Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 206 (261548)
11-20-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-19-2005 6:25 PM


enter holmes...
How long could I possibly stay away from this topic?
I believe sexual taboos, such as multiple wives, homosexuality, multiple partners, even sex with minors, etc,...(but not rape), are more the result of moral judgments, and that a large part of morality is founded in religious beliefs though that's not the only source.
Yes, all taboos are moral judgements. I suppose you shouldn't use the term "religion" in this kind of discussion, just because morals can come from everywhere even if many use their religion to justify (and form) their moral outlook.
I'm not trying to pull religion out of this, just trying to make the discussion more accurate. After all Xian fundies and antiporn feminists share an almost identical moral outlook on sex and porn, though the latter often claims to have no belief in Xianity. Thus its easier to discuss morals.
Many laws on such subjects as you detail are indeed impositions of morality. But not all.
In addition to moral "harm", some activities carry real life issues which someone would want protection from. For example, a person who discovers their spouse has been unfaithful, when fidelity was a part of their pact, is not exactly imposing a moral judgement to prosecute based on breach of contract.
I don't think there is a very good scientific explanation why a man should remain monogamous, or why willing people, should not engage in sex.
Science never ever determines should or ought. If this is what you think people can or do use to generate behaviors you are mistaken. Anyone that claims to do the same are also mistaken.
All science can do is explain what a situation is. Individuals must apply their rule system upon that situation to generate a moral conclusion, or in some way determine a course of action.
For example a panel of scientists can determine that an individual is packed to the gills with communicable diseases (STDs and other) and you have no chance of survival if you decide to have sex with that person. It still remains up to you to do the moral calculus on whether that is a "right" choice.
If so, does science inherently lead to amorality in terms of sexual behaviour that is non-violent?
No. Science can lead to a loosening of morally restricted activities as those who base their judgement of "wrong" on "harm", discover through science that almost all sexual behaviors cause no harm at all. That is different than leading to amorality, as this actually just redefines actions as moral in a very moral driven system.
If you do not base your moral judgements on "harm", or some other objectively measurable criteria, science won't effect anything at all.
And of course just because one realizes something may not be harmful, and so believe that it is not "wrong", that doesn't mean they will end up liking it.
Of course laws should not be constructed based on what people "dislike". That is enforcing a morality, which is the same as enforcing a religion, and so unConstitutional.
for example, when we prosecute a 30 year old teacher for having sex with teen-age boys, are we imposing our religion on them? How about if a 30 year old man sleeps with a 15 year old girl?
These two situations have additional issues... parents. Consent of the kid is a smokescreen by some. It is really consent of the parents that are the important issue. As long as we believe parents have rights to try to impose moral systems upon their kids, there can certainly be a legitimate reason to view someone violating that family's "system" as something other than "harmless" activity.
This does not exactly argue for blank slate laws against such activity (as we have now), but it does support laws along this line giving parents the ability to protect their own families, and kids protecting themselves.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 6:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:21 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 102 by riVeRraT, posted 11-23-2005 8:50 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 23 of 206 (261550)
11-20-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Omnivorous
11-19-2005 9:09 PM


Re: Loaded Terms
Nice post, however...
The notion of moral relativism is itself prima facie absurd because it suggests it could be otherwise: all moral systems are relative in that they cohere only for those within them.
This is not quite true. Moral Absolutism is surely possible. Of course the absolutist has their work cut out for them showing how there are absolutes!
I think its better to say that in a practical sense all moral systems are relative.
In short, disdain for the philanderer does not impose religious beliefs; he may well not give a fig for our disdain, and even if he does, disdain is an internal state, not an action. To abduct that man into a moral system he has not subscribed to, and then to pursue punitive measures, is an absolutely immoral act.
As much as I loved your wording in this whole paragraph... poetry... I have to disagree. Disdain for the philanderer is to impose one's own moral system on them. You are correct that the philanderer will reject that attempted imposition, but clearly someone will be trying to get the philanderer to accept the intrusion (or "blanket") of that foreign system.
