-->
@Lemming
Such prevention saved childs life, hence allowed the child to have control over own body for greater amount of time than if child would have if child choked.
Most people dont know how badly the pedophiles are treated in prison
Posts
Total:
277
-->
@Best.Korea
Your point was already refuted. Child is the only one who can make decisions about own body.You cant decide about childs own body. You cannot decide instead of a child.Even if a child doesnt know everything, you are still not allowed to decide for them against their will.Child is the only one who can decide."Children are naive and need to be protected"Children need to be educated."would telling a child not to eat poisonous berries take away control about what happens to their bodies"This is you confusing education with force.First, the force is only allowed if it uphelds personal control over own body.Forbidding child to have sex does not do this. In such case, you are using force to forbid child to decide about own body.
You are not defending to rights of a child, you are trying
to defend the right to coerce and manipulate a child into performing acts that
the child doesn’t fully understand.
-->
@Best.Korea
"Cross-sectional research has found that adolescents who have engaged in sexual intercourse are more likely than adolescents who have not to be depressed and to have attempted suicide, and that early-initiating female adolescents are especially at risk (Haase et al., 2012; Hallfors et al., 2004; Madkour et al., 2010; Rector et al., 2003; Waller et al., 2006). Longitudinal research further clarifies this association, finding that sexual initiation is associated with within-person increases in levels of depression and anxiety for younger adolescents (Meier, 2007; Sabia & Rees, 2008; Tubman, Windle, & Windle, 1996). Additionally, early sexual initiation is more strongly associated with internalizing symptoms for girls than boys (Meier, 2007; Spriggs & Halpern, 2008; Madkour et al., 2010)."
-->
@Best.Korea
"I think I have already made this point ... children can be easily manipulated therefore they lack the capacity to consent. But you don’t want to hear that."Your point was already refuted. Child is the only one who can make decisions about own body.
Your point was already refuted when you went to prison.
You cant decide about childs own body. You cannot decide instead of a child.Even if a child doesnt know everything, you are still not allowed to decide for them against their will.Child is the only one who can decide."Children are naive and need to be protected"Children need to be educated.
Pedophiles need to be incarcerated.
"would telling a child not to eat poisonous berries take away control about what happens to their bodies"This is you confusing education with force.First, the force is only allowed if it uphelds personal control over own body.Forbidding child to have sex does not do this. In such case, you are using force to forbid child to decide about own body.
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison. If forbidding pedophiles to have sex with children does not deter them, then the law will be using force to decide how long you will be incarcerated.
One of the strongest instincts is that of a parent protecting a child, many of the people in prison are parents, this should be enough of a deterent, and if not, then accept that it will be the other prisoners that make decisions about your welfare.
-->
@Elliott
"You are not defending to rights of a child, you are trying to defend the right to coerce and manipulate a child into performing acts that the child doesn’t fully understand"
Child doesnt understand sex, but if child is willing to perform it, then it makes no difference.
Its still child consenting.
If child wants it and feels comfortable and it doesnt endanger childs life, no one can impose the opposite decision on a child without violating childs decision making.
The opposite is true when you force a child to follow your commands against their will. This is what your society constantly does.
You force children, you beat them, you lie to them about religion, you endanger their health with unsafe traffic, you force them to eat meat, you trick them with candies... many more examples, so its really your society that does the violation.
These violations vary from country to country, but these are the most common ones.
-->
@Best.Korea
"An informed consent can be said to have been given based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, Implications, And consequences of an action. Adequate informed consent is rooted in respecting a person's dignity. To give informed consent, The individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts. Impairments to reasoning and judgment that may prevent informed consent include basic intellectual or emotional immaturity, High levels of stress such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or a severe intellectual disability, Severe mental disorder, Intoxication, Severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, Or being in a coma. "
- Wikipedia Informed consent
"We don't take willingness to be sufficient for consent in other problematic scenarios, E. G. In minors, Very drunk adults, People with Stockholm Syndrome, Etc"
- reddit r askphilosophy comments 3dgitu why is bestiality wrong
"Consent has three necessary elements " understanding, Voluntariness, And permission. As students leading the USC consent carnival spelled out, Consent is affirmative, Coherent, Willing, Ongoing, And mutual " not just one but all of these criteria. "
- hopeferdowsian the meaning and importance of consent for people and animals
-->
@Lemming
Please dont use studies which mostly include cases of childs consent being violated either by society either by individuals, where decisions about childs life and body were made not by a child but by adults, and where false education was present.
This does not prove anything in your favor.
In fact, every time you interfere in child-adult consensual relationship, you are violating childs consent. This makes every study dependent on your interference as a factor.
-->
@Elliott
We don’t lock up pedophiles, that would be thought crime
Raping kids is thought crime?
