never set?
Not to tangent too much but are they that hit with that much dread of being refuted that they use a trumped up excuse later to run and evade their own challenge?
What's going on here?
Pick your opinions please.
A.
1. Children can consent
Or
2. Children cant consent
B.
1. Lack of consent means that activity is wrong
Or
2. Lack of consent doesnt mean that activity is wrong
C.
1. Every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong
Or
2. It is false that every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong
Whichever opinion path you select, it follows that consent laws are wrong because:
1. Children can consent
Or
2. Consent is irrelevant to action being right or wrong
Round 2
Forfeited
Extend.
Round 3
Apparently the opposing side's silence is indicative of them being in the party I was speaking of.
I digress.
It's almost like broken english what was presented.
Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?
Well, two rounds of no arguments.
Round 4
Oh the argumentive juices are flowing in the comment section. That's very good.
I want to say this to those in the comments and others who may have forgotten.
When you debate anyone, you still have o understand what they're saying in order to combat the correct thing. It does no good to have a prepared line of argumentation that applies to nothing the opposing side is arguing about.
I digress, moving on.
"Well, two rounds of no arguments."
Hello , can you hear me?
Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?
"Well, two rounds of no arguments."Hello , can you hear me?Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?
Questions arent arguments.
I am saying that consent laws are wrong because children can consent.
But even if children couldnt consent, the lack of consent alone doesnt make action wrong, as many things are done to children legally without children's consent.
Round 5
Anyone else that is interested in this topic and can be clear , concise and present a thorough outlined argumentation, just send me a message.
It's funny how I mentioned about people that run and evade and the opposing side particularly did the same up until this point. They still didn't answer yes or no to my question.
"I am saying that consent laws are wrong because children can consent."
Is this a yes to my question?
So because we're at the end of this, this debate was pretty much squandered unjustifiably so. Sorry to the readers that this wasn't much of a debate.
My question was "Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?"
I can only argue based on what I can understand. If you want no misrepresentation, no strawman, you will require the person arguing against you to understand your arguments first off.
The only way, ONLY WAY , you can do that is through questions and answers. My asking the questions and you actually be willing to answer and not evade. Stop running, stop trying to hide from possible refutations
"Questions arent arguments."
I'm going to say this again.
I want to say this to those in the comments and others who may have forgotten.
When you debate anyone, you still have to understand what they're saying in order to combat the correct thing. It does no good to have a prepared line of argumentation that applies to nothing the opposing side is arguing about.
Responding with "questions aren't arguments" in this context is literally, deliberately ignoring the issue that is present with an individual has with you. It comes off disingenuous. Don't do that.
Don't evade in attempt to avoid refutation. Don't be disingenuous to deploy a red herring to stall refutation against your points.
Don't assume I will assume what you're are saying. I don't deliberately misrepresent. I don't attempt to argue against other arguments that don't exist.
Let's just get all this straight to you and others.
"I am saying that consent laws are wrong because children can consent."
Yes this still didn't answer the question. I asked "Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?"
You responded with "I am saying that consent laws are wrong because children can consent."
"Consent laws" is pretty broad language. I asked specifically about "statutory rape laws". So what does statutory rape laws involve?
A law not permitting sexual activity between a minor and adult and or making it a crime otherwise.
This law is not strictly consent because it has nothing to do with certain situations that will involve consent like a minor and minor of appropriate age versus a minor and adult . So when you say "children can consent", that's not the debate or issue.
This is why I'm stressing a proper, adequate understanding of arguments. You're not even on point of what you're supposed to be arguing.
Do you see this readers? Pay attention, pay attention class .
"But even if children couldnt consent, the lack of consent alone doesnt make action wrong, as many things are done to children legally without children's consent."
Class dismissed................
No wait, let me respond, let us continue in the lesson.
The opposing side is not in the right debate. The matter is not on children consent. The topic is dealing with a specific subset of laws concerning the LEGAL consent between minors and adults. Not general consent .