That last sentence is gorgeous and I am going to have to think about it for a while.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Omnivorous, posted 11-19-2005 9:09 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 11-20-2005 12:45 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 206 (261804)
11-21-2005 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
11-20-2005 6:11 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
I am saying that it seems that, at present, it should if you assume that moral judgements should not be based on religion or personal values, but on scientific ones, and my point is most that bash the religious right are doing the exact same thing as the religious right is doing, but they don't admit that.
That is 100% correct. That has been the thrust of many of my threads and posts within the coffee house and it has a bearing on the EvC question as well.
Morality is being imposed through laws, by both conservatives and liberals, sometimes for the same ends, despite having different sources.
Those that bash fundies for hating gays, turn and bash other sexual minorities with equal joy and bloodlust, and with just as little reason.
What's more, so called liberals who pretend to love science and despise religious bigotry have in fact joined with fundies to demand that science conform (that is must be edited) to support sexual mores... as long as it does not effect gays.
It is hypocrisy and it is unConstitutional behavior. This does not suggest however, that science can or should shift moral judgements on sexual behavior, nor that sexual laws have no legitimacy.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:11 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:29 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 206 (261808)
11-21-2005 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ohnhai
11-20-2005 5:06 PM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
The age of consent question, although it is a line you should not cross,
Ahhhhh, this is what I am talking about. It is arbitrary, but you should not cross it. Why? The line between races was arbitrary, so no one should have crossed it? The line between same sex couplings is arbitrary, so no one should cross it? The line between unmarried persons having sex is arbitrary, so no one should cross it?
And when you say it should not be crossed, which line? Within the US that line varies from 13 up to 18. Across the world it varies from 9-21.
Why does an arbitrary line, with no distinct value anyway, contain any validity such that you would recommend not crossing it?
the human race is the only critter, on the whole, that doesn’t start mating the instant after puberty(as far as I know).
This is a bit inaccurate. Human critters are sexual from about the get go. Children will engage in masturbation and then exploration with others, IIRC from just a few weeks on up. They may have... I mean they DO have... sexual activity with others well before puberty. They just don't have kids before puberty for rather obvious biological reasons.
If by "on the whole", you meant "the majority" then that would be correct, though as I say a bit inaccurate. Its not like they naturally wouldn't. Its that they are restricted from such activity.
Science may throw in studies in regard to the mental health of young people who have been hunted by older predatory adults and thus help set the bar
There are no valid studies which do this, so the second part of your sentence is underlined. It comes from society and changing mindsets.
The history of AOCs is interesting. It began as a way to wipe out child prostitution, and eventually became some urban myth type belief system that kids are intrinsically harmed by sex below such ages, and then that kids don't even desire or pursue such activities under that age unless they are unhealthy in some way.
We think, on the whole, that our children are simply not ready for all that at the age of puberty. I agree.
But this is contrary to scientific understanding. That you are not comfortable with this idea, or would not want your own kids involved with this is beyond dispute. That would be legitimate. Assertions of "readiness", beyond some simple mechanical issues, are not.
History, and not just recent history, is filled with cultures where it has occured to routinely to claim some difference to why they could handle it but others cannot.
There is a desire and will by society in recent times to make sure such relations end up disastrously, just as it had with gays for years. The fact that they are successful these days despite the incredible odds and legal forces against them, suggests that kids certainly can be ready and more formidable in pursuing their own desires than many believe possible.
Either way this is a problem and needs to be dealt with education, treatment and in the latter case punishment.
I agree that rape is harmful... someone's rights are intrinsically violated... and so sort of beyond question as needing full legal restrictions. I am having problems with the "punishment" part. Education, treatment, and restriction makes sense to me. How does punishment do anything for anyone?
While on purely biological grounds you could at least explain underage sex between sexually mature willing partners (ie post puberty), the pheromones, the pheromones . the great tabbo however is sex with non sexually active partners ( ie below the age of puberty.) This no matter how you dress, it is clear indication that something has gone badly wrong.
Time to recheck your science. Science cannot say what is right or wrong. If it is happening it is happening and you can only say why it is happening. The idea that it is right/wrong or natural/unnatural is entirely moral posturing.
