Age of consent

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 59
Topic's author
#31
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
However, forcing "benefits" on children also forces "benefits" on adults, since children become adults and the "benefits" affect them as adults.
There is a difference between a 25 year old eating 50 Oreos a day for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner and a 9 year old doing the same.  Kids are naive; they don’t know what’s good for them long term.  It would be too dangerous to have kids learn about sex Ed at 9.  I freaked out when I knew how kids were made when I was 11, and I got a very tough skin.  A generic 9 year old would handle it even worse.

So if you think it’s okay to force benefits on adults, then you agree that it is okay to force adults to get circumcised, vaccinated, to wear masks...ect.
The premise is incorrect.

This discussion should be continued in the DMs because otherwise somebody (not me, but somebody) plausibly can report you and you can plausibly get banned.
#32
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is a difference between a 25 year old eating 50 Oreos a day for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner and a 9 year old doing the same.  Kids are naive; they don’t know what’s good for them long term.
If a 25 year old harms himself by eating junk food, thats not different from 10 year old harming himself by eating junk food. Both result in harm. Neither is benefiting their own health, but harming their own health.

So again, whats even your premise here?

Why is a 25 year old allowed to harm himself?

If harm is okay if people consent to it, then by logic, even benefits are wrong if people dont consent to them, which again brings you back to how you cant force benefits on children if forcing benefits without consent is wrong.

And you cant possibly force benefits on children without forcing benefits on adults later on.

If I am circumcised as an infant, I will be a circumcised adult later on.

So if I am an adult and circumcised, but dont want to be and never wanted to be, then circumcision was forced on me as an adult irrelevant of if it happened in adulthood or childhood, as consequences of either affect me as an adult.
Topic's author
#33
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
If a 25 year old harms himself by eating junk food, thats not different from 10 year old harming himself by eating junk food. 
The 10 year old is too naive to understand the long term effects of that eating habit; the 25 year old knows better and as a result, if they want to fuck up their own life, then they can do so.

So again, whats even your premise here?
My premise is the older you get, the more knowledge you have ingrained in you to where you can better make decisions.  Like, is it ok for a 10 year old to smoke tobacco?  NO!

Why is a 25 year old allowed to harm himself?
Because the 25 year old is responsible for themselves and a 10 year old is not.

which again brings you back to how you cant force benefits on children if forcing benefits without consent is wrong.
It's not a generic benefit as much as it is protection (a specific benefit).  You can't force a kid to accept $5, but you can force them to not touch a hot stove even if they want to touch that hot stove.

So if I am an adult and circumcised, but dont want to be and never wanted to be, then circumcision was forced on me as an adult irrelevant of if it happened in adulthood or childhood, as consequences of either affect me as an adult.
I believe it should be illegal to circumcise infants (unless medical reason).
#34
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 10 year old is too naive to understand the long term effects of that eating habit; the 25 year old knows better and as a result, if they want to fuck up their own life, then they can do so.
40 year old knows better than 25 year old, and 25 year old knows better than 18 year old.

So why would age of consent be 18 instead of 25 or 40?

There are many harms which 18 year olds dont know about. For example, 18 year olds dont know the harms of relationships which they enter in.

Over 50% of marriages ends in divorce and regret, so its obvious at least 50% of adults cant consent.

Further, since you set the standard on amount of knowledge, it follows that person can never consent because knowledge increases for the whole life and there is no point at which you have all knowledge.

So if knowledge affects consent, then consent of a 25 year old is more valid than consent of 18 year old because 25 year old has much more knowledge, so 18 year olds cant consent.

Also, would you argue that parents who let their kids eat junk food or candies should be arrested? Because they are letting kids do something which harms them?

My premise is the older you get, the more knowledge you have ingrained in you to where you can better make decisions
So there is no point at which you can actually consent, as you will always have more knowledge in future, making every present consent invalid, irrelevant if you are 10 or 25.
#35
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because the 25 year old is responsible for themselves and a 10 year old is not.
This is meaningless argument, as we already concluded that 40 year old has much more knowledge than 25 year old, making 25 year old's consent invalid.

It's not a generic benefit as much as it is protection (a specific benefit).  You can't force a kid to accept $5, but you can force them to not touch a hot stove even if they want to touch that hot stove.
So can you force an adult not to touch a hot stove?

I believe it should be illegal to circumcise infants (unless medical reason).
Well, there are some, uh, studies which happen to say circumcision has medical benefits. So why would you argue against infant circumcision if it has benefits?
#36
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the issue is children’s consent, then why would the age of the adult matter?
The adult has transgressed against our civilized norms. If there were no consequences for that, society would quickly devolve into a hellhole.

The question is of mitigating circumstances. A 19 year old has less sense that dating a 17 year old is wrong than a 29 year old would. The 19 year old's brain is less developed, his/her personality less mature, and rationally it seems to him that the 17 year old is his peer (especially, for example, if he hasn't graduated high school yet and they're classmates). That a person would date a 17 year old under these conditions is more understandable, thus less warranting of punishment, than for an older person to do the same.