The opposing side has not argued about the particular subset mentioned. Has not answered my question.
Based on that alone, no argument is a forfeit. Then people want to talk about questioning and arguing against something where no argument exists to argue against.
Now do you see why questions and answers have a role?
Very important lesson I'm giving.
"the lack of consent alone doesnt make action wrong,"
In statutory rape cases the law changes from jurisdiction to another.
Depending on the age , one individual cannot legally consent regardless of the individual to his or herself grants consent, says they consented themselves.
So this"lack of consent " language is not exact or sufficient to explain a point relating to the topic. We're talking about legal consent.
"as many things are done to children legally without children's consent."
Many things are done to children like what? Notice how simplistic you're making this with consent being present with it not being present, with the ability to consent, non ability, what children can consent versus what they can't etc.
Not the topic. It's legal consent between a minor and adult (older person) in sexual activity. We're not talking about all things.
You're arguments started off broken up and now when you attempt to clarify they're way off base and off center.
So nany things are done to children like what?
Things that are done "to" children as you say without their permission under the law would be for they welfare. So it's actually done "FOR" them.
Same way it works with the statutory rape law. It protects in the same way for the minor's welfare.
The law recognizes a minor is not an adult and adult has responsibilities and authorities over the autonomy of a minor. So the protection is there on what the minor can legally consent and what the adult can legally decide in relation to that minor.
No matter the way you see it, adults and minors are not equal. Not in intelligence, experience, in decision making, etc. This goes back to my parents over children arguments.
You can't make them equal legally. The adult must be the liable and responsible one particularly on account of a minor's ignorance, lack of wherewithal in education or education itself.
So because of this power dynamic, the law regulates the protection of an abuse of that power, advantage of that power due to this inequality between adults and minors and the responsible role the adult has to take on.
The minor cannot legally consent or agree to any sexual activity they don't understand or have no full knowledge of that the adult would including its ramifications.
The minor cannot legally consent or agree to any sexual activity lacking the wherewithal and responsibility legally to address, handle or deal with those ramifications .
So the problems you have in your position are the lack of arguments to show or prove that minors and adults are equal, that they both are granted legal responsibility and that if the minor would not have regret in their discretion.
The regret I mean is verifying that the adult who was that minor that made that sexual decision will not be regretted in adulthood due to a lack of an uninformed choice.
Now, class is dismissed.
Oh well
I dont particularly care about votes.
If you want to have a debate on this topic, make the challenge and I will accept, or I will make the challenge and you accept.
Then you will hear my complete opinion on the topic.
I don't think I'm going to vote now; Sas from people kinda urkes me.
"I CTRL+F d the cites you sent to see where you found the 30% figure. "
This conversation is over. Bye.
->But 30% of children under 16 have sex even with current strict laws. Its a pointless standard which you are trying to have.
I CTRL+F d the cites you sent to see where you found the 30% figure. I found the following:
"Less than 30% of sexual crimes are reported to authorities."
"About 30% of all sexual abuse victims are assaulted by family members."
Neither one of these claims is the same as saying, "30% of children under 16 had sex". I tried Chat GPT ing "What percentage of kids under 16 have had sex?" and Chat GPT wasn't useful. I also looked it up the old fashioned way; I didn't find anything useful.
->A simple google search would have given you the answer. I dont see why you hate doing research. Are you trying to get educated or just trying to argue?
I just don't know what terms to look up. I've been dealing with headaches like every day (it's not your fault, but I don't know why) so maybe that's why. But I'll check out the links.
"The standard I want to use is only those who are mature enough (regardless of age) should be allowed to consent to sex."
But 30% of children under 16 have sex even with current strict laws. Its a pointless standard which you are trying to have.
"You are the one making claims."
A simple google search would have given you the answer. I dont see why you hate doing research. Are you trying to get educated or just trying to argue?
https://legaljobs.io/blog/sex-offenders-statistics/
https://screenandreveal.com/pedophile-statistics/
->You can google and find information. I already gave you the numbers. You gave me assumptions as a response.