In fact it is almost laughable in that you seem to be saying that science can come up with an explanation for one kind of sex so maybe it has some legitimacy, but this other kind cannot be so it must not? Could it be that science has no explanation for the other because it is considered taboo and so wholly unresearched?
Earlier, and to some extent even today, there is no scientific "explanation" for homosexuality. Why would two people be attracted to sexual partners whose pheromones would not result in proper mating activity? Obviously something is "wrong"... though we should champion re-education over punishment?
In reality, checking back into scientific knowledge, sex with prepubescents is not outside of normal sexual behavior within the animal kingdom. Indeed our closest relative, the Bonobos, have sex with prepubescents as freely as post. Thus there does not appear to be anything "wrong" with this behavior, unless one wants to believe the myth that man was created separately and so could not naturally engage in behavior seen elsewhere.
mis-placed desire.
You will perhaps entertain me with an explanation of what science defines as correctly placed desire?
Heheheh... okay this was a veritable spanking machine. Your smart and I like your writing so its nothig personal. However, misuse of science particularly in the name of sexual moralism gets me really hot under the collar.
You have made a big mistake, and it is exactly what rand was suggesting. You have projected your own ethnocentric beliefs into scientific knowledge, and are using it to justify legislation of your morals.
There are legitimate reasons for some laws regarding sex with those who have legal guardians (sex with mature but retarded individuals is the same as sex with those under age). Appeals to naturalness or "wrongness" or "readiness" from science is not one of them.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ohnhai, posted 11-20-2005 5:06 PM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:07 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 88 by ohnhai, posted 11-22-2005 5:39 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 206 (261810)
11-21-2005 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
11-20-2005 9:10 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
pretty much everybody else has come out for the right of consenting people to do whatever they choose to do with each other. The question of who can consent and who cannot doesn't seem to be a moral issue, to me.
It is a moral issue. I have already shown this factually to you. If you cannot admit that this is true when data shows that our definition of consent does not align with who is doing what and who is choosing to do what and who is being harmed by what, then you are being intellectually dishonest.
I'm not sure how many times I will have to repeat the facts to you. People believed that gays could not properly consent, and even that masturbators could not rightly give consent. Did that make it true?
The concept of consent and age is a convenient moral tool with the sound of some sort of legitimacy, like you are basing it on objective competency. It has all the reality of saying that the Bible says anyone under 18 can't consent and so sex is wrong.
Indeed let's start right there. Let's say the Bible says that. Thus I am up in arms that anyone should believe that and laws should be applied. Now show me that science in fact can show that there is something to this concept of "consent", and that it is related with something for which laws should be enacted.
If not, then their claiming gays cannot consent because the bible says only bad people do so is as just and relevant.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2005 9:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 9:47 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 49 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:10 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 206 (261903)
11-21-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 9:47 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
I'm sorry, where did you do that? How, exactly, do you think you can establish morality as a factual issue?
In past threads I have pointed you to my thread on the rand study. No matter what your criticisms of that study, the one thing which it certainly pulled apart was the notion that "consent" is a valid scientific criterion of anything.
It is moral based, and similar if not identical to the moral terms used in the past against homosexuality and masturbation.
I don't understand what would be hard to establish anything as a moral issue? Could you explain what would be hard with this?
Some people can consent; some cannot. It has nothing to do with their age, and nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with an objective assessment of their mental competence, and is thus not a moral issue for me, but a measuring issue.
Fine... show it. I have a thread on a study of the most up to date science on this issue and it says different, it is backed up with other research which says different.
Indeed these scientists even connected such assessments to the gay and masturbation issue (though I believe that is more developed within the other articles cited), but you just danced over.
Start with what consent is, then how you measure it, and why nonconsent itself is an issue which should allow moral and legal repercussions.
your breathless screed doesn't seem to indicate that you fully understood my point.
Breathless screed? Actually this all shows I understood what you said, but you still have no clue what I have presented to you regarding science and consent.
I have so far been agreeing with what you've been posting (you may even note that you have a mention in a POTM by me for this specific thread). My criticisms here are very specific and targeted and at most show my frustration that you still discuss "consent" as some nonmoral based issue.
