Best.Korea

The influence of society is difficult to determine.

For example:

If your parents are muslims, there is about 70% chance that you will be a muslim too.

If your parents arent muslims, there is less than 3% chance you will ever become a muslim.

The numbers are similar with Christianity too.

Another example:

If you are male.

If your parents circumcised you, there is over 90% chance you will want to circumcise your child.

If your parents didnt circumcise you, there is less than 20% chance you will want to circumcise your child.

It seems that certain opinions can be inherited from parents to a child and in most cases are inherited.

It is very likely that in same way, certain opinions are implanted in us by the society we live in.

Weaker individuals will have more opinions implanted in them. But I think that everyone to a certain degree suffers from implanted opinions.

Human opinion requires knowledge, and knowledge is given by parents and society.

If you are born in certain society, you are more likely to believe in knowledge provided by that society than in knowledge that comes from any other society.

This is true even when there is no any proof for the knowledge, such as in the case of religion or circumcision.

I simply used the book as it mentioned cases where there was no harm, and cases where there was little harm.

The author herself admits that harm is small in general, and that there were cases without harm.

If she focused more on those cases where there was no harm, she would be able to find out what makes them different.

She pointed out that children cant consent.

Her opinion is not important, however, her studies are.

Of course, it is quite possible that she said it out of fear. She was already labeled as pedophile supporter simply for doing this study.

Even if she honestly thinks it, its her opinion unrelated to the studies she did.

That happened when I told them I dont believe in God.

"I am questioning whether the activities are truly sexual"

Its not important if child thinks its truly sexual or fun or exciting or interesting or some other form of fun.

Whats important is that child consents.

The reason for consent, as I said, can be pleasure.

Those things are not relevant to my argument.

My argument was:

"Children can feel pleasure from sexual activities."

Children know that pleasure is gained from sexual activities.

When they want this form of pleasure, they consent to sexual activities.

The only way for you to deny this would be to deny that children can feel pleasure.

"Most parent would discourage their children from masturbating religious or not."

True, but only religious nutjobs tell their children that its a sin and that God will burn them for it.

I am not saying that religious nutjob parenting is a bad style of parenting.

In fact, it carries many benefits for the parents.

They can lie to their children as much as they want while being justified in the eyes of every other nutjob and in the eyes of God.

It doesnt matter how many mistakes they made, since their religion says God forgives almost everything as long as you are a believer.

Parents can even label their children as possessed in case they show signs of atheism.

Children can be told about all the things God will do to them in case they turn atheist.

So really, its a fun system for parents.

"None did, you had to patch every example with a new term"

What term? Literally every example was solved based on: 1) current goals, 2) action, 3) knowledge.

I cant say I had a proper childhood since my religious nut job parents believed that masturbation is the greatest crime on Earth and equal to murder.

It didnt stop me from masturbating, but I did spend nights in fear wondering if God will punish me.

Such things seem funny now, but one must wonder what would be the difference between being free and being protected like that.

As I said, the books author is not a pedophile nor supporting pedophilia.

However, the author was still accused of enabling pedophilia simply because in her book she said there is no trauma for the child and that harm is very small.

She simply included statistics, and stories of sexual experiences in her book.

She was also the one to say that in 90% of cases, victims dont want for pedophile to go to prison.

Of course, she could have gone a step further and explore only consensual relationships between adults and children.

However, that would probably result in favorable case for pedophiles and a bunch of death threats to the author.

"Granted I didn't take polls but that was no my impression growing up with three siblings"

I started masturbating at 7 and had interest in sexual activities because they bring pleasure.

Many articles and studies have shown that children masturbate.

Even APA, the great opponent of pedophilia, admitted that children are sexual beings.

So unless you claim that children cant get pleasure from sexual activities, I dont know what is your argument.

"Other sexual deviance have had volunteers come forward despite probable attack. There should be a few"

There have been. I already mentioned the book "The Trauma Myth" in which there have been plenty of cases where people came forward and talked about their sexual experience as children.

The books authors, despite not being pedophiles or promoting pedophilia, were labeled as pedophile supporters. 

The fact that positive cases never get published in the media is the reason people usually dont know about them.

"Society does not determine the validity of consent, the objective implications of the well defined concept of consent do."

Actually, society has the power to determine the validity of a consent by societys opinion and standards. Society has done so before. Society has done so in case of pedophilia.

 "Society can find consent insufficient and that is exactly what they do. I know most tie themselves in knots with "informed consent" like you have with "greater consent" but those concepts do not reflect reality."

If greater consent doesnt reflect reality, then how come all the craziest examples which you have come up with to test it have resulted in its favor?

Also, you have mentioned that children dont have sexual desires.

Such claim has no historical support.

Plenty of children masturbate before age 10.

Even toddlers masturbate.

Plenty of cases of children having sex with each other.

It seems that as soon as children gain knowledge about sex, they become interested in it.

Fact is that parents try to hide such knowledge from children and once discovered, parents try to supress it by saying "you can only do it when you are old enough".

First, I am not denying that harm exists.

I deny its caused by a consensual relationship.