Or YOU can. You are the one making claims. It's going to be harder for me to look something up than you because you can go to the history on your device and pull up the links that back your position (I don't have those links in my history).
->Originally, you claimed that children shouldnt have sex because they cant consent and it doesn't benefit them. Then you claimed its okay for 16 year old and 13 year old to have sex. So until you make up your mind on which standard you want to use and make it consistent, there is nothing for us to discuss here.
The standard I want to use is only those who are mature enough (regardless of age) should be allowed to consent to sex. The test for this should be developed in a way that the majority of 16-year-olds and older pass and the majority of 15-year-olds and younger fail, although if there is an exception for either age group, so be it. Therapists should be the ones making the test because they understand human psychology the best.
You can google and find information. I already gave you the numbers. You gave me assumptions as a response.
Originally, you claimed that children shouldnt have sex because they cant consent and it doesnt benefit them.
Then you claimed its okay for 16 year old and 13 year old to have sex.
So until you make up your mind on which standard you want to use and make it consistent, there is nothing for us to discuss here.
->The point is that most of the time, offender is not caught.
This claim you need to back up with evidence.
Interesting how you dropped all my other points.
The point is not about 30 year old.
The point is that most of the time, offender is not caught.
->Girls tend to be with older partners.
A 13 year old girl may be with a 14,15, or even 16 year old guy. But almost never a 30 year old dude.
If pedophilia was common, legalizing pedophilia would be way more accepted than it is today. If you ask 100 adults if they think it should be legal for adults to have sex with children, probably 96 or more of them will say no. Out of the remaining 4, most aren't pedophiles, but they believe kids can consent.
Pedophilia is very rare.
Thats again, incorrect. Girls tend to be with older partners.
But the main point is that children arent going to stop having partners just because its banned.
Ban just makes it impossible to regulate, as relationships become unknown.
Whats unknown cant be regulated.
->30% of children had sex before 16.
That 30% didn't have sex with a 30 year old; they had sex with other teenagers.
"I think eventually, pretty much all relationships with an adult and a minor get discovered"
Well, not even close to truth.
30% of children had sex before 16.
Thats over 90 million people in USA in total, but almost none ended in prison.
And thats just whats reported by surveys.
->Tobacco is a different issue. Children can mostly be stopped from smoking tobacco.
Kids can get drugs illegally. It was very common at my HS.
->However, when it comes to sex, no country has lowered sex rate by making it illegal.
I do not believe that is true; everything banned is going to be less common than if that same thing was legal, all else being equal. Otherwise, there would be no point in the law.
->They have increased prison population
I don't believe in imprisonment for crimes. Murder and rape should carry the death penalty, weed use shouldn't be prosecuted, crimes like DUI and theft should be punished with community service and lashings.
->and caused many problems such as adultery
You think adultery is a problem but pedophilia isn't? That's fine; but I'm courious as how you came to that conclusion. I think adultery should be banned along with sex with the mentally underdeveloped.
->The birth rates are declining world wide. When child marriages were legal, in the past, birth rates used to be 6 per woman.
I think there are omitted variables present, like the following:
1. Society is becoming less religious and less religious people tend to have less kids because religion tells people to procreate.
2. Society is becoming wealthier and wealthier people (although they can afford more kids) tend to have less of them (https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/) due to focusing on career.
3. The UN was telling the whole world that the world was overpopulated, so that led to places that pay the most attention to tend to have less kids.
4. (To a small extent) homosexual marriages and transgenders marrying other people are more common. These unions often don't reproduce.
I don't think age of consent laws changing by a few years have much to do with it.
->Today, women are taught to wait until older. What they dont know is that the longer they wait, the less are the odds of giving birth.
Or their bodies are more mature, so they can handle more babies. Lets say 2 people start weight lifting; a 12th grader (Person A) and a 6th grader (Person B). If they both stop at 21, Person B will probably become stronger, but person A is way more likely to lift until they are 21 than person B is. If Person A stops at 21 and Person B at 16; Person B was lifting longer, but Person A will probably be the strongest.