#37
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Swagnarok
... you didn't answer the question. The age of the adult doesn't change the consent of the child (or lack thereof).
#38
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Dude, I get you're into goats or whatever, but are you really defending this?

Okay, fine.
It's necessary for the sake of the public good, even if not true in 100% of cases, to uphold the principle that minors cannot give consent to have sex with adults. Were that not so, there'd be a lot of nasty consequences.

Molesters could pressure their victims into saying "Yes, it was consensual" and get off the hook. Young children could be physically harmed, and sometimes die from, by being acted upon by an aggressive adult man. Kids are impressionable and just about every teen girl would be prey to a charming adult man who had no interest in a committed relationship. At best, the later realization that they'd been used and discarded would prove a negative formative experience, and they'd struggle with low self-esteem or trust issues for the rest of their lives. At worst, there'd be a spike in teen pregnancies and STDs, assuming nobody got raped. Where the relationships did have some long duration, there would tend to be a more extreme power imbalance than in most relationships between teen boys and teen girls. The adults would have enough sway to be very controlling, and could amount to psychological abuse of the younger partner.

When people are having hookups left and right, many come to believe they're entitled to sex, and become aggressive when that isn't happening. Teens, especially teen girls, would experience a huge spike in uncomfortable encounters with potentially dangerous adults who harass them and become angry when ignored. Teen boys would have to compete with adult men to have relationships with their female peers, and 90% would not be up to the challenge, producing a spike in frustration, loneliness, and resentment among this age group. This would of course be bad for them, and it'd cause them to act out maliciously against teen girls.
#39
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Swagnarok
Dude, I get you're into goats or whatever, but are you really defending this?
Even if the Earth is not flat, not all arguments that the Earth is round are sound and not all debunking of flat-earth arguments is correct.

Reason is a process. To be a rational person means the conclusion you want is never more important than the way you come to conclusions.

I follow the rules of logic and believe whatever the conclusion is after following those rules. That's what debating is supposed to be and that's what I do online under this name. I point out missing arguments and fallacious arguments.


It's necessary for the sake of the public good, even if not true in 100% of cases, to uphold the principle that minors cannot give consent to have sex with adults. Were that not so, there'd be a lot of nasty consequences.
It's only necessary to lie to enemies who threaten your liberty. That doesn't apply here.

If the reason is to avoid nasty consequences then that is the reason you should give. If you're going to lie about the reason why not appeal to the will of god? That's harder to disprove and less likely to become a vulnerability to your goal of avoiding those consequences.


Molesters could pressure their victims into saying "Yes, it was consensual" and get off the hook.
That would only get them off the hook under the assumption that your fabricated principle of sexual morality prevails.

If it was illegal to have sex with too great an age gap regardless of age, then saying "it was consensual" is not a defense.

You have accepted this from the errors in general ethics:
1.) That there is only one checkbox for sexual morality: consent. If you have consent then there can be no immorality
2.) That it is unacceptable for adults to have sex with children, an excuse must be made to reconcile with (1)
3.) Therefore children cannot consent

Of course then entire explosion of absurd stretches explodes from the error, this is the nature of error; it propagates and gets bigger.

Now siblings can't consent even if they are both 20. Parents and children can consent if they're both above 20. "somehow"

Animals can't consent even though they can only reproduce through sex, implying that every non-human pregnancy was a rape child and every mother a rape victim.

Young children could be physically harmed, and sometimes die from, by being acted upon by an aggressive adult man. Kids are impressionable an-
etc... etc... lots of reasons, those 'bad consequences' you mentioned. Some more reasonable than others but that is besides my point. If you have to talk about other reasons you aren't talking about consent anymore.

The world is more complicated than the (1)(2)(3) above, we just have to face it.


Teen boys would have to compete with adult men to have relationships with their female peers, and 90% would not be up to the challenge, producing a spike in frustration, loneliness, and resentment among this age group. This would of course be bad for them, and it'd cause them to act out maliciously against teen girls.
Seems like we have that outcome with a different cause. I think the historical solution was to send the young men out to die so the rich old men could keep their harems. Not that many harems around so I guess the new solution is to fail to reproduce and all turn into fantastically bitter old senors with no one to take care of us.
#40
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's only necessary to lie to enemies who threaten your liberty. That doesn't apply here.
Society is built on the bedrock of collective myths. Property rights. "The country". "The people". Some would argue objective morality is a myth, but one we need in any case. Many things are banned because the consequences are disastrous in 90% of cases, so the need to keep these protections in place gives rise to the myth that it'll necessarily go wrong in 100% of cases.

That would only get them off the hook under the assumption that your fabricated principle of sexual morality prevails.

In the hypothetical that I gave, I was talking about actual molesters (adults who have forcible sex with unwilling children).