In the book "The Trauma Myth", there seem to be certain statistics where there was no harm.

Now you wondered why people who werent harmed dont simply come and speak up. 

Because they are immediatelly attacked.

In fact, anyone who says that they had sex as children and werent harmed will be told to "get help".

So in translation, they will be marked as crazy.

The current society doesnt allow children to consent at all.

This creates a problem as it negates the difference between consensual and non consensual.

This means that willing participation is put in the same group as imposed participation.

So really, how many of those statistics include only consensual relationships?

Our society judges pedophilia more than it judges anything else.

Did you know that when child-adult relationship is discovered, adult is arrested? You knew that, yes. But have you ever wondered what happens to a child?

"He hurt you."

"He just used you for his pleasure."

"He wasnt your friend"

Sentences like these are standard in convincing children that they are victims.

The more the child denies that she is a victim, the more she gets attacked.

Of course, in such conversation the child is no match against adults.

Later, the entire media constantly writting "horror stories" further confirms the indoctrination.

Since every study is polluted by society, the society destroyed its own argument.

They probably thought that "children cant consent" will be enough to win the case.

However, such argument depends on harm as the only way to make consent invalid.

I am not gonna say that I have proof. I simply say that studies currently available are polluted to the point of being useless.

Society doesnt understand that its wide spread hate against pedophilia makes pedophilia more justified in the eyes of a pedophile. It just confirms who really stands for hate and violence.

""greater consent" becomes more complicated with every patch."

From the very start, it was just about 3 things:

1) goals

2) knowledge

3) action

This did not change. Despite that many examples were used, the concept of greater consent remained the same.

It was always about goals matching the action.

The goals must be current goals. Just like the consent is not about future consent, but current consent.

You can call it "best interests" if you want. I dont particularly care how its called.

I didnt have the concept of greater consent ready before I made this topic.

In fact, at start I thought I will simply assign rights to children and attack all other positions instead of defending my own.

The plan sounded simple. However, when I said that children can consent, I was confused about when is their consent invalid.

For this, I had several options.

One was that its invalid in case of harm.

If I went for this option, there would probably be less confusion.

But I felt like its too simple. It would just lead discussion into whether sex is harmful or not.

There was also an option that consent is invalid when society says so.

While this doesnt currently go in my favor, I could have claimed that society can change.

Now, the third option was the greater consent. This is what came to my mind when the discussion about consent started.

The idea itself sounds complex, very similar to informed consent.

So I went for the third option. This allowed me to explore it more, since I never used it in a debate before.

"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. 

The person can have a goal about good life. Maybe the needed knowledge will come later, but the goal exists in the present.

So we always deal with present goals.

Greater consent is not about what person will think in 20 years.

It has nothing to do with predicting future.

Its about current goals of a person matching the action that the person consents to.

Only in cases where individual is obviously unaware of the harmful mismatch can the consent be treated as invalid.

The girl who fully consented to sex cant simply call it rape because she changed her mind 10 years after the act or 10 minutes after the act.

Its too late for ahiyah to debate me with arguments.

Even if he wanted to really debate now, I would refuse.

So he might as well continue with insults.

The basis of adult-child consensual relationship is in desires that adult and child have.

Child has many desires.

Child can experience pleasure from sexual activities.

Child can enjoy adults company.

Desires that are realized in a consensual relationship with an adult are the reason child wants such relationship.

Pedophilia is, by definition, just a sexual attraction. Its not an action. But at some individuals, it may lead to action.

I just responded to the analogy. I dont consider the analogy appropriate for child-adult relationship.

In case of a consensual relationship between an adult and a child, child obviously has desires realized in such relationship.

For example: if child wants pleasure and fun, the relationship allows it.

Because of that, child consents to a relationship.

"The seller believes the defect cannot be remedied without taking a huge financial loss. The buyer believes it can."

This is a different case, since you added additional information that change the morality of a decision.

In that changed situation, the greater consent of a buyer is violated by an action of a seller who had the ability not to sell but still actively engaged in selling.

Simple way for seller not to violate the greater consent of a buyer is not to sell. This would mean greater consent of a buyer would be upheld.

In case of child-adult relationship, the greater consent is violated in societies where these relationships are attacked. The greater consent is violated by not allowing a child to have control over body.

Unlike the seller in the example: even if an adult didnt have a relationship with a child, the greater consent of a child would still be violated by society. By preventing the very situation that in free society would happen (the situation that child desires), this society is violating childs greater consent. 

So in case of a child adult relationships, the answer is that society violates childs greater consent.

"Well now let's say everybody knows about the defect, but the buyer wants to take it on anyway"

If the buyer knows about the defect and agrees to it, there is no greater consent being violated by anyone.

In fact, the greater consent is upheld by everyone in that situation.

"Although it is moral for the seller to refuse to sell, it is not immoral to sell"

Actually, its not moral or immoral unless it supports or violates greater consent.

Greater consent is a complete moral system.

It is different from "the greater good" in a sense that greater consent of an individual represents his complete goals.

Upholding those goals means to uphold his greater consent.