->The issue is that 90% of offenders are never caught and 90% of those relationships remain unknown
I think eventually, pretty much all relationships with an adult and a minor get discovered.
->If it was legal, there would be more education about it.
You can educate kids about sex the same way you educate kids about alcohol; let them know it's dangerous and that they shouldn't do it until they are mentally competent enough to do it.
->All causations are correlations.
True, but not all correlations are causations. It's easy to find a correlation; it's harder to prove it's a causation.
"Does banning tobacco for children benefit them? After all, children cannot be stopped from smoking tobacco"
Tobacco is a different issue. Children can mostly be stopped from smoking tobacco.
However, when it comes to sex, no country has lowered sex rate by making it illegal.
They have increased prison population, and caused many problems such as adultery, but they didnt lower the percentage of children who had sex.
"How? In the long run, more workers."
The birth rates are declining world wide. When child marriages were legal, in the past, birth rates used to be 6 per woman.
Today, women are taught to wait until older. What they dont know is that the longer they wait, the less are the odds of giving birth.
"How would you regulate sex with kids in a way that does not result in a ban?"
I think I already explained the issue before. The issue is that 90% of offenders are never caught and 90% of those relationships remain unknown. If something is unknown, its impossible to regulate and ban is useless.
If it was legal, there would be more education about it.
"Correlation vs causation"
All causations are correlations.
->Child marriages do tend to increase birth rates, which is beneficial for society.
How? In the long run, more workers. In the short run, more education expense. It's easier just to increase the immigration population (because adult immigrants don't need 13 years of public school).
->Banning sex with children does not benefit children, because children cannot be stopped from having sex and judgment from ban just harms them.
Does banning tobacco for children benefit them? After all, children cannot be stopped from smoking tobacco and judgment from ban just harms them.
->Usually, it is better to regulate something than to ban it.
How would you regulate sex with kids in a way that does not result in a ban?
-> (A bunch of countries with lower age of consent laws) all are safer countries to live in than USA.
Correlation vs causation. If there are 2 countries (Country A with an age of consent at 16 and Country B with an age of consent at 18) and Country A is safe, it's possible that there are omitted variables. However, if Country A had an age of consent at 16, they raised it to 18, and then their crime rate skyrocketed, and if the same exact thing happened in several other countries, then it's safe to say that raising the age of consent did increase the crime rate.
Just like if I make the claim, "Men with vasectomies tend to have higher testosterone levels", it doesn't mean that vasectomies increase testosterone levels. It could mean guys who already have high testosterone are more likely to want to raw dog, and people who want to raw dog are more willing to get a vasectomy and endure one day of pain so they can do that.
If Japan raised the age of consent to 16; their goal wasn't to reduce the crime rate; their goal was to ban what they see as rape (which if a 21-year-old has sex with a 14 year old when the age of consent is 13, it's not a crime, but if the age of consent is 16, then it is a crime).
If something is legal, it doesn't matter if that something is murder, if you murder when it's legal, it's not a crime. Murder should be a crime, but if it's not a crime to murder, committing murder won't increase the crime rate.
Currently, having sex with someone below the age of 16 is a crime. Now, should it be? That is the question.
Well, Japan did raise age of consent to 16, but that didnt show any benefits.
Japan has age of consent at 13.
Sweden has age of consent 15.
Canada has age of consent at 16.
All are safer countries to live in than USA.
Really, 18 is just an arbitrary law that didnt prove to be any good in any way.
Child marriages do tend to increase birth rates, which is beneficial for society.
Banning sex with children does not benefit children, because children cannot be stopped from having sex and judgment from ban just harms them.
Usually, it is better to regulate something than to ban it.
->The smartest person in the world knows better than them, so it would be wrong to let them decide instead of the smartest person.
Let's say that 100= The average level of intelligence in a field a 16 year old has.