If it was illegal to have sex with too great an age gap regardless of age, then saying "it was consensual" is not a defense.
Yes, that's the point. Child molesters cannot get off Scott-free if having sex with said child would've been illegal even if "consensual". Hence, children enjoy an extra layer of deterrence against molesters touching them.

1.) That there is only one checkbox for sexual morality: consent. If you have consent then there can be no immorality
No, that's not my position. Adults having sex with minors should be illegal, even if the minor is willing, because this relationship will likely do more bad than good.

Same for incestuous relationships, which you also mentioned. I don't dispute that, somewhere out there, two adult siblings had a consensual relationship that didn't end badly. That doesn't change the fact that like 99% of the time it's a 30 year old uncle raping is 12 year old niece or whatnot, and that said uncle seeing two siblings happily married would embolden him to think his actions were acceptable. And it doesn't negate that legalized/normalized incest would be catastrophic in other respects.

In the US, for example, many people are friendless and don't trust their neighbors or their government(s). The family unit is basically the last stable venue of lifelong companionship and cooperation that the average person benefits from. But for the same reason that straight men aren't intimately friendly with each other anymore, familial closeness being plausibly interpreted as flirtation would ruin it basically forever. And again, this is assuming nobody gets raped.

Animals can't consent even though they can only reproduce through sex, implying that every non-human pregnancy was a rape child and every mother a rape victim.
Animals are not held to the moral standard of humans. To borrow terminology from a debate I read recently, they are moral patients but not moral agents. For society to function, humans must be moral agents.

I think the historical solution was to send the young men out to die so the rich old men could keep their harems
I'm against the male-only draft just like you are, so I fail to see your point.
#41
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Also, starting at 5 PM Central Time I won't be able to post on DART for the next few days because I'll be away from my computer and I don't remember my login info.
#42
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Swagnarok
It's only necessary to lie to enemies who threaten your liberty. That doesn't apply here.
Society is built on the bedrock of collective myths.
Are you the Illuminati to pick and choose which incoherent myth is important?

It is not in the nature of man to deny himself the truth. To embrace myths you know to be myth is an act of manipulation for the sole purpose of deceiving others by example.


Some would argue objective morality is a myth
They would fail, but if they were right then consent still does not matter. Nothing else matters either, nothing except tactical advantage.


Many things are banned because the consequences are disastrous in 90% of cases, so the need to keep these protections in place gives rise to the myth that it'll necessarily go wrong in 100% of cases.
Yes, that attitude is why I have to keep explaining to mindless bureaucrats that a concrete block wall is a better fire barrier than the code required 1/2" drywall or equivalent.

I am not convinced, I see only the intellectual laziness unique to tyrants who don't have to explain themselves because they don't need the consent of their victims. Large majorities are easily tyrants too.


That would only get them off the hook under the assumption that your fabricated principle of sexual morality prevails.
In the hypothetical that I gave, I was talking about actual molesters (adults who have forcible sex with unwilling children).
I understood. You were saying that even though in reality it was rape, if child-adult sex was not under a blanket ban then there would be a motivation to extort a false report of consent from the child.

Whereas under current law and theory there would be no point sense the police would say "Doesn't matter what the kid says, it was rape, burn in hell".

Thus instead of motivating the extortion of a false report of consent the motivation is to murder the child so there is no witness. Check the theory: You will find that the vast majority of people willing to abduct a child plan to and most of the time do murder them.

Let me be clear though, I am interested in dissuading crime only to the point just before the of violation rights. The goal isn't to protect the most people at any cost, it's to protect the most people while respecting liberty. Has been since 1776. Moving any other direction but a more extreme version of that is irrational regression.


If it was illegal to have sex with too great an age gap regardless of age, then saying "it was consensual" is not a defense.
Yes, that's the point. Child molesters cannot get off Scott-free if having sex with said child would've been illegal even if "consensual". Hence, children enjoy an extra layer of deterrence against molesters touching them.
That layer does not require the lie that children are incapable of consent.

A adult (and a child for that matter) can consent to drugs too, but that does not mean selling them drugs must be legal. At least not under the prevailing theory of government.


No, that's not my position. Adults having sex with minors should be illegal, even if the minor is willing, because this relationship will likely do more bad than good.
Fine, but it has nothing to do with consent then. So your answer to underdog would be like:
[Underdog] If the issue is children’s consent, then why would the age of the adult matter?
The issue isn't consent. it's that I think the relationship would do more bad than good on average.


And it doesn't negate that legalized/normalized incest would be catastrophic in other respects.
I would debate that later when it would not derail this thread.


But for the same reason that straight men aren't intimately friendly with each other anymore
I think that's true to a degree, a shame, but that says more about our culture's weakness in diffusing sexual tension than anything else. There are contexts in which zedvictor's description of "meaningless penis/vagina angst" is apt.


Animals can't consent even though they can only reproduce through sex, implying that every non-human pregnancy was a rape child and every mother a rape victim.
Animals are not held to the moral standard of humans.
If that was true, then no one would talk about whether an animal consents.


