So I’ve waited long enough trying to get a response to what is currently my most popular and controversial post. Decided to see if the Free Speech group on Gab.com is up to snuff when discussing these controversial idea. Well, I was met with the expected ad-hominem attacks without much discussion on the ideas/arguments presented in the blog. But there were some that were a bit more fruitful. Below is the post I made asking for a challenge (it also included a link to the original blog):
As for everyone else here in the Free Speech group, can I get any takers please? I legitimately want challengers to tackle my argument and attempt to destroy it, logically (none of that ad-hominem BS). The argument is: pedophilia shouldn’t be as illegal as it currently is under it’s broad scope.
Below are the discussions I’ve had, organized from a back-and-forth between me and one person, to the next exchange with another individual, and so on.
Children can’t consent. Children who have been sexualized by an adult are likely to suffer permanent and life altering changes to their body and mind.
“Likely” does not equal “guaranteed,” as there are factors involved in that, such as whether or not it was consensual, how mature the kid really is, if the adult was being reasonable and taking factors about the kid’s development into account, etc.
And your first statement is a lie. It’s not that “children can’t consent,” it’s that “many children can’t consent,” at least not in terms of being mature and wise enough to think for themselves and decide for themselves when pressured by an adult (though we should be debating what the definition of a child and adult actually is, if this continues).
As for “children can’t consent,” let me tell you why exactly that is bullshit. It is not that rare to learn that teenagers had sex with each other at some point. Don’t try to convince me otherwise, I’ve had friends who have discussed their experiences with that back in the day.
Well, I have to give you credit, that’s a good re-phrasal. The thing is, it’s not like drivers, drunk or not, usually give consent as to whether or not they want to get in an accident.
Ah. What I should have said is that it used to be ok for people to drive under the influence; as in there used to be no laws against it because people could be trusted to be responsible enough not to drive while drunk (at least THAT drunk). But eventually enough accidents happened to indicate that no, there are too many irresponsible drunkards out there, thus a law should be made against it. Despite the law, drunk drivers remain, and have arguably increased since (though that might be due to increased population; on the other hand, there’s the immigration factor to consider).
That’s about the laws being made due to irresponsibility of the driver. That analogy therefore would state that sex with minors is illegal because pedophiles can’t be trusted to be responsible. I can’t exactly argue with that in the general sense. However, if the conclusion doesn’t follow regarding drunk drivers in terms of, “because they can’t be trusted to be responsible individuals, drunk driving is illegal to reduce the likelihood of irresponsible individuals causing harm to others,” and equating that with pedophiles in place of drunk drivers, then I argue your conclusion isn’t exactly perfect either. Statistically speaking, if it can be shown that laws against drunk driving didn’t quell the number of drunk driving accidents on average, then it can be argued that laws against sex with minors wouldn’t fair much better.
I’m going to have to look for statistics on how laws against drunk driving affected the average number of drunk driving accidents (taking into account population growth, so more of a per 100,000 thing or something like that).
https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/…There’s also other charts showing that the rate these accidents occur varies wildly between states (California, Florida, and Texas are considerably higher than the others when it comes to DUI fatalities). So in a general sense, that seems to make your case, especially since underage DUIs play a factor into those statistics. However, there’s also the racial factor to consider. This is important because of culture clash, illegal immigration rates (and what their nationalities/race tends to be), and the fact that blacks and hispanics have a lower IQ on average compared to whites. I quote:
“Blacks comprise about 12 percent of the U.S. population, and Hispanics about 8 percent (Bureau of Census 1987). Research suggests that problem drinking and associated mortality rates are higher in these two minority groups than in the general public.”
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCYL.pdfThere’s other sources that also add indians (aka native americans) among those about as likely to have DUIs. But anyway, the point I’m making is that such laws regarding the legalities of drunk driving wouldn’t need to be implemented if there wasn’t an increase in the black and hispanic population compared to the white population (the latter of which has been on the decline since the 1960s, and may no longer be a majority by 2040). I would argue a similar case when it comes to age of consent laws.One more quote from the same source above, which can also be used as an analogy for why it is difficult to gather relevant data on the subject:
“Political and legal considerations may further limit the availability of relevant data. Drunk driving is a criminal and civil offense that can have severe personal consequences for the driver involved, Moreover, the stigmatization of individuals accused of drunk driving can also taint the groups to which they belong. Under these circumstances, government authorities may be reluctant to collect pertinent information on specific ethnic groups, or they may decline to release data that has been collected.”