Lets say a Lawyer has a 450 in Law and a 100 in Engineering. Lets say an Engineer has a 300 in Engineering and a 100 in Law.
From these 2 metrics, the Lawyer is smarter. But would I trust a Lawyer with building a bridge? No. I would rather trust the engineer with that task.
There are different types of intelligence. Lawyer intelligence should matter for legal work, engineer intelligence should matter for engineering, etc.
Lets say you have a legal case coming and you have 2 options for lawyers: 1 Lawyer with a 450 in terms of legal intelligence, or 10 lawyers with a 440 each in terms of legal intelligence. Who would you rather have? I would rather have the 10 lawyers with 440.
So the smartest psychologist should absolutely be helping make the test, but they shouldn't be the only ones making the test. It's a team effort.
->30% of children in USA who are younger than 16 had sex.
Well, under my system, if someone who happens to be having consensual sex is more mentally developed than the average 16 year old, so be it. That would happen sometimes.
"It would be the people in power that decide who is smart enough to give consent and who isn't"
The smartest person in the world knows better than them, so it would be wrong to let them decide instead of the smartest person.
"I've heard that watching porn is very different from having sex"
30% of children in USA who are younger than 16 had sex.
-> Its not possible to stop certain things. 50% of 13 year olds in USA watch porn.
I've heard that watching porn is very different from having sex; different chemicals are released in your brain when you have sex than when you watch porn and masturbate. I think a requirement to be able to watch porn is there needs to be an algebra problem you need to be able to solve like, 3x+20=29, solve for x (and there needs to be a way for the system to not let you in if you answer "X=3" if you used AI to solve the problem). This hopefully leads to there being a requirement that shows that if you are mentally competent enough, then you can watch porn. Pretty much no 10-year-old knows what that is; a 13-year-old can solve it though. Hopefully, this leads to a mental capacity standard being imposed before porn is done.
->Since the smartest person would be most capable of determining ability to consent, it follows that smartest person gets to decide. Now you guys just have to fight over who is the smartest and how is intelligence measured.
It would be the people in power that decide who is smart enough to give consent and who isn't. The smartest person in the world may be a doctor at a really prestigious hospital (who has no political power). They shouldn't be making the call for who can consent to sex, but they definitely should be included in terms of the group of people that can consent to sex.
Just like I think if you aren't a murderer, rapist, or similar, you shouldn't be executed because you should have the right to not get killed. Does that mean you get to be president? No?!
But there should be a test that is used to determine how smart someone is and therefore if they are mentally competent enough to have sex and that test needs to be made. I just couldn't make the intelligence test as POTUS; I would have to delegate it to a psychologist and if congress and I approve of the test, it becomes the standard.
"It's probably not a good idea to let an average 10 year old indulge in addictive pleasures."
Its not possible to stop certain things. 50% of 13 year olds in USA watch porn.
"It depends on if the world's smartest person has political power."
Since the smartest person would be most capable of determining ability to consent, it follows that smartest person gets to decide.
Now you guys just have to fight over who is the smartest and how is intelligence meassured.
->The smartest person can dictate who can consent and who cant. Do you agree with this?
It depends on if the world's smartest person has political power. I would assume whoever is POTUS has above average intelligence, but he's probably not the smartest person in the world because there are 8 billion people on this planet.
But if the POTUS is too strict for who is mentally competent enough to consent to sex, it leads to him being voted out by people who want him to be more lenient; if he's too lenient, he gets viewed as a groomer by society.
->Well, thats what it is. Thats why its called an urge. Because it hurts when you dont do it. And sexual urges are some of the strongest urges. The nature wants you to reproduce, so it gives you pain to motivate you.
For a 10-year-old tobacco addict, his urge to do tobacco is almost certainly stronger than his urge to do sex. It's probably not a good idea to let an average 10 year old indulge in addictive pleasures.
"Whoever the smartest person in the world is can consent to sex; easily. And the smartest person in the world is an adult."