I'm against the male-only draft just like you are, so I fail to see your point.
Just commentary.
#43
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thus instead of motivating the extortion of a false report of consent the motivation is to murder the child so there is no witness. 
Given that children are molested far, far more often than they're murdered, I don't see the current age of consent laws as having a bad track record.

The issue isn't consent. it's that I think the relationship would do more bad than good on average.

This kind of sums it up, but more to the point the right to consent must be taken from minors for their general protection.

Picture this: a 15 year old kid is approached by a salesman who offers him an instant $100,000 loan. He's given a big stack of legal papers, which he doesn't read through. One of them, in fine print, stipulates that the interest rate is 10%, and that he must pay at least 10% of the outstanding balance every year, or else he defaults. If he defaults, he will be sold into slavery for the rest of his life.

Now, somewhere out there is a 15 year old kid who would hypothetically be dumb and shortsighted enough to consent to this agreement. Do you think the law should permit him to enter into such a contract?

If that was true, then no one would talk about whether an animal consents.
Again, though, animals are moral patients. If your question is whether animals as moral patients ought to be protected from other animals, society has decided no. In part because the whole animal kingdom would go extinct in one or two generations.
#44
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Whereas under current law and theory there would be no point sense the police would say "Doesn't matter what the kid says, it was rape, burn in hell".
If person is in relationship with a child and treats child nicely and kindly, then that person goes to prison for the rest of his life and gets beaten and butt raped a lot.

So the only reason why overwhelming majority of map in relationships with children never force a child to anything is mostly due to personal morals and a sense of humanity, and not due to any kind of expected reward for it, as there wont be any reward or mercy for them just because they were nice. In fact, most of the murderers get treated better than even the best of map in prison.
#45
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Swagnarok
Thus instead of motivating the extortion of a false report of consent the motivation is to murder the child so there is no witness. 
Given that children are molested far, far more often than they're murdered, I don't see the current age of consent laws as having a bad track record.
I wouldn't give credit to the law. It's the child for giving false promises of secrecy and the adult for their own personal moral code.

The law treats statutory rape so harshly that murder would almost certainly be a smaller risk. I choose my words carefully, I said "abducted". I assume the vast majority of pedophiles aspire to a secret consensual relationship and then damn themselves with no plan to prevent or mitigate 'betrayal'.


The issue isn't consent. it's that I think the relationship would do more bad than good on average.
This kind of sums it up, but more to the point the right to consent must be taken from minors for their general protection.
No, again your hidden premise attacks.

If a kid brings a permission slip for an optional field-trip to his or her parents, that's not the school "taking consent" from the child, it's the school operating on the principle "your consent is not sufficient". The consent of the child does matter, if he chooses not to go the school won't force him.

There are times when adults violate the consent of children and this is considered acceptable but that has nothing (or very little) to do with this.

A law can simply say "you need parental consent to take kids on field-trips"

The law does not need to say "You need parental consent to take kids on field-trips because children are incapable of consent and therefore taking a kid on a field-trip is statutory kidnapping"


Picture this: a 15 year old kid is approached by a salesman who offers him an instant $100,000 loan. He's given a big stack of legal papers, which he doesn't read through.
Adults don't read through them either. It's a problem.


Now, somewhere out there is a 15 year old kid who would hypothetically be dumb and shortsighted enough to consent to this agreement. Do you think the law should permit him to enter into such a contract?
No, and this is easily accomplished without lying.

"Contracts with minors are null and void, case dismissed." <- no lies, maybe it's not a just law for being so simplistic but no lie in that
"Contracts are null and void without consent, minors can't consent, therefore the minor didn't consent, therefore this contract is null and void" <- Same outcome, but now with unnecessary lies, lies that confuse the hell out of people and lead to absurdities when actually believed.


If your question is whether animals as moral patients ought to be protected from other animals, society has decided no. In part because the whole animal kingdom would go extinct in one or two generations.
Instead of admitting that the logic has a flaw the absurd implication is patched with arbitrary asserted exceptions.

"Men are featherless bipeds"
*presents a plucked chicken "Behold a man"
Update: "Men are featherless bipeds that aren't chickens"

This is what falsehood looks like.
#46
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
Depends on the knowledge of how much a person can know to agree to ideally.

By law that's too great so it's more general.


I guess I can't make a general age number. 
Topic's author
#47
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
40 year old knows better than 25 year old, and 25 year old knows better than 18 year old.

So why would age of consent be 18 instead of 25 or 40?
Because there should be a balance between liberty and security.  I lean more on the liberty side, so my age of consent is a bit lower than the status quo in the US, but security always has a place at the table.

Also, would you argue that parents who let their kids eat junk food or candies should be arrested?
If it’s 2 Oreos here and there, then I wouldn’t arrest.  If the parents fed their kid nothing except 50 Oreos a day, then I would call CPS.