Guess I should make my point more clear. Society should progress in such a way so as to make those sorts of laws unnecessary. You know, because a healthy and intelligent society would promote independent and responsible individuals. And yet society isn’t progressing in that direction. It’s regressing, because whites are becoming less of a majority, and as a consequence other races with other cultures and personalities and levels of intelligence are becoming more dominant. And that is the reason laws like this have become necessary, because they are dragging society down, and causing it to regress. For instance, the DUI rates in South Africa are higher than in the U.S., while they tend to be at their lowest in places like India and China. The latter countries are not where we’re getting the majority of our immigrants. Even Ireland has a considerably lower DUI rate than the U.S., and they’re notorious for drinking.
So yes, I’ll admit the laws are currently necessary, but with the caveat that they didn’t use to be necessary. And their necessity addresses the symptom rather than the cause. Because of that, in the long-term, the laws will eventually break down. Addressing the cause will require a more radical method of enforcement.
Pedophiles do great harm to society by seeding evil in the minds of those who are the future. They should be generally culled from society one way or another. It is likely, much like the homos, that their behavior could be rooted in some genes. So it would make sense to screen embryos for what amounts to evil genes and just eliminate them in the zygote stage or some similar early stage of development. Until we take such measures humanity will continue to have a large vein of evil within it. Who will decide such things? Why not. Let’s just do it.
“Pedophiles do great harm to society by seeding evil in the minds of those who are the future.”
In what way? I’m not trying to be a smartass here, I want to see where you go when it comes to getting to the root on how you justify that statement. Specifics.
Damage to the psyche of the child which ripples throughout the life of the person. This, causes other effects on society by that individual not being able to live up to his or her potential and ability to establish a proper psyche.
It is well known that child abuse lowers IQ, it stifles life prospects, it can cause many behavioral issues and mental illness. For starters, you can look up Stefan Molyneux and consult any honest psychologist. I’m not here to educate you but I will provide you with places you can start as I don’t really believe you’re completely genuine or sane. If you can’t find anything for yourself from there then you really are a loon. Or maybe you’re genuine in which case that is hilarious.
As a person you start with a range of potential and your environment determines wherein that range you rest and solidify as you grow as a being. A sexual intervention on part of a pedophile in the life of a child is very destructive and harms development. He has not the right to do that. Not to mention that children cannot give consent due to the fact that they don’t have full autonomy due to their underdeveloped brains. They are lesser creatures who need guidance and protection so they can grow into functioning adult humans. It is one main argument against allowing 14yr olds to vote or toddlers to drive, their biology.
If you want to loosen restrictions on laws against pedophilia you’re probably just a degenerate retard who (at best) wants to hold a naive mercy for a condition that is indeed pure evil. -You’re probably a leftist to but I don’t want to assume too much.- If the behavior has major roots in genetics then we will erase it from the face of the Earth if there is any good in humanity. You can screen a very early embryo for nearly anything without destroying it. Here is something like the apparatus that will be used to erase many of the evils of mankind after we get a visionary dictator: https://blog.ivf.com.au/embryo-screening
Ok, started reading through these links. The first one, linking to ScienceDaily, basically states that there’s a clear connection between those who have been subjected to “child abuse,” and those who haven’t, when it comes to long-term brain development (the first 20 years are of significant importance). The connection being those who have been subject to child abuse are more likely to commit suicide, mainly because it affects their brain’s ability to regulate emotions and attachment.
Fine and all, but “child abuse” isn’t exactly limited to sexual mistreatment of a child. It can also involve physical trauma, emotional trauma unrelated to sex, or just neglect. Hell, I myself am a victim of this, because I was dropped on my head when I was a baby (in a parking lot). Plus I got hit by a car a couple years after that. I’m well aware I’m different from others because of that, lacking the ability to become too attached to anyone or anything (it has its pros and cons), among other side-effects. I contemplated suicide in the 4th grade, and have the occasional hits of depression and suicidal thoughts every 3-4 months or so. None of that fucking happened because I was sexually abused as a kid. Being molested (consensually) doesn’t necessarily cause that lack of myelinated nerve fibres in the brain. It depends on how physically and emotionally traumatic such events are.
Please don’t respond until I go through the other 2 sites. One of them might change my opinion.
Fertile Minds website. Is this a joke? It talks about embryo screening. It doesn’t say anything about childhood development. It’s rubbish.
Feel free to respond.
Yeah Child Abuse is a bit of an umbrella term so what is your problem with linking to a study regarding the effects of abuse? Is the molestation of a child not child-abuse in your opinion? Really, I don’t think this can go anywhere you’re obviously a bit committed to that weird position of yours and it’s probably rooted in justifying whatever happened to you as a child. Which is a bit of a drop in an already filled bucket that states children are very much harmed by abuse in its many forms.