The smartest person can dictate who can consent and who cant. Do you agree with this?
"I wouldn't consider an urge to be necessarily a pain"
Well, thats what it is. Thats why its called an urge. Because it hurts when you dont do it. And sexual urges are some of the strongest urges. The nature wants you to reproduce, so it gives you pain to motivate you.
-> If you can determine intelligence, there is the smartest person who can then dictate everything.
Whoever the smartest person in the world is can consent to sex; easily. And the smartest person in the world is an adult.
-> Well, children can have sexual urges, and sexual urges are a form of pain.
I wouldn't consider an urge to be necessarily a pain. Like, lets say I have the urge to do pushups (which I often do). Does this mean I'm in pain if I have the urge to do pushups and can't? I would consider that being fidgety; but not in pain. But some urges are pain (like if I have to go to the bathroom and can't).
I would say the urge to have sex is more like pushups than going to the bathroom. I'm just using my masturbation experience as a reference.
"I can see that, but it's not like any children are in pain from being virgins."
Well, children can have sexual urges, and sexual urges are a form of pain.
"Claiming you are smart doesn't make you smart. A 5 year old can say they are the smartest person to ever live, but if they can't do my calculus HW, they aren't smart; they are cocky and naive."
Well, what makes person smart is irrelevant.
If you can determine intelligence, there is the smartest person who can then dictate everything.
If you cant determine intelligence, then intelligence as a standard for consent is meaningless.
->Are you trying to communicate that statutory rape laws are to be abolished because minors can consent to sexual activity to adults with adults as adults do?
Best Korea IS in fact advocating that position. It's an unpopular position, but even if you disagree with a belief and 99% of the world agrees with you, you have to treat your debate position and your opponents as if they are 50/50 positions.
I don't know what you expected when you wanted to debate sex with minors. Maybe an easy win?
If Best.Korea ends up making all the arguments and the debate is done when I'm on this site, I will have no reservations with voting for Best Korea.
But my Wifi on this site is sparky, so I might not be able to vote.
I don't vote for people that don't make arguments unless their opponent also made no arguments (which Korea certainly did).
-> I would say that taking a standard of survival of society and personal survival is more worthy than an arbitrary standard.
I could agree with that, even though I haven't thought it through. However, it's not like everybody needs to be having sex in order for people and society to survive.
->As long as the standard is arbitrary, its no different or better than any other standard.
So would you then get rid of arbitrary time requirements to compete in special Track and Field events? If the answer is yes, you have 4 options for track and field events. They are:
1. Don't have them (bad idea)
2. Let anyone join them (even if it takes you 15 minutes to run a 1600 m).
3. Have an alternate requirement not based on time (if it's top X racers, then the racers can all agree to not try as hard in the event because even though their average odds of winning are all the same, they can keep that probability while putting less pain on themselves and maybe the fastest person in the meet runs a 1600 m in 5 minutes rather than an expected 4:20-4:30). Racers should be doing their best.
4. Something I haven't thought of that you might have.
->Taking the standard of reducing pain is also a standard that is more than arbitrary.
I can see that, but it's not like any children are in pain from being virgins. I would also imagine (especially for underdeveloped minds) that sex is really addicting for them, leading to worse declines in the long term. That's why there are age restrictions on alcohol consumption (I think you should have to move out, have it for medical use, IOR have parental consent to be allowed to use any drug). IOR=Inclusive OR.
->If we say that children cant consent, then that just means other people get to dictate children's lives. Parents often take the role of commanding children's lives.
I mean, there are times when it can be abused, but if parents didn't tell kids what to do and what not to do, you would have a lot more drug-addicted kids (and I think sex is like a drug). Sometimes you don't have to touch an oven when it's on to know it hurts. Parents can prevent the pain of kids by telling them, "Don't touch the oven, you will burn".
->Further, if lack of consent makes action wrong, then it makes wrong even those actions that are beneficial. So if children cant consent, then all actions done to children are wrong. If you say that if action is beneficial, then it doesnt require consent, then people can force adults to do things which benefit those adults, even if adults dont want it.