That you have read anything more into my statements, shows your defensiveness and not my offensiveness. Cool down and reassess.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 9:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:36 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 57 of 206 (261920)
11-21-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
11-21-2005 10:10 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
You have two posts asking essentially the same question, so I'll answer both with this one.
So, is there any age at which you would say that it is impossible for a person to give consent to having sexual intercourse?
The first thing I would ask you is what you are using to define consent? If you mean willing to go along with/desiring such contact then there is no real age where it is impossible to give consent.
If you mean full on penetrative intercourse then that'll have physical limits set by the individuals.
The second thing I might ask, to start another important track in this argument you'd be making, is what does nonconsent have to do with being a problem such that it needs to be controlled in some way? For example at which age would you say that it is impossible for a person to consent to eating jello, and if there is such a boundary, what would make it problematic to feed the person jello?
Furthermore, is there any age at which you would say that it is impossible for a person to give consent to having sexual intercourse with an adult?
I am uncertain why such a line would be affected by an adult being involved.
Why do I have this feeling you are conflating ability to consent with inability to back up nonconsent? Kids are better than adults in letting people know exactly what they want and don't want. Whether they can be beat down is something else entirely.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:10 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:52 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 59 of 206 (261927)
11-21-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
11-21-2005 9:40 AM


This is my position exactly regarding consent laws.
There are plenty of lonely men who are willing to give consent, but there are plenty of lonely men who can be taken advantage of. The law has to draw a single line for everybody, some fall on one sideof the law, some on the other.
This is an equal position for sexual laws nixing gay sex. My guess is you would not agree with them.
The idea that repression of one group can be justified by the protection of some within that group who suffer something that has no connection to that first group is pretty ridiculous. You can't stop rape by making sex illegal.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 9:40 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:57 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 206 (262064)
11-21-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 11:36 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
the second are the precepts we draw on the basis of their objective, testable merit to society.
You can define or assess morals differently from ethics. However both, as long as they generate a conclusion of value to something, are not objective and include wholly subjective criteria. The concept of merit is inherently a subjective term.
Here is an example. The ancient aztecs believed there was great merit in the amount of crying a child did before a sacrifice. We could objectively measure this and so judge its merits, but that would not be judged a merit across societies.
I see consent as an ethical issue because the issue itself is ameinable to objective study. Objectively, there are some people who cannot understand the risks of what they agree to do; thus, their consent is meaningless. And persons who place them in those risks knowing that they cannot understand them are culpable, just as they would be if they exposed someone to a risk directly against their will.
Here we have entered the realm of defining what consent is. Unfortunately the concept that those who cannot understand risk cannot assent is not objective. That is a subjective definition. Essentially what you have done here is make consent=risk assessment capability.
Why could a person not validly say that consent is merely giving positive assent to an activity? You say without risk knowledge it is meaningless, but is that objective? The other person could reasonably say that it does have meaning. It tells that person whether the person wants to do something given what they know, even if it is merely their own will.
The second step you take is even more subjective. One cannot objectively equate a person who involves another (who is unable to assess a risk) in an activity, with a person who forces a person to take a risk against there will. They are quite patently not equal situations, though one can subjectively feel they are the same "level" of risk imposition.
In addition to equating two separate issues, it also imposes a responsibility or culpability which does not objectively exist. There are other cultures which do not believe one is responsible for the actions of others at all, and it is up to the individual to learn for themself through experience. Are they objectively incorrect?
But let's ignore that issue and assume for sake of argument that what you have said is logically possible and indeed objective.
A child or mentally challenged person (MCP) would not be able to assess the risks involved with eating jello, crossing the street, or swimming. Would you define them as being unable to consent to such activities, and those who would involve them in such activity as equal to forcing them to do such things against their will?
As it is age and experience hardly makes anyone fully or equally knowledgeable about risks involved with all activities. Does this make a more knowledgeable person responsible for the decisions of all less knowledgable people they may interact with?
It might also ask what risks is a person who has no stds, and does not go outside of physical limits of a child, put a prepubescent in? Or in the case of someone sterilized and has no stds, put anyone in?
surely you believe that coercion exists?