Yes I provided a website that is for a firm that does IVF procedures for those who want to screen out genetic abnormalities and mutations in primitive human embryos some of which are known to cause myraid disorders in children. I obviously linked you to that after saying that if pedophilia, like homosexuality is believed to, has serious underpinnings of genetics that it will be possible to erase/filter it from The Human Condition altogether. Did that reiteration of what I said earlier fly over your head to?
You can’t even understand my position and as I learn about yours it becomes obvious… Note, I gave you a springboard I’m not your search engine. Clearly you were molested and have deep issues regarding it and facing the damage it did to you as the underpinnings of psychological damage spread about your personality as you grew. Many things you have certainly done and are doing to compensate for this. You have been damaged by that/those events. I am 100% sure of this and because I now know that you truly are disturbed and aren’t just a troll or a curious fellow I won’t be talking to you again. I wish you luck in tackling the monster you have within you and I implore that you seek help if you don’t think you can handle its wiles. Evil exists and yes it has a natural form, character, and destination altogether I call it Human Entropy. Bye.
“Yeah Child Abuse is a bit of an umbrella term so what is your problem with linking to a study regarding the effects of abuse? Is the molestation of a child not child-abuse in your opinion?”
Rape of a child is definitively child abuse. The alternative, that’s basically what I’m arguing for. I’d go into more detail to clarify the specifics, but you’ve already stated that you’re previous response will be your last response, so I don’t see the point.
“I obviously linked you to that after saying that if pedophilia, like homosexuality is believed to, has serious underpinnings of genetics that it will be possible to erase/filter it from The Human Condition altogether. Did that reiteration of what I said earlier fly over your head to?”
Whew, ok, I guess I did misjudge your intention with that link. That is something that goes beyond what I aimed to talk about, and has the potential for even greater side-effects than underaged sex, or lack thereof, could ever do. That’s a topic too big for this discussion.
“Clearly you were molested and have deep issues regarding it and facing the damage it did to you as the underpinnings of psychological damage spread about your personality as you grew. […] I am 100% sure of this”
You’re a moron. You’re a moron for using the “making an argument from incredulity” fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy, and once again resorting to the ad-hominem fallacy. You’re also a moron for making a false assumption by making this more personal than it needs to be. So for your information, though you won’t believe it because you’re not open-minded enough, no, I was never molested as a kid. And quite frankly, I’ve never had sex with anyone. I’m a virgin. So you can take your certainties and shove it up your dim-witted ass. Don’t let the door hit you there on the way out.
Or is it frenemy? idk Just go dude we’re not going to get anywhere.
I prefer DuckDuckGo myself. In any case, the reason I ask is because you must surely know of a source yourself, otherwise why be so steadfast in your position? This is one of the reasons I question this stance in the first place, I don’t think any definitive studies supporting your position exist, anymore than definitive studies supporting my position exist. Where could one even hope to find such studies?
So the best I could do is find cases of a similar nature that imply my position is correct. For instance, a study showing that youths having sex during the ages of 13-15 have long term social/psychological benefits, such as being less likely to have delinquent behavior (which might explain why I am the way I am, along with the physical head trauma):
Now let’s see if we’ll get somewhere (I doubt it, but that might just be because I’m pessimistic).
Grown adults banging kids is wrong. Kids will be kids and explore with each other, there’s nothing stopping them from that and for the most part it’s handled by the family if at all. Education for those who have entered puberty is important, but supplying your kid the device with which to fuck themself is creepy and wrong. Kids under 15 should not have unsupervised access to television or the internet. That’s my position.
“I won’t make the mistake of saying something that can be twisted into a perversion.”
I just knew you were going to regret those words.
“Kids will be kids and explore with each other, there’s nothing stopping them from that and for the most part it’s handled by the family if at all.”
So I guess kids being kids and exploring each other and it being handled by the family means brothers and sisters doing a little incest is ok.
Sorry, I couldn’t help it. When someone gives enough rope to hang themselves with, it’s tough to resist kicking the table out from under them.
But anyway, being serious now. “Grown adults banging kids is wrong.” That’s true in a general sense. I argue that there should be exceptions. Because not having those exceptions allows for those laws/rules/ethics to be exploited in dangerous ways. People may say children are too vulnerable towards adults to allow for any adult-child relationship (in a sexual way) to ever safely work (by safely, I mean in terms of child development on an emotional/mental level). I say there exist children (I’m not saying they’re anywhere near the majority of cases, just that they exist) who are capable of exploiting vulnerable adults. Whether the adults are vulnerable because they are mentally stunted, physically stunted, because a child put them in that position or because they put themselves in that position; there do exist children who are definitely capable of taking advantage of adults in that way, and making the laws work even further towards that exploitation, just as women statistically take advantage of the courts in cases against men. Or have you heard that children raping adults is a thing? Because I can site some examples if you doubt it.