-->
@Best.Korea
If I maintain that children are not capable of informed consent with an adult,
Then how will a pedophile who diddles a kid 'avoid violating the child's consent?
Child doesnt understand sex, but if child is willing to perform it, then it makes no difference.Its still child consenting.
You can’t consent to something if you don’t understand what
it is you are consenting to.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Raping kids is thought crime?
No, raping children is a crime, being a pedophile isn’t.
-->
@Elliott
Idiot
-->
@Lemming
There is no one who can consent about childs body instead of a child.
This is a very simple problem that you cannot solve.
Children can consent, simply because no one else can consent instead of them and they have the ability to consent.
Consent is completely irrelevant to being fully informed or fully understanding.
Consent simply means approval of action before or while it happens. Approval does not require full knowledge, just the knowledge that action exists.
When children are doing sexual activities with an adult, they know what it looks like because they see it. They know that they like how it feels. They know that action exists. Based on that knowledge, if they want, they approve it.
Consent is not based upon full knowledge about everything in the universe.
Consent is based around knowledge of an action that is being consented to, partial or full.
Since children have this knowledge, they can consent.
Even a baby has some knowledge to the point where baby consents to actions that bring it pleasure.
Consenting based on partial knowledge is much better than not consenting at all.
So you cannot decide about a child instead of a child.
In doing so, you are violating childs consent. But you are also imposing decisions that dont benefit childs decision making.
-->
@Best.Korea
We live in a society that advocates a guardianship, A trust, To be held for children, Until they gain some education, Some experience, Some physical maturity.
We do not cast them to wolves and the elements, To make as best they can in life.
Children come into this world without any knowledge, Understanding, Or property. It is right that there should be a period of instruction under the guidance and protection of guardians, Before they assume a role in the adult world.
. . .
You think a physical reaction of the body means consent?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Idiot
Thank you.
-->
@Sidewalker
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.
I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.
There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.
-->
@Lemming
- Wikipedia Informed consent- reddit r askphilosophy comments 3dgitu- hopeferdowsian
You should have stuck with studies on suicide, random assertions aren't particularly relevant.
-->
@Elliott
"You can’t consent to something if you don’t understand what it is you are consenting to."
Since children do understand, they can.
Even a baby can, since even a baby has an ability to approve or disprove actions based on knowledge baby gains when these actions happen.
Approval of this action to continue to exist based on available knowledge is consent.
In case of consent with partial knowledge vs. no consent at all, consent still wins.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'd say they're relevant with defining consent.
But then,
You and I don't agree on the definition of consent either, I seem to recall.
-->
@Best.Korea
In case of consent with partial knowledge vs. no consent at all, consent still wins.
What no one else in this thread has succinctly communicated (although it was implied many times) is that consent does not always win.
Consent is one part of objective morality, not the whole. They (most posters in this thread so far) are currently stuck in a conceptual car crash caused by a combination of judicial macgyvering and sexual liberation propaganda. They're trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. That's why they cite studies relating to psychological harm in the same breath they talk about "informed consent" as if the presence of harm proved there was no consent. Relatively informed people harm themselves by their own decisions all the time.
Harm is the problem, not a symptom.
The unique quality of the adult citizen in human civilization is that as peers no one is permitted to tell them what they may or may not do, even with the best intentions. The adult is allowed and should be allowed to shoot themselves in the foot. That is why consent without fraud is "good enough" in most cases.
Children are not and should not be allowed to shoot themselves, at certain ages letting them hold a gun is parental negligence. Doctors are another example, if you take an oath to not harm consent is not enough (something transgender surgeons should reflect on).
(I am in no way implying that the line in the sand set as the age of majority is objectively justified)
-->
@Lemming
"We live in a society that advocates a guardianship, A trust, To be held for children, Until they gain some education, Some experience, Some physical maturity."
Yes, but unless a guardianship means guarding childs decision making ability from violations, I dont know what you are guarding.
"We do not cast them to wolves and the elements, To make as best they can in life."
Its interesting how you equalize "having sex" to "being cast to the wolves".
"Children come into this world without any knowledge, Understanding, Or property."
Actually, children have:
1) The ability to approve or disprove actions
2) The ability to absorb knowledge
"It is right that there should be a period of instruction under the guidance and protection of guardians, Before they assume a role in the adult world."
People often confuse guarding with meddling.
"You think a physical reaction of the body means consent"
No. I think consent is approval or disapproval of actions based on available knowledge.
-->
@Best.Korea
I am associating adults who have sex children, as wolves, yes.
-->
@Lemming
I'd say they're relevant with defining consent.But then,You and I don't agree on the definition of consent either, I seem to recall.