So there is no point at which you can actually consent,
You need a certain amount of life experience (aka age) to consent to life altering things like sex.

So can you force an adult not to touch a hot stove?
No, but I would force a child to not touch a hot stove.

Well, there are some, uh, studies which happen to say circumcision has medical benefits. So why would you argue against infant circumcision if it has benefits?
1. I am skeptical of these studies.  I’m not saying they are wrong; I’m just skeptical.
2. If the benefits exist for that particular infant, then I’m open to it.  I know there are costs (like less sexual pleasure for the circumsized).


Also, I’m surprised you are getting so many likes when you defend pedophillia.  I thought virtually everyone was against legalized pedophillia.
Topic's author
#48
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Swagnarok
The adult has transgressed against our civilized norms. If there were no consequences for that, society would quickly devolve into a hellhole.
Whether or not something is normal in society is irrelevant.  But how would society devolve into a hellhole?

A 19 year old has less sense that dating a 17 year old is wrong than a 29 year old would.
Maybe, but people that play Russian Roulette have less sense than people that don’t play it.  It’s still legal to do Russian Roulette, so lack of sense is irrelevant.
#49
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because there should be a balance between liberty and security
What is an explanation in premises or a consistent framework of decision making?

When it suits you, you pick liberty? When it suits you, you pick security?

Thats inconsistent, since you cant actually explain premises for decision making.

Anyone could say same for any age. 

There could be a law that 5 year olds could have liberty, while those below 5 could have no liberty but instead security.

So whats the basis for picking 18?

If it’s 2 Oreos here and there, then I wouldn’t arrest.  If the parents fed their kid nothing except 50 Oreos a day, then I would call CPS.
And why is 2 candies okay, if it is harmful?

Because your previous premise was that you are only allowed to do that to children which benefits children, and now you say that doing some harm is okay too?

You need a certain amount of life experience (aka age) to consent to life altering things like sex
But you are not explaining what amount of life experience is that and why.

Why 18?

Why not 14?

Why not 12?

If we look by mere nature, sexual urges begin to get strong at age 12 or 13, so why wouldnt that be the age of consent?

No, but I would force a child to not touch a hot stove.
So you would just let adult burn himself and do self harm?

And how does forcing a child to not touch a hot stove compares to age of consent laws?

Because you cannot run after children always to make sure they wont have sex or do anything sexual.

Plenty of people do something sexual before 18.

Its not comparable to touching a hot stove, because in case of hot stove, child that becomes adult is unlikely to touch hot stoves all day anyway.

But sexual activities are likely gonna happen at some point anyway. If someone has a strong urges at early age, that person is very much gonna seek to satisfy them.

Sexual urges dont start at 18.

Why would nature give people urges at 12 if they are supposed to wait until 18?

And how does satisfying those urges exactly harm them?

Many people are anyway designed to be addicted to sex. Its not gonna go away just because someone tells them not to.

But limiting choices people have in early life makes them dumber later. 

Overprotective parents try to control child's life by taking away their choices and making choices for them as an effort to protect them, but all they get are dumber children which later make worse decisions because they had no early experience in making choices.

Sure, when someone is given liberty in early life, he will make mistakes but will also learn from them.

However, the one who has no liberty cant make choices and thus, cant make mistakes and thus cant learn much.

So having only security is not really suitable for any age, since the basis of experience is making choices and doing the work to achieve goals.

If person is just given all solutions, they are not gonna get much experience, since they have no actual challenge in life nor basis to develop thinking skills to solve problems on their own and come up with solutions with their own effort.

Also, I’m surprised you are getting so many likes when you defend pedophillia.  I thought virtually everyone was against legalized pedophillia.
Most people hate pedophiles. I would say that about 80% to 90% of people hate pedophiles.

But its the age of consent where there is no actual agreement.

Age of consent at 18 is actually an opinion of minority in the world. Most countries have 14 to 16. Some have under 14 and some have over 16, but most countries have it at 14 to 16.

Its not exactly a discussion about pedophiles, since pedophiles are those attracted to under 11.

Only few countries in the world have age of consent under 12, or they have no age of consent set.
Topic's author
#50
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
What is an explanation in premises or a consistent framework of decision making?
I would say it is an arbitrary ratio based on some precedence from other places.

When it suits you, you pick liberty? When it suits you, you pick security?
I think this is fair, but there are times when everyone I would imagine backs liberty and everyone backs security.

Like, should 25 year olds be allowed to vote?  Virtually everyone says yes.  Should 5 year olds be allowed to vote?  Virtually everyone says no.  Should 25 year olds be forced to go to school?  Virtually everyone says yes.  Should 5 year olds be forced to go to school?  Virtually everyone says no.  I think it's biting the bullet to argue that education for 5 year olds should be a choice, not an obligation (vice versa for 25 year olds).  Same is true with voting rights.  This is being arbitrary; the age that you are no longer forced to attend school is 18; I would be fine with making it 16 as this only effects really stupid people and really poor people; most people would stay in school at least as long as they are able to for free.