Those are some of the reasons why I hold the position I currently do.
And that slippery slope didn’t seem like that big of a deal prior to the 1920s. Because up until then, the age of consent (officially established in the 1880s, in America) as 10-12 years of age, depending on which State you were in. In some countries, such as Austria, the age of consent is 14 (present day).
I think you should start questioning why it was determined that age 18 (again, this varies by State, I’m just going with that number for general reference) was the one to go with. Doesn’t seem right to me that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is a crime, while a 50 year old having sex with a 22 year old is perfectly ok.
Perhaps you could start mentioning exactly why zero-tolerance policies regarding pedophilia (or more specifically, statutory rape) do exist. What are those good reasons? And do zero-tolerance laws not risk causing more harm than what the slippery slope could inevitably cause? Why shouldn’t these things be judged on a case by case basis?
Well, considering that puberty doesn’t happen until the age of 12 (sometimes as early as 11), you can rest assured that I won’t be talking about 9-18 pairs. Lowest I’d ever go, just based purely on a biological science point of view, is 12, if even that.
That aside, I’m not exactly seeing any specifics here. You’re not pointing out clearly what these flaws in logic are. Unless it’s based purely on the slippery slope argument, where one could argue that, “One day it will be age 16, next day it will be age 15, then 14, etc.” Kind of like how one argues about the slippery slope of abortion. However, the “slippery slope” itself is an argumentative fallacy. You can’t hope to win a logical argument on those grounds.
Ah shit. Well now I’m interested in looking into studies that explain why children are beginning to have puberty 1-2 years earlier than what was normally shown a decade ago. Probably has to do in-part with the chemicals in the water (not being ironic here, Alex Jones was kind of onto something there).
I’d have to go through more trials of objective critique, but for now I’d just fall back on my initial position of 12 years at the absolute earliest (if even that, and this again depends on the child itself, let alone what an adult would find attractive; for all I know these early pubescent are ugly mutated freaks). Main reason being is that children need to learn about their own self, their own sexuality, their own wants and desires first. Similar to the reason why I would never advocate for sex-change surgery or hormones or shit like that at an early age, except that is actually worse because that can cause both physical and mental harm in the long-run, maybe even the short term.
And that’s the thing. Some children are faster at learning about themselves in that way than others, just as some children can learn math faster than others, physics faster than others, etc. The only real way it can be judged is on a case by case basis. At the very least, I think we can both agree that each child is different (speaking beyond just sexuality here, I’m also talking personalities, physical attributes, mental functions/disfunctions, etc.)
PS: Have you even read the blog yet?
The other side of the coin is that some people may have enjoyed being molested at the time, and not let it affect them at all later in life.
And those laws may be designed to protect those who don’t fully understand things such as anatomy and whatnot, but that’s not exactly helping them completely now is it? How do we know for sure that the alternative wouldn’t be a better option? Not saying I’m advocating for child rape or anything (that should be obvious, but some people on here assume otherwise without looking into the context). Rape should always be punished, no matter the age (that should be independent from age of consent, statutory rape aside). I am saying that the age of consent should be lowered.
In any case, this looks like it’s heading in the direction of “agree to disagree.” Or something like that.
As far as agree to disagree, yeah pretty much. Maybe age of consent isn’t perfect in it’s current state, but dropping those laws is just inviting the wolves to the hen house.
“Thankfully things have changed.”
It’s objectively immoral because children’s minds/bodies haven’t matured enough to handle or understand the situation. They’re powerless to stop an adult or to say no. A pedo takes advantage of this knowing full well what they’re doing. It’s the highest level of child abuse.
Pedos can live their lives, look at all hentai they want, fantasize all they want but the moment they act on their urges, their life is forfeit. No sex offenders list. No jail or prison. No rehabilitation. No second chances. Just an expedited death.
“It’s objectively immoral because children’s minds/bodies haven’t matured enough to handle or understand the situation.”
Objectively not true. There are some children who are the exception to the rule because they do have minds/bodies that do what you say they don’t. For example, there are children who rape adults.
“They’re powerless to stop an adult or to say no.”
Powerless to stop on a physical level, generally speaking, yes. To say no, not necessarily.
“A pedo takes advantage of this knowing full well what they’re doing. It’s the highest level of child abuse.”