It's more like I have a definition and you have a jeopardy question. i.e. you know what you want the concept of consent to imply, but you can't give a coherent definition that actually fits the bill without also implying absurdities (Or simply asserting the results).
-->
@Best.Korea
Since children do understand, they can.Even a baby can, since even a baby has an ability to approve or disprove actions based on knowledge baby gains when these actions happen.Approval of this action to continue to exist based on available knowledge is consent.In case of consent with partial knowledge vs. no consent at all, consent still wins.
You are trying to redefine the meaning of “consent,”
in an attempt to validate child sex abuse, this is blatantly disingenuous.
This definition is how I see it. Consent is a decision given by someone who is competent, who
has been adequately informed and has adequate understanding, and who is free
from undue influence, enabling them to make a voluntary decision.
-->
@Elliott
Consent is a decision given by someone who is competent, who has been adequately informed and has adequate understanding, and who is free from undue influence, enabling them to make a voluntary decision.
"competent", "adequately", "undue"
If the question arises "according to whom?" it is subjective.
One subjective qualifier is enough to render a concept subjective, three?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Harm is related to consent.
Consent is only allowed to be violated in cases where violation uphelds the greater consent.
For example, little girl is not allowed to shoot herself. This is not because she cant consent to that. Its because if she shot herself, she will probably regret it. This "regret" is based on knowledge that only became available after the action. So in this case, violating her partial consent to upheld her greater consent is justified.
But same does not apply to sexual activities. Even in our society that is based upon shaming children for having sex and locking up their lovers, most of the children who had sexual activities with adults agree that their lovers should not be locked up.
So if we actually had a free society, I am pretty sure we would have proper studies about child-adult relationships.
However, since our society is far from free, then all available studies, positive or negative, fall under the factor of being pollutted by stigma, false education, force...ect.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"competent", "adequately", "undue"If the question arises "according to whom?" it is subjective.One subjective qualifier is enough to render a concept subjective, three?
It seems reasonable, which is my own subjective opinion.
-->
@Elliott
"Consent is a decision given by someone who is competent, who has been adequately informed and has adequate understanding, and who is free from undue influence, enabling them to make a voluntary decision.,"
This is your definition.
Such definition is inappropriate, because it fails to take into account consent based on limited knowledge.
It also fails to determine who decides what amount of knowledge is enough for consent.
For example, child knows that certain sexual activities bring pleasure. Child consents to them because child wants pleasure. What more knowledge does child need?
The fact that you try to equalize "childs consent based on childs current knowledge" to "no consent" so that you could violate childs consent and make decisions about childs own body, and then accuse others of doing what you do, is nonsense.
Childs will is consisted of childs goals. Only knowledge relevant to these goals is relevant for consent.
-->
@Best.Korea
Harm is related to consent.
In an expressible non-absolute way:
Harm tends to motivate non-consent.
The violation of consent (liberty) tends to cause psychological harm depending on the perceived scale of abuse.
When a person fails to predict harm whether it be due to lack of information, lack of virtue, or physiological incapacity they may still consent. If they perceive that to protect a greater value they will consent to some harm (sacrifice).
Some people are psychologically resilient, often due to holding resilient philosophies deeply. They may endure many violations without permanent harm.
Harm and consent are not the same things.
Consent is only allowed to be violated in cases where violation uphelds the greater consent.For example, little girl is not allowed to shoot herself. This is not because she cant consent to that. Its because if she shot herself, she will probably regret it. This "regret" is based on knowledge that only became available after the action. So in this case, violating her partial consent to upheld her greater consent is justified.
You merely assume that in the fullness of time harm and consent become the same thing. That is not substantially different from looking at harm. It is thus needlessly confusing to call it "greater consent", in just the same way adding "informed" to consent (but not having to do with information) is almost deceptive labeling.
But same does not apply to sexual activities. Even in our society that is based upon shaming children for having sex and locking up their lovers, most of the children who had sexual activities with adults agree that their lovers should not be locked up.
I cannot disprove that, but nor can you prove it I think.
So if we actually had a free society, I am pretty sure we would have proper studies about child-adult relationships.However, since our society is far from free, then all available studies, positive or negative, fall under the factor of being pollutted by stigma, false education, force...ect.
Getting an unbiased sample set is impossible under the current legal and cultural conditions, that is true. However some kind of continuous function can be expected, look at the trend where age of consent laws vary.
-->
@Elliott
It seems reasonable, which is my own subjective opinion.
If you're going to give a subjective opinion you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say imply that disagreement "blatantly disingenuous".
"It's blatantly disingenuous that you are trying to define anchovies as delicious."
"Anchovies are disgusting"
"That is my own subjective opinion"
Subjectivism and debate don't mix. If you can't articulate a reason common to others then by definition you can't advance an argument.