Certain adults (like really dumb ones) are forced to live with their parents, where their parents take care of them for the benefit of the mentally ill adult. People usually move out when they are ready. Some move out at 18; some 21; some older.
->Pregnancy is beneficial for society, but it doesn't follow that someone can force others to get pregnant.
There is a distinction between beneficial for society vs beneficial for the individual. Forcing someone to become pregnant isn't good for the individual because they shouldn't be raped. But lets say a rape victim gets pregnant, gives birth (willingly) and sets the kid up for adoption. That's not even good for society because that kid is on average going to be more of a burden on society than what they will produce relative to the general population. Now, if a rape victim wants to give birth, she should be allowed to do so. But raping women is bad for the individual woman AND society.
It's possible to be good for the individual and bad for society and vice versa, but raping women (and having sex with the mentally underdeveloped) is bad for both the individuals involved and society. The mentally underdeveloped is now a sex addict. Like in Forrest Gump, Jenny had sex with her dad enough times when a child, and it really fucked up her adult life because she turned into a sex addict.
->Further, if intelligence is a standard for making consent valid, then the smartest person on Earth can just say: "I am smarter than everyone else. Only my consent is valid.", and you would not be able to object because intelligence would be a standard for consent.
Claiming you are smart doesn't make you smart. A 5 year old can say they are the smartest person to ever live, but if they can't do my calculus HW, they aren't smart; they are cocky and naive.
Further, if intelligence is a standard for making consent valid, then the smartest person on Earth can just say: "I am smarter than everyone else. Only my consent is valid.", and you would not be able to object because intelligence would be a standard for consent.
I think that intelligence level cannot be a standard, because it would follow that the intelligence point you would set would be arbitrary point no better or worse than any other point.
As long as the standard is arbitrary, its no different or better than any other standard.
I do agree that we need a standard, but the standard needs to be something more than an arbitrary point if you want for it to be more justified than some other standard.
I would say that taking a standard of survival of society and personal survival is more worthy than an arbitrary standard.
Taking the standard of reducing pain is also a standard that is more than arbitrary.
Reality is that pain and survival are important, more important than any other standard.
In fact, person in great pain would wish to remove pain at any cost.
That is something more than arbitrary.
The idea of consent laws seems pointless since ability to consent cannot be exactly meassured. Plus, it also seems that someone else is dictating if person can consent, which defeats the entire point of autonomy. Autonomy that can be taken away by someone else is not an autonomy at all.
If we say that children cant consent, then that just means other people get to dictate children's lives. Parents often take the role of commanding children's lives. That is already a bad standard, since children need autonomy to better learn how to make important decisions as adults.
Further, if lack of consent makes action wrong, then it makes wrong even those actions that are beneficial. So if children cant consent, then all actions done to children are wrong.
If you say that if action is beneficial, then it doesnt require consent, then people can force adults to do things which benefit those adults, even if adults dont want it.
Pregnancy is beneficial for society, but it doesnt follow that someone can force others to get pregnant.
-> But that would be entirely arbitrary point.
There are a lot of arbitrary points in our society (an example is in order to qualify according to https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.534b68e446c46aaacbf4e384ccacd0d1?rik=DOvESxdbM1%2br9w&riu=http%3a%2f%2fdecaturtrackandfield.weebly.com%2fuploads%2f5%2f9%2f2%2f8%2f59286795%2ftrack-standards-2017_orig.png&ehk=YIdpCD3Ag6myTBvrGUfzxbwY2Ok8lsXFJHykffjTCn0%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0, you have to be able to run 100 m in 11.9 seconds or faster). Why not 12 seconds? Or 11.8?
With few exceptions, I don't like age being the arbitrary point because young people aren't a monolith; some 15 year olds are more mentally compitent than some 18 year olds. But other things (like intelligence) you need an arbitrary point in there to have a standard.
