This is not consistent with what you have said before
I clearly defined regret in that case as when caused by knowledge that becomes available after.
So not goals. But knowledge.
The goals are always treated as existing in present.
"greater consent" becomes more complicated with every patch. Now it has nothing to do with consent and is determined by considering regret given potential knowledge and the overall goals as percieved by another cognizant being.
Why do people feel the need to mutilate simple concepts like this?
The person can have a goal about good life. Maybe the needed knowledge will come later, but the goal exists in the present.
Person... or tree; because we're not talking about goals the subject has but goals a perceiver might imagine or infer the goals of the subject would be overall, if it had a mind.
Alright I've gone around in circles enough on "greater consent", I'm just going to translate it to "best interests" in my head so as to not be annoyed by the improper use of "consent".
Now, you have one theory of the best interests of people less than 18, and society has another. Previously I pointed out that the assertion of harm or major risk of harm is a positive position, one that incurs a burden of proof.
There is really no point in restating the obvious fact that some people have been deeply harmed by sexual relations involving a significant age gap, you would no doubt claim that is a biased sample set. I admitted that statistically speaking getting a reliable sample is fairly impossible.
There are, however, there are more forms of analysis than statistical.
1.) If there are are significant number of people going through pedophilic relationships and suffering no significant trauma, holding no ill will; some would stay silent to protect the older party.... but there must be scenarios where the older party dies, goes off to some distant country, etc... If these non-victim children thought the relationship was a good thing, and thought that how the older party would have been treated by society was an injustice; why wouldn't some of them come forward?
Now I know that anyone who even hints at not being against pedophilia is going to be a target, but such individuals would have a victim card that could only be printed at staples. They would not be guilty of a crime. Not a single one has been willing?
2.) When people say "pedophilia" they're talking using one word for a range of contexts with wildly different moral calculus. They'll use the word for a 19 year old viewing the sexting of a 17.8 year old. They'll use the word for Epstein's blackmail based sex trafficking operation (almost all the victims were closer to 18 than 16 by the time the clients got at them). They'll use the word for a baby being raped and murdered.
Labels aside, there is a thing called puberty; and before puberty there is every biologically grounded reason to expect that no natural sexual desire exists. This can be corroborated simply by looking at the unrestrained sexual behavior of children with each other which has been variously allowed intentionally or unintentionally.
At sixteen, a culturally unrestrained group of children will be having sex with each other at some rate. At ten, none will.
It seems reasonable to infer with very strong probability that any prepubescent sexual cooperation was bought with bribes or extorted with threats.
3.) There are these things called parents, and all other claims aside I have found the willingness of pedophile advocates to endorse deceiving parents as the single best indicator that their computation of best interests is flawed. Dishonesty is the core of almost all damaged relationships, the parent-child relationship is almost always the second most (if not most) important relationship a typical person can have.
Sex can be a good thing, but no one acting in their own best interests thinks sex is worth destroying unique and irreplaceable relationships.
Would you justify lying to parents?