Yes. But my definition of coercion means that a person has not consented, unless it is the consent to the lesser alternative between two harms forced upon them.
Or that an extremely young or developmentally retarded person could consent to a risk they simply can't understand?
Consent to an activity is not equal to consent to all risks possible. When does anyone of any age know all risks involved with any activity? It was earlier thought that masturbators and homosexuals were essentially MCPs with regard to sexual activity. They were not capable of understanding the risks they were exposing themselves and others to. Is this the case? No? How would you go about assessing this?
Assuming age equals competence for such people is not valid.
Certainly it destroyed the link between consent and age, but the idea of consent in general? I don't see how you think it did that. Do you honestly believe that a two-year-old, for instance, could meaningfully appreciate the risks of operating a power tool? Or a firearm? I mean, isn't that why we lock up our guns? Because our young children aren't able to understand the risks of their use?
Don't you see that you are slowly moving the goalposts by changing definitions, and indeed are missing an important underlying point?
The study looked at harm as related to consent. That is does harm correlate with concepts of consent? The ongoing practice was to link consent to age, with the assumption that they are all unwilling under a certain age and so will face harm. Ergo it looked at harm as related to age. Since you equate forcing someone to risk harm with those choosing to undergo unknown harm, based merely on age, the study's results still holds some validity.
It is correct that they were not measuring differing ability to assess risk, but that does not validate your concept that consent is properly linked to risk assessment, nor undercut the importance that one cannot automatically link harm with age.
That has some impact even if one believes that less knowledge of risk leads to actual greater risk.
By the way, if I have not mentioned yet, there are cultures that allow children to play with what we would call dangerous tools. Are they unethical to you? They say they are quite ethical and argue that their method builds self-reliance and responsibility. Is this not possible?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:42 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 206 (262074)
11-21-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
11-21-2005 11:52 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
So, you believe a newborn infant can consent to sexual contact with another person?
Yes.
If so, how do you know?
How would you not know? When babies don't like anything they cry like hell.
Is a newborn infant physically capable of being penetrated?
I don't know. I would say not for most things. I guess it depends on what you want to put in it, and where you want to stick it. If you mean a full grown man's cock, then no.
First of all, how is "eating jello" a comparable activity, wrt the potential consequences and risks, to engaging in full on penetrative intercourse?
I'm sorry but there are risks with everything. Two do not have to be equal in degree in order to be said it pose risk and that a person might not understand what that risk is.
If you criteria for consent is knowing all risk then a child cannot consent to eating jello.
What risks can eating jello pose? Besides introducing sugar addiction, bad diets, and bad teeth, one can choke to death on jello, or even get sick depending on how it was made.
Is there any age below which you would consider it unreasonable for a person be expected to fully understand the risks and consequences of giving consent to having sexual intercourse with anyone?
Well that is hard since I don't consider it reasonable to expect that adults fully understand the risks involved with anything.
But since you want to limit this to full sexual penetration, anyone can tell when they are being penetrated beyond their capability, unless they are incapable of feeling pain.
I am unsure what age would be the practical age for identifying possible sexual diseases. My guess would be minimum 8-9 years? With instruction of course. That'd be like instructing them in any other protective skill.
And before you jump all over me for this, I am actually shooting higher than actual programs in existence. There are sexual safety programs instructing kids as young as five and six. I remember watching some actress blubbering as she explained how they needed to be instructed in such things in that country.
I am still not into equating risk assessment with consent.
is there any age below which you would consider it unreasonable for a child to be able to defy or resist the cultural authority and power asigned adults over children, the use of coercive or pressuring methods, or the ability to detect dishonesty in an adult?
I don't think this is what you wanted to ask. My obvious answer would be that it sis reasonable for a child to defy and resist anyone of any age doing something they don't want to do.
I think you meant that they'd have that ability. That they can let it be known, there is no age they cannot let their will be known. That they can try to defy, any. That they can ultimately succeed, depends on the child and family, but probably won't have total success until 12-13.
Detect dishonesty? Who can do that at any age? I've been getting screwed by liars my whole life.
at what age would you consider it too much to ask for a child to have to deal with all of that?