"they aren’t worth arguing with. That’s why I could only “rofl” at their response to me — they’re totally stupid, pathetic, and a waste of time"

"If you're going to act on your own best judgement regardless of what someone else thinks, that's not consent"

Thats why you must consider what they want in order to uphold their consent and greater consent.

In every context, the greater consent comes as most important.

"he says "legally  unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the law"

So the law is a valid argument under the law?

The main points of discussion were: Can children consent? Is it harmful for children?

Law has nothing to do with these topics.

Now you insult other people too?

Will you insult anyone who disagrees with you?

"I have a better way to find out what someone really wants, ask them; not yourself"

Yes, usually, you should ask them. But there are situations where that is not possible.

In those situations peoole usually confuse "what does a child want" with what they want.

Dont get me wrong, I am not complaining. I actually like it when people insult me, since it helps my case.

"I wasn’t attempting to explain"

"I have no interest in explaining"

So you have come here just to insult me?

How very nice of you.

Yes, but people should always ask themselves "what does child really want?".

This is the simple way in which one can understand consent.

I am not claiming to be some parenting guide expert.

However, the current system of raising children is very questionable.

"But not the lack of fraud."

In case of a lack of fraud, the greater consent was violated. But not by any individual. And no individual was able to prevent it. So no individual would be at fault. So no individual would carry a responsibility for violating consent.

"Lets make the child 2 years old. The problem with the house is severe radon buildup"

"I cannot explain a radon buildup to a two year old."

"Your "greater consent" conception would assert that consent to stay in the house is not real consent because later the individual would come to believe the radiation which caused cancer was not in their best interests."

Yes.

"Now let's say you have a dog, who like the two year old did not understand radiation build up; but unlike the toddler will never understand it."

The consent is consistent of goals. Dog has goals. Even if dog never understands radiation build up, dogs goals would still be violated. Hence, dogs greater consent would be violated. 

"There would never be a "greater consent" for the dog because the dog will never make the connection between the painful cancer and staying in the house."

Dogs goal is to live a happy life. Dog doesnt consent to the painful cancer. Since that is greater consent, we must save the dog to uphold such consent.

You said that it is harmful without explaining why its harmful.

You repeated that children cant consent without explaining why they cant consent.

You said children were mostly unwilling because "they know its harmful". 

So you assume its harmful. Then you assume that children think the same as you. Then you assume that because of that, they are unwilling.

"if some possible future version of the individual would regret consenting"

Not regret in a sense that they changed their mind.

But regret in a sense that if they only have partial knowledge of an action before consenting, and after consenting it would turn out that the action had severe negative consequences to individuals goals that individual was unaware of.

Your example did not include any case of violation of consent, that was not included in my already described position.

Your example of fraud provided an example that is not an exception to my argument.

Fraud is included in greater consent argument.

With the presence of a fraud, consent is diminished.

The example with children being left in house is a violation of consent unless children agreed to it and no harm comes to them.

First, I am not committing anything. I dont know where you got that from.

Do you just assume that everyone who says "children can consent" is a rapist?

"Legally unable" is not an argument.

If you claim children are not physically ready, then explain why.

None of that is equal to consensual sexual activities with children.

Please dont equalize "sexual assault" to "non-violent consensual sexual activities".

"Incomplete theory because it assumes that complete knowledge is inevitable (or even possible)."

Actually, it only says that ones consent can be violated only in cases where it uphelds ones greater consent.

Its purpose was to describe when is it allowed to violate ones consent.

So, violations of consent that dont serve such purpose are unjustified.

And of course, an effort to upheld consent needs to be made by entire society.

"Eating nothing but chocolate feels good but it's horrible for you."

How does that relate to sexual activities?

We know that eating nothing but chocolate would cause you to die, which is probably something you dont want.

However, sexual activities dont cause you to die.

Children know that they will get pleasure from sexual activities. They consent to that to realize their goals.

So its not rape.

Also, rape involves penetration. Sexual activities dont have to involve penetration.

"As you continue to evade the main point regarding the fact that children are easily manipulated, I am wasting my time."

That point is irrelevant to discussion, because it assumes children are always manipulated.

Are children being manipulated by society and by everyone then?

"I will stick with my original premise, children are easily manipulated and if they are subject to coercive manipulation by an adult, for that adult’s own ends, then that child is not consenting."

For adults own end? Children can desire sex for pleasure. So really, when they consent knowing they will get  such pleasure, it is a valid consent.

Greater consent is the one where individual has greater knowledge about an action related to his goals.

In cases where individual is consenting but is unaware of a great violation of his goals by such an action, only such consent can be treated as invalid.

Only in those cases, such partial consent can be violated to upheld greater consent.

However, this "violation of goals" does not happen during consensual sexual activities.

 

In fact, our society spends a lot of money to convince children that they are victims and that their goals have been violated.

This "convincing" is not voluntary. Children are forced to listen to it.

Since its impossible to make sense of such convincing, its hard to expect it resulting in something good.

Our society does a lot to punish sex and impose guilt and impose will onto others, but it seems that all it managed to do with that was to pollute the minds.

So in a way, we could say that the entire society lacks full knowledge about own goals.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.