I would make the voting age 16 and the age of consent 16 to try and lean more into liberty (but I also know that it won't be fair to make the age 16 because it's obvious this would benefit the democrats and I don't want one party being too comfy with power, so maybe merge some small democrat states to reduce their senate influence while giving young people the right to vote which would make all the battleground states way more likely to be blue.)

So whats the basis for picking 18?
I would pick 16, but it's precedent.

If we look by mere nature, sexual urges begin to get strong at age 12 or 13, so why wouldnt that be the age of consent?
Because if 12 year olds can consent to sex, then they can consent as to whether or not they should attend school (6th grade).  You definitely should be required to complete middle school to build up mental infrastructure.  I think that's just the normie position.

Overprotective parents try to control child's life by taking away their choices and making choices for them as an effort to protect them, but all they get are dumber children which later make worse decisions because they had no early experience in making choices.
Being protective of your child to an extent prevents them from making very bad mistakes to begin with.  Like, we tell kids to not smoke tobacco and to not smoke weed in school.  Now, it's not 100% effective, but it's caused way less kids to smoke and do weed than if we never told them to not do it.  I think the age to smoke tobacco and weed should be 16.

Its not exactly a discussion about pedophiles, since pedophiles are those attracted to under 11.
I thought the official cutoff was someone 20+ attracted to someone below the legal age of consent.  If I (22 year old) had sex with a 17 year old, then most people would call it pedophillia.

I would say though that I have no hatred towards non offending pedophiles regardless of their age preference.  Maybe I'm biased since I don't have any kids and never want them, but so would the people that do have kids.  It's weird though just to tell some random person that you are a pedophile.

I'm only into adult women and sometimes adult dudes, but it goes against my morality to marry a guy; so I don't want to do that and I don't believe in premarital sex despite being an atheist, but others should have liberty if they aren't harming anyone else to a significant degree (sex with those under 16 inheritely harms them due to the addictive properties of sex is what I think the federal standard should be, but if states want to lower their Age of Consent (AOC) to 14, then that's fine if the state disagrees with the federal standard).
#51
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Like, should 25 year olds be allowed to vote?  Virtually everyone says yes.  Should 5 year olds be allowed to vote?  Virtually everyone says no.
So your argument is just based on what most people think?

Also, vote is irrelevant to sexual activities regarding consequences.

Because if 12 year olds can consent to sex, then they can consent as to whether or not they should attend school (6th grade).  You definitely should be required to complete middle school to build up mental infrastructure.  I think that's just the normie position.
Sex and school are two different things. Can 12 year olds consent to go to school? If not, then how is going to school okay?

Its not about consent when it comes to school, and the issue of sex is not based on consent alone either.

Being protective of your child to an extent prevents them from making very bad mistakes to begin with.  Like, we tell kids to not smoke tobacco and to not smoke weed in school.  Now, it's not 100% effective, but it's caused way less kids to smoke and do weed than if we never told them to not do it.  I think the age to smoke tobacco and weed should be 16.
Many people under 16 try drugs, but again, your argument doesnt mean children shouldnt be allowed to make choices. If you ran after children checking all the time if they do drugs and checking their stuff and pockets, you would likely make them less capable in life, since they would not be able to make their own choices due to all the control over their life which would distract them. But its even worse with sex because most people over 12 have sexual urges, and it causes them stress if they cannot do anything sexual. So banning sex is not like banning tobacco or drugs. Sex is not bad for health like drugs are, or like tobacco is. But banning sex does have bad consequences, since you have bunch of people with sexual urges and no way to satisfy them, but also being judged if they do, which brings additional stress.
Topic's author
#52
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
So your argument is just based on what most people think?
To an extent, yes, but that's virtually everybody.  In 1850, you say women should be allowed to vote to progressive anti slavery people, you get booed and kicked out.  You say the opposite in 2020, people think you are a misogynist.

Everybody is a product of their culture on every issue (including yourself).  You are a pedophilia supporter (not a knock btw) in a country where over 95% of people strongly disagree.  In that society, you have to be much more pro free speech on the issue of Age of Consent.  If alternatively, 90% of the US population believed there should not be an age of consent, then there would be a term, "pedophobic" that would be deemed to be an insult and there is a good chance that pedophobic views would be deemed hate speech and that you would agree with banning pedophobic views, whereas in our society, pedophobic views are just the normal views in society, so you have to at least respect pedophobia in a society where over 90% of the population is pedophobic, whereas you don't have to do this nearly as much in a society where 10% of the population is pedophobic.

Also, vote is irrelevant to sexual activities regarding consequences.
Not my point.  My point is you don't get certain freedoms until you are old enough because otherwise it's a threat to safety.  Otherwise we would have to let 5 year olds vote.

 Can 12 year olds consent to go to school? If not, then how is going to school okay?
Lets define FGDB as "Feels Good Does Bad" and FBDG as, "Feels Bad Does Good".  