No, a child predator takes advantage of this. There’s a distinction between a pedophile and a child predator which should be made. That’s like saying all men who aren’t virgins have raped someone. Not true.
Even if this actually happened, a handful of children raping doesn’t change the fact that pedophilia is highly immoral.
Their “no” is not gonna be respected by a pedo. Children are very guilliable and trusting. They can easily be coerced or pressured into something they don’t understand. That’s the main reason why they can’t consent.
Child predator is a synonym of pedophile.
That’s like saying “statutory rape” is a synonym of “rape.” I don’t consider those equivalent, and neither do various sources.
On that note, from my understanding of the definition of a pedophile, as defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition:
“An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.”
I don’t exactly see that as being the equivalent of a predator.
Dude, you’re talking about advocating for fucking little kids and being called a predator for it.
It’s not comparable to being an advocate for pro-life and being called a nazi for it.
I hope dems and the LGBT crowd back this “pedo is a sexuality” stuff. It will be the end of their party and political movements. So just keep advocating away.
You asked that we don’t use ad hominem against you but yet you do when backed into a corner?
Considering your argument doesn’t mean I have to agree with it in any sense. You haven’t made any compelling arguments. Just false equivalences.
Yes, you’re making the argument for decriminalize/normalizing it at least in part. That’s what this whole thing is about.
Then let’s compare. You have argued that having sex with minors is wrong because their minds and bodies aren’t developed enough to handle it; the implication being this applies to ALL minors. You state that this is an objective fact (without citing a source to back it up). I argue back, objectively, that there are minors who do have minds and bodies that are developed enough to handle it, while keeping in mind this is a case-by-case basis that depends on both the child and the adult; an objective statement.
Your response to that is that (aside from attempting to redefine the actual definition of pedophile and equating it with child predator, of which there is a clear distinction definition-wise, which can be shown objectively) is that sex with minors is highly immoral either way. Well, that’s not quite how you word it; you worded it as child raping, which I think we can both agree is wrong, but that’s not what I’m arguing for here (unless you want to bring up “statutory rape,” in which case I am arguing exclusively about that). But anyway, assuming we’re on agreement that you intended to say that sex with minors is highly immoral no matter what, that’s a subjective statement, and you haven’t gone into the details as to why it is or isn’t immoral.
I made the mistake of not going into detail as to why I don’t believe it should be considered highly immoral when consensual sex is involved (and if the adult truly has no manipulative intent; that the adult has no intention of physically and mentally harming the child). Though I gave those details in the blog linked in the OP, which of course you haven’t read because you’re not interested in taking this discussion seriously, if you ever had that intention to begin with. So I’ll just repeat it here:
The golden rule, which multiple religions share to an extent: “Do unto others as you would do to yourselves,” or “Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself.” In other words, if you expect to be treated well by others, you should also treat them well. Be nice to others. Don’t do them any harm. There are some situations which could muddle that idea a bit when getting into nitty gritty details, but the long and short of it is that if an individual isn’t causing anyone any harm, they should be left alone.
Therefore, if the adult is not causing harm to the child through consensual sex, then it’s not immoral.
If none of that can be considered a compelling argument, than neither is anything you have said. And if you’re referring to my alleged ad-hominem against you when I said I doubted your mental capacity to understand (ie reason), that’s a way of goading you into trying to prove me wrong. You’ll either respond with an ad-hominem yourself, or you’ll show that you do posses an amount of reasoning capacity. If the former, then it will accelerate this conversation between us ending, and me potentially muting you. If the latter, then maybe things will get more constructive and enlightening.
You haven’t provided one source to any of the outlandish things you said. You’re the one challenging what’s accepted as established truth. I don’t need to back up that pedophilia is objectively immoral. It’s an established fact backed by decades of medical professionals saying that it is.
Pedophilia harms kids mentally and physically. Exceptions to a rule don’t change it or make a new one.
You asked people not to attack you as a person. Considering what you’re advocating for, that’s alot to ask for. You’re being a hypocrite for breaking your own rule.
I only bothered with this to make the counter argument so other people might read it. It’s obvious that you have a warped sense of morality and you’re just trying to justify it to others.
“You haven’t provided one source to any of the outlandish things you said. You’re the one challenging what’s accepted as established truth.”
Fair enough. Here’s one study stating that teens who have sex at an early age may be less inclined to exhibit delinquent behavior in early adulthood than their peers who waited until they were older to have sex:
And another that hypothesizes (and concludes) youth would experience more positive and less negative affects following sexual intercourse than at other times in their daily lives:
As for studies demonstrating that it can be beneficial for an adult to have sex with a minor, good luck finding one of those. Although it may be possible if one were to go overseas to analyze such studies in certain countries where that is more legal. In any case, the studies above show that minors having sex has benefits in terms of mental development, potentially even physical.