->Also, since decision making comes with reasoning about higher intelligence, it would follow that if someone is smarter than a 20 year old, he gets to dictate 20 year old's life.
I disagree. I think if you fall below a certain level of intelligence, it wouldn't be random people that are smarter than you making decisions for you, but your parents would be making decisions for you (if you are very stupid). I am smarter than someone who is retarted; that doesn't mean I get to make decisions for them. The hypothetical retard's parents would make decisions for that retard, because the parents are assumed to love him more than I would as a stranger.
"I disagree because you can require a certain level of intelligence the vast majority of 20-year-olds have that the vast majority of 13-year-olds do not."
But that would be entirely arbitrary point.
30 year olds have intelligence that 20 year olds dont have.
40 year olds have intelligence that 30 year olds and 20 year olds dont have.
Some 20 year olds have much more intelligence than other 20 year olds.
Even if you had a way to accuratelly meassure intelligence and set a certain point of intelligence where person gets to decide, that point would be just an arbitrary point set by you.
Also, since decision making comes with reasoning about higher intelligence, it would follow that if someone is smarter than a 20 year old, he gets to dictate 20 year old's life.
Because just as you set an arbitrary point of intelligence which allows you to make decisions for someone else, anyone else can set their own point that works the same way.
Anyone can just say: "I am smarter and this person now has to do everything I say that will benefit him because he is not at my point of intelligence.".
->If action with lack of consent is okay if there is some benefit to the person, then you can force adults to do anything as long as it benefits them in some way. You can force adults to eat vegetables even if they dont want to.
I would say it shouldn't be based on age in terms of if they should be allowed to not do something beneficial, but intelligence I think should matter. If it's a 30 year old adult that is just very stupid (like the following person:
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5c6e43bf6de276197e371bb81e4a3ccd32cdb0da/c=225-0-941-538&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2015/04/27/NWGroup/KING/635657645193734670-laura-gholston2.jpg), then I don't think they are mentally competent enough to make a lot of their own decisions.
->The main problem with "intelligence/mental maturity" argument is that if we followed it, age of consent would be 30 or more.
I disagree because you can require a certain level of intelligence the vast majority of 20-year-olds have that the vast majority of 13-year-olds do not. There is a positive correlation between intelligence and age (excluding dementia).
The main problem with "intelligence/mental maturity" argument is that if we followed it, age of consent would be 30 or more.
Well, yeah, but then there is a different problem.
If action with lack of consent is okay if there is some benefit to the person, then you can force adults to do anything as long as it benefits them in some way. You can force adults to eat vegetables even if they dont want to.
If you respond, I might get it. My Wifi isn't the best and my wifi gets turned off (but just for this site). Today seems to be the exception.
No matter how common your position is, you have to defend it if you debate about it.
Pretty much every American believes the earth is spherical, but if you start a debate where you take the con position of, "The earth is flat" and a flat earther comes along, you can't laugh them off; you have to defend your position as if both your position and theirs are 50/50 positions.
->
A. 1. Children can consent Or 2. Children can't consent
B. 1. Lack of consent means that activity is wrong Or 2. Lack of consent doesn't mean that activity is wrong
C. 1. Every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong Or 2. It is false that every activity done without consent of a child to that child is wrong
A: It depends. I think some children can consent and others can't. You need to be able to prove you can consent for sex I think using a test something like https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14JWZh43OcZ-5MdeOhrEa_fPe3AP6-24_w6IvqN9R7bs/edit#gid=0 (although it is incomplete, but I think the questions should be something like this). Many things (like whether or not a child wants to watch TV) they can do with parental consent.
B: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
C: 1, unless it's done for the objective long-term benefit of the child (like getting your child vaccinated). I don't think sex is a long-term benefit, it's an addiction.
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1L0qndW91Y6Nnq_peOvlK6e0SOAlkZ5wtiL2-3m4g9s0/edit.
I figured you guys might want to see this.
Well, I can make one or two arguments.
No takers. I thought this be up your alley.
this sounds a little odd