School, especially for many young people FBDG.  Sex is FGDB.

"Consent" implies the freedom to do something that FGDB or the freedom to not do something that FBDG.

Many 12 year olds do not consent to the FBDG activity of school.  They still should be forced to go because the alternative is they are more fucked up as they age.

But its even worse with sex because most people over 12 have sexual urges, and it causes them stress if they cannot do anything sexual.
Sexual urges I believe are developed with sexual expierience, not just age.  Nobody knows how good sex feels until they do it.  There may be couriousity with leg caressing, but this isn't deemed to be sexual.  

OIP.8_n-dZKnoCdG12HGQqu0pgHaE8 (474×316) (bing.com) shows a parent holding their child.  It's not sexual, and it's legal to do.

Sex is not bad for health like drugs are, or like tobacco is.
I don't agree with this.  I've mastrabated a lot since August of 2023 (when I was 21).  I would have preferred it if I never started.  It started out wonderful and I didn't think I would get addicted, but I did.  I can only imagine how addictive sex is.  I get courious about what sex is like, and I've also had couriousity with what weed is like.  It doesn't mean I know what it's like.  Abstaining from smoking weed may be bad for those already addicted, but it's not bad at all for those that aren't (except medical when this is unconditional).  But the more you use weed, the more you develop a toleterance for it so when you actually get high, you aren't getting as much out of it.  This is fine for those who start old enough, but it is very damaging for those that start too young.

I think sex is the same way.
#53
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Not my point.  My point is you don't get certain freedoms until you are old enough because otherwise it's a threat to safety.  Otherwise we would have to let 5 year olds vote.
Again, vote is irrelevant to sex.

You are confusing "giving some freedoms" with "giving all freedoms".

If safety is a goal, greater threat to safety comes from banning sex.

Lets define FGDB as "Feels Good Does Bad" and FBDG as, "Feels Bad Does Good".  

School, especially for many young people FBDG.  Sex is FGDB.

"Consent" implies the freedom to do something that FGDB or the freedom to not do something that FBDG.

Many 12 year olds do not consent to the FBDG activity of school.  They still should be forced to go because the alternative is they are more fucked up as they age.
So why should they be banned from sex? Banning sex is "feels good, does bad" action.

Allowing people to consent to sex does not mean allowing them to consent to anything. Thats a false dichotomy of "able to consent to everything or nothing".

Obviously, children can be allowed to some degree to choose what they will eat or what game they will play, so its not "all or nothing".

Sexual urges I believe are developed with sexual expierience, not just age.  Nobody knows how good sex feels until they do it.  There may be couriousity with leg caressing, but this isn't deemed to be sexual.
You dont need to have sex to want sex. To claim that wanting sex its not a sexual urge is a contradiction.

I don't agree with this.
So how is sex bad for health?

Addictive doesnt mean bad for health, and banning sex doesnt mean people wont have sex.
#54
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because there should be a balance between liberty and security.
lol, a "balance" yea I've heard that before. Still waiting on a consensus about any balance ever to exist.

"balance" in the context of ethics is arbitrage (arbitrary decision, a whim, subjective, baseless) in fancy clothes. See mass delusion.


If we look by mere nature, sexual urges begin to get strong at age 12 or 13, so why wouldnt that be the age of consent?
Because if 12 year olds can consent to sex, then they can consent as to whether or not they should attend school (6th grade).
Yes, and they can do both. How absurd to have a theory in which every minor student is being forced to go to school.


Not my point.  My point is you don't get certain freedoms until you are old enough because otherwise it's a threat to safety.  Otherwise we would have to let 5 year olds vote.
They let gender studies grads vote, that's more dangerous than five year olds.


"Consent" implies the freedom to do something that FGDB or the freedom to not do something that FBDG.
That's the error in the logic.

Consent implies no such thing. I can consent to running my car into a pedestrian but that doesn't mean I should have the legal freedom to do.


I can only imagine how addictive sex is.
Don't worry, there are limiting factors that keep you from doing it too much.


I think sex is the same way.
Maybe, but you stop for a month and it's just as good as before. Also like weed, caffeine, and food.



#55
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Allowing people to consent to sex does not mean allowing them to consent to anything. Thats a false dichotomy of "able to consent to everything or nothing".
Consent requires two things:

1.) Understanding of what is being consented to, in other words an accurate prediction
2.) An act of discernible will

If you can consent to anything you have discernible will. In that way consenting to one thing means you can consent to anything. However you may not understand everything, and therefore you can't consent to everything.

Since children have discernible will, they can consent to anything they can understand; and by 11 years old they can understand a hell of a lot. That can consent to murder, consent to drive, consent to do drugs, consent to jump off a cliff, consent to vote, etc.... etc...

Wisdom and knowledge are not the same thing. A man may learn of the birds and the bees at 11, but he can still find new wisdom about it at 93.
Topic's author
#56
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
If safety is a goal, greater threat to safety comes from banning sex.
I disagree; sex is dangerous.