“I don’t need to back up that pedophilia is objectively immoral. It’s an established fact backed by decades of medical professionals saying that it is.”
And they say the same thing about the Holocaust, and some places outlaw questioning it. And yet there are valid reasons to question it, some of which I’ve looked into, which provide very convincing arguments. This response of yours isn’t good enough. You do need to back it up if you wish to challenge my argument successfully. And if you have decades of medical professionals at your disposal, then this should be easy for you.
“Pedophilia harms kids mentally and physically. Exceptions to a rule don’t change it or make a new one.”
Science says otherwise. Exceptions make new rules (or formulas) all the time in those fields.
“You asked people not to attack you as a person. Considering what you’re advocating for, that’s alot to ask for.”
As Socrates once said, strong minds discuss ideas, weak minds discuss people.
“I only bothered with this to make the counter argument so other people might read it.”
Then consider my responses to you as intended to do the same.
“It’s obvious that you have a warped sense of morality and you’re just trying to justify it to others.”
Perhaps. But it’s also something I being brought up so it can be challenged. I want to see if it stands up to scrutiny. So far the primary thing being scrutinized is me, and not the idea itself.
Your question is mainly about the age of consent.
The age of consent is there to allow someone enough time to mature in order to lower the chances of predators taking advantage of someone.
This issue is a question of capacity. It is better to be cautious than allow room for predators to take advantage. That’s what predators do.
The goal is to prevent harm by predators.
But how does one arrive at that “age of consent” number? Especially when children have been shown to develop at varying rates; including maturity.
And I’m sure we can both agree that no one wants a predator to take advantage of a child (or of anyone for that matter, of any age). The issue is that sometimes the children themselves can become the predator. At which point they are the ones taking advantage of the age of consent laws (potentially for blackmail, let alone other reasons).
Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill by arguing the minimal possibility. Those situations will almost never happen. Wringing your hands over that small possibility is a waste. Due Process will take its course if someone has a good, competant lawyer.
The number is arbitrary. How can someone ever predict someone else’s capacity via age? It’s too broad and specific language written in law defining all of that would never be decipherable. Something has to be in place and it is better to not allow room for potential predatory behavior to occur thus becoming a deterrent.
It may not always work at deterrence but what does 100% of the time?
You may have self-control but not everyone does or wants to exercise self-control.
For simplicity purposes, statute uses 18 (mostly). The law has to be used as a deterrent and punishment. It isn’t perfect but predators never sleep.
This is a proper use of law.
“Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill by arguing the minimal possibility.”
Oh come on. Like laws don’t exist because of a minimal possibility. “Mountain out of a mole hill” is pure semantics. They used to say we shouldn’t take the PC police so seriously, not to make a mountain out of a mole hill regarding PC arguments during the 90s, and look how that’s turned out today.
If the law isn’t perfect, a way to make it more “perfect” should be sought out, while taking various things into account. For instance, statistically speaking, what kind of people are these child predators? Is there a predominant race in relation to them? A predominant religion? State? City? How about false accusations (or how often those are exploited; consider #MeToo as an analogy)?
And what of other countries that define such a law differently?
I’m more interested in the ethics/morals of it than the legalities, mainly because the legalities should serve the ethics, not the other way around.
The law must be written so as not to make it easier for predators to take advantage of people.
By using 18 (mostly) as the benchmark, it will act as a deterrent and punishment towards those who would engage in predatory behavior because it will be enforced and prosecuted.
The morality involved is preventing predatory behavior.
Ground cannot be given in favor of predatory behavior of any kind, it must be fought, not negotiated with.
Law cannot be perfect, that is a losing pursuit, it can be just or unjust. Due process exists to determine whether applied law is just or not. If it isn’t, the evidence, circumstances and facts will prove someone innocent.
Using minority possibilities is the same argument used by anti-death penalty advocates and many people buy it. It doesn’t represent a solution.
“The law must be written so as not to make it easier for predators to take advantage of people.”
True, but there are scenarios where the cons outweigh the pros (or at the very least don’t make enough difference to the point where such a law is pointless). It should just be stated that, “rape is illegal, end of story,” and everything would/should be honkey-dory. But no, they had to throw in the whole statutory rape thing, and an age of consent (which for the record used to be 10-12 years of age during the 1880s, maybe even up to the 1920s). Just making rape illegal wasn’t good enough, they had to take extra measures. Because, you know, society couldn’t be trusted anymore to raise kids to say no, or trust communities not to take care of their own and have police and courts handle the matters themselves on a case-by-case basis.
No more than you could trust people to use guns responsibly. That’s why there are gun-free cities and states (and even countries). And look how well that’s turning out for places like the UK, and Chicago, among others. That certainly stopped gun crimes (let alone crimes that guns would act as a deterrent to) didn’t it? That’s sarcasm, just in case that needed to be pointed out.
Sticking to more basic functions tends to be more beneficial, such as just saying “murder is illegal,” which you would think would act enough as a deterrent towards people with guns who want to kill other people. Because the laws aren’t exactly acting as a barrier towards the degradation of society. What good is the law if society is becoming rotten? Because sooner or later, a rotten society will make rotten laws. Then what good is the law?
You could argue that “rape is illegal” is an imperfect law. After all, there are false rape accusations. The side-effect of statutory rape (ie age of consent) laws make such false accusations even more deadly. Many would be crucified just from those accusations alone, whether they are true or not. They even used such a tactic against Donald Trump during the 2016 election. Granted, there are times where the evidence will show that this isn’t the case, but sometimes that’s not enough.
By using examples of similar laws as a comparison (such as gun ownership laws and their various forms, among other types of laws meant to deter crime such as violent crime), it can be argued that statutory rape laws do more harm than good.
There are too many variables in the human condition to legislate morality. However, there are situations in which law, with some arbitrary elements, is necessary to be applied. Not in all areas nor too broadly.
Consent laws have already been re-written over the years to allow for accommodation of circumstance-in the interest of fair justice and due process.
I maintain that the arbitrary consent benchmark is not as draconian as some people think it is.
It is a necessary arbitration in law used with more mitigations on behalf of society by preventing a predatory instinct in some people from doing harm by prosecuting them.
It is a just use of law with the best effect possible.
“It is a just use of law with the best effect possible.”
I’d rephrase it as a law made with the best intention possible. I have already had my say on why those good intentions cause harm that can be avoided. You’re basically repeated what has already been said, none of which directly addresses my earlier statement(s) in such a way as to challenge me to say them. And I’m not sure what else I can say without repeating myself. Each child is different, some mature faster than others, and thus some become mature enough to be considered adults earlier/later than others. And my opinion is that making such laws, considered non-draconian, causes more harm than good.
The compromise, in my opinion, should be, “Let the parents decide.” I don’t mean them deciding on a law, I mean on them deciding on what is in the best interests of their children in such matters, while also having the consent of the child himself/herself. I think we can both agree that in the majority of cases, the parents will say no. But there will be cases where they will say yes. I would know, I’ve seen examples of such cases, where the kid was fine with it (the kid came on to the adult in one such case), the adult was fine with it, and the parents were fine with it, but later on the adult got arrested and incarcerated when others found out and informed the authorities. It seems to me that in that situation, common sense would dictate that those two should just have their relationship until it eventually breaks apart. Or, and this is the difficult outcome for some to fathom, they stay together happily for many years.
Not to mention studies showing that having sex at a young age (teenage years, 13-15 years of age), not necessarily with adults mind you, can actually be beneficial towards their development, making them have a healthier social life in the long-term.
You’re failing to see human nature. Humans will gravitate toward the destructive side of their nature if given the chance.
You’re arguing to give more people that chance but you don’t see it. You’re excusing potential predatory behavior by masking it with variable consent.
The intention of the law is to prevent predatory behavior. It will prevent that behavior more than people will be able to engage in it through prosecution, prison, sex offender registries and intervention.
It will deter potential predatory behavior by planting the thought of consequences in the minds of those who consider those actions. Nothing will stop man’s destructive tendencies but effective consent laws such as 18 (mostly) as the age of consent will establish boundaries that are needed to prevent destructive behaviors from spreading.
I agree, human nature does tend to cause humans to gravitate towards their destructive side. However, to turn that argument back around onto you, this also includes children, who are arguably more aggressive in nature than adults are. And they can exploit these very laws you deem necessary to act as predators on adults. As mentioned earlier, false rape claims (and how much worse they are when it’s a child making the false rape accusation), and the damage that can cause on adults who did nothing wrong. By putting up such legal boundaries, that breaks down others.
While there’s no agreeable percentage as to how often false rape vs. real rape accusations occur, false rape accusations do occur far more frequently than actual rape accusations. And the reasons for false rape accusations can be any of these reasons (among others):
• Mental Illness
• Profit/Financial Reasons
• Create an Alibi
Now tell me that at least half those reasons wouldn’t apply towards a teenager, especially in this day and age when they demand attention (particularly online on social media), when there’s a promotion of victimization (thus a want for sympathy), many with mental illnesses included Trump Derangement Syndrome (I’m starting to believe that’s related to some real medical illness) and transgenderism (that I also believe to be an illness the majority of the time), and depression caused from all of the above, among other things.