Obviously, children can be allowed to some degree to choose what they will eat 
If they want to eat 100 Oreos a day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, then should a parent be allowed to let their kid pick that option?  Because I believe that is child abuse.

So how is sex bad for health?

Addictive doesnt mean bad for health
Isn't the main reason why people say weed is bad for you due to it's addictive potential (if consumed at a young age)?  Something being addictive means it's bad for you if you can't get an infinite supply of it (but the high from sex wears off as time goes on).


Topic's author
#57
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Because if 12 year olds can consent to sex, then they can consent as to whether or not they should attend school (6th grade).
Yes, and they can do both. How absurd to have a theory in which every minor student is being forced to go to school.
This to me doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Kids should be forced to go to school.

Not my point.  My point is you don't get certain freedoms until you are old enough because otherwise it's a threat to safety.  Otherwise we would have to let 5 year olds vote.
They let gender studies grads vote, that's more dangerous than five year olds.
I believe being able to pass a citizenship test should be required to vote for everyone.

I can consent to running my car into a pedestrian but that doesn't mean I should have the legal freedom to do.
The implication is that you running a car into a person is harming them significantly.

Maybe, but you stop for a month and it's just as good as before. Also like weed, caffeine, and food.
Possible, but I'm not sure.
#58
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because if 12 year olds can consent to sex, then they can consent as to whether or not they should attend school (6th grade).
Yes, and they can do both. How absurd to have a theory in which every minor student is being forced to go to school.
This to me doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Kids should be forced to go to school.
Whether they would be forced or not is a different measurement than whether are forced.

I am forced to pay taxes, I do not consent; but there are those who consent. They are not forced.

In neither case does the government care; but that does not change the fact that one person does consent and one person does not.

We both have the capacity of consent


I believe being able to pass a citizenship test should be required to vote for everyone.
That would be easily subverted to suppress dissent.

I believe the American experiment has gotten as far as possible with "who decides". Further progress can only come from a more complex system for filtering "what is decided".


Maybe, but you stop for a month and it's just as good as before. Also like weed, caffeine, and food.
Possible, but I'm not sure.
Of course not, you've never done it.

I've never had someone I would consider marrying either, but I've seen a lot in my time personally and through literature, history, and news.

When people actually have a happy marriage and kids they consider random sexual adventures to be of so little value compared to what they have gained as to be almost repulsed by them.

That is why they try to teach kids self-restraint and advise them to wait for the special person. Or at least that's what they used to teach them, but we're seeing fewer and fewer happy marriages.

If I had to argue against sexual promiscuity I would argue that sexual desire used to be a tool to motivate very active courtship seeking and perhaps that resulted in more happy marriages.

I don't really believe that though which is why I don't really see a problem with sexual promiscuity or simply a lot of sex or masturbation.

If you feel personally addicted then stop to prove to yourself you have discipline but really it's objectively the healthiest of addictions so long as you don't make it other people's problem. It's definitely one of the good things in life, but there are people who think it's enough to be happy forever and it certainly is not. Those people are just as misguided as those who try to find happiness in good food, drugs, the thrill of being at risk, etc...

In my opinion only two things make people genuinely satisfied:
1.) Production, the creation of the good things in life, the act of reshaping the world to more closely fit your concept of perfection
2.) Babies, children; yes it's totally hind-brain but it's a super effective treatment for depression.

What both have in common is responsibility. (now speaking like Jordan Peterson)

People are happy when they have a responsibility, and they fulfill it.

Sex isn't a responsibility. It will bring you pleasure but never permanent satisfaction. It's great, just don't expect it to be more than it is.
#59
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
I disagree; sex is dangerous
Banning sex is more dangerous. It literally puts people in prison where they are beaten and raped. Its about as dangerous as it gets. Sex isnt something that people will stop doing just because you ban it. But ban does cause people to be judged for it, which brings its own additional harms and pressure.

If they want to eat 100 Oreos a day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, then should a parent be allowed to let their kid pick that option?  Because I believe that is child abuse.
Letting someone do something cannot be abuse, since 'letting" just means a lack of action to prevent it. A lack of action isnt cause of anything.
Still, it would likely be bad parenting which would ruin child's teeth and make child fat, and from where does the money come for oreos? Because if parents are providing the money for it, then they would be somewhat abusive since they are causing bad health of a child. Still, you wouldnt arrest people who give their kids few oreos a day, even if slightly harmful.

Isn't the main reason why people say weed is bad for you due to it's addictive potential (if consumed at a young age)?  Something being addictive means it's bad for you if you can't get an infinite supply of it (but the high from sex wears off as time goes on).
You are addicted to many things: food, water, air...ect. None are considered bad for you. And rarely anyone needs infinite supply of sex. Sure, there are people who do it every day. All it means is that statistically they get to live longer because sex and masturbation have health benefits, where not doing sexual activities just means you live shorter.