Boundaries needed to prevent destructive behaviors from spreading? Statutory rape laws are ticking time bombs in that regard in this context.
You’re jumping around too much. Let’s stay on one topic. Your blog post is asking about the age of consent in law.
It is a question of capacities, which are too variable in the human condition to write laws navigating through them. Some arbitration is necessary in the interest of upholding order.
18 is not a bad age to draw the line. It allows a reasonable amount of time for someone to develop enough mental capacity to make reasoned, informed decisions on their own.
Arguing minority possibilities is not sufficient to strike down the current accepted (in most states, by law) standard age of consent.
Aberrations surrounding the law’s application fall under due process. Cases go to court and they are adjudicated based on their evidence, facts and circumstances.
“It is a question of capacities, which are too variable in the human condition to write laws navigating through them. Some arbitration is necessary in the interest of upholding order.”
Which is why I suggested earlier it should be scaled back to just making “rape” in general illegal, kicking out the “statutory rape” part (or even downgrading it to age 14), and letting the parents be the deciding factor along with the child who have their own desires. That addresses the variabilities to a reasonable extent.
“18 is not a bad age to draw the line. It allows a reasonable amount of time for someone to develop enough mental capacity to make reasoned, informed decisions on their own.”
Generally true, but I’ve already addressed why it may not be unreasonable to lower that number. I’d just be repeating myself if I brought up those points again. But I can add one thing I didn’t bring up before. How do we know laws such as this, and the societal norms that have spawned from, and been built upon, such laws haven’t had a detrimental effect on society? For instance, coddling a child too much ultimately makes them less independent in their later years; and laws such as those encourage, and increase the likelihood of, that happening to the average child. 18 may only sound like a good age to draw the line simply because we’ve been trained to think that way because of conclusions drawn from flawed studies that we take for granted regardless (more on that later). Been trained so much that many react violently to just even discussing the alternative, as anyone can see from the responses the OP has gotten.
“Arguing minority possibilities is not sufficient to strike down the current accepted (in most states, by law) standard age of consent.”
Ah, the accusation of the “small number statistics” fallacy. That would be a good point, if there were statistics to back your position. Plus that same argument you just made could be used during the 1960s civil rights movement when it came to giving rights to minority blacks. Or even further back, minority Japanese, or minority Irish. Except in this case it applies to all children of all races.
Plus you base that accusation upon the “bandwagon” and the “appeal to tradition” fallacy. Using tradition/cultural belief as the basis for the argument. I’m more interested in the arguments and studies used to reach those standards, because I’ve seen cases (not necessarily related to age of consent laws) where such standards were set due to faulty studies and arguments. One only has to look at the Hays Code, or even aspects of climate science, let alone certain historical events, to show how that line of reasoning can be faulty.
“Aberrations surrounding the law’s application fall under due process. Cases go to court and they are adjudicated based on their evidence, facts and circumstances.”
You need me to point out cases where those who were falsely accused still got sentenced and punished, for crimes they didn’t commit? For reasons similar, if not entirely related, to age of consent laws?
Bad ideas like this will cause much harm to people that could have been avoided.
* Slippery slope
* Argument from incredulity: denying my claim because you refuse to believe it could ever be true under any circumstance.
* Appeal to consequences: the assumption that my premise is false because of the alleged harmful consequences that may follow, even though I have mentioned how current age of consent laws have their own harmful consequences.
* Argumentum ad baculum: attempting to incite fear over what may happen should one carry this line of thought.
* Argumentum ad populum: you’re appealing more to sentiment than to reason at this point.
* Begging the question: justifying elimination/downgrading of age of consent laws will cause more harm than good. But would the elimination of such laws actually make things worse, considering how things were pre-1920s?
* Composition: incorrectly assuming that elimination of age of consent laws will increase the number of child predators nation-wide, when in fact other factors independent of that law do exactly that (illegal immigration).
* Confirmation bias: ignoring facts I brought up so you can make a case based on your own personal beliefs.
* Excluded Middle (aka Black & White): Implying my propositions can only lead to predatory behavior.
* Straw Man: Misrepresenting my argument to be pro-predatory, when I have explained I am against rape and taking advantage of someone to their detriment.
PS: There’s a chance this post might get updated, should the conversations continue, or if a new one starts. Though if there’s too many, that would be cause to create a new post altogether. Regardless, anyone wants to challenge my position, feel free to do so.