Ohhhhh booohoooo, let me go running from the room in tears for the poor kids! Oh wait, no this is reality and appeals to emotion are just fallacies.
Let me ask you a question: at what age is it too much to ask a child to have to deal with being told they must go to church? To finish all that has been put on the plate? To do anything they do not want to do, because some adult wants them to do it?
And indeed why is telling kids they cannot engage in sexual activity if they are wanting to, somehow less of an imposition than anything you have posed. In psych there are a lot more problem people coming from sexually repressive environments than from sexually permissive environments.
See that's the problem with your world view. You argue as if potential risk as actual risk as real risk as something that all kids will face and so we need to protect them. And that there is no consequence from repression in the name of protection.
Instead of noting that the stats in the real world do not support such a view of risk and in fact there are negative consequences from stepping on people's sexual desires at young ages.
Do you honestly believe that kids cannot be abused to not have sex?
You keep wanting to get graphic and push limits that are not pertinent to a discussion on whether consent is possible, or if harm comes from sexual activity.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:52 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:19 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 92 by nator, posted 11-22-2005 3:38 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 76 of 206 (262079)
11-21-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
11-21-2005 11:57 AM


There are plenty of 10 year old boys who want to be in the Army. Are consent laws regarding the legal age of conscription ridiculous?
We don't allow 10yos in the army because they wouldn't meet the physical criteria for the army. Consent has absolutely zip to do with it.
Interestingly parental consent does, which I might note is what I think is a valid way to create sexual laws involving minors (with a few other provisions as well). With consent of parents children are allowed to join at younger ages than simply what a recruiter can get by getting a child's signature alone.
By the way none of this addresses my point. Your argument can be used equally against gays. You can't stop rape by making sex illegal. All it does is repress one group in order to pretend to provide protection for another.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 11:57 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2005 5:17 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 85 by Rrhain, posted 11-22-2005 4:43 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 93 by nator, posted 11-22-2005 3:41 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 206 (262080)
11-21-2005 5:09 PM


fyi
Just to let people know, I will be increasingly busy for the rest of this week. It is possible I won't be able to get to replying until next week. So if I seem to disappear soon, it will just be till next Monday or Tuesday.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 84 of 206 (262261)
11-22-2005 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
11-21-2005 7:19 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
but the comments on babies, well, it just seems way over on the perverse end of things.
Yeah, schraf likes to play the slippery slope game, moving rapidly to the most extremely not relevant situation, as well as the most graphic visuals. One day I am hoping she will get that it is merely emotional appeal. Till that time I will play her game to some extent.
Do you think that maybe there is an instinctual sense of morality that lets us know some things are just wrong? You'd probably say it's just cultural conditioning though.
There is no such thing as an instinctual sense of morality. Take a look around you, including your own Bible. If it was instinctual there would be no need for moral or legal rules, people would simply do what they felt and not be bothered by what others were doing because they'd be doing the same thing.
I'm not going to say its just cultural conditioning. It is a combination of many many things. I'd say a combination between personal physical predispositions, personal experience (including reassessment through introspection), and cultural conditioning.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:19 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 11-22-2005 3:49 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 206 (262267)
11-22-2005 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by randman
11-21-2005 7:29 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
So science can be coopted by ideology? Would you be willing to admit this may have occurred in the case of evolution proponents?
May have? Of course it has occured. There is absolutely no doubt that from time to time, and certainly in groups, evo proponents have made spurious claims and then rallied around that claim like it was truth.
Despite my loathing for what Well's (an ID author) did with his book Icons of Evolution, which when summed up is a pack of lies, he did have points here and there and there is always the relevant warning to continually recheck your science for underlying assumptions.
But let's be clear, this is not tantamount to saying the same thing that is happening regarding sexual research is going on in the evo community. You can watch the debates occuring in evo fields and you can check the data. The field of sexual research is being shut down and the data supressed.
Even as much as ID proponents claim it is being supressed, in fact people are asking for data and it is available everywhere. Too much credit has been given to them at this point given the very meager information they claim to have, and never reveal when asked point blank.
I hope you can see that difference.
You might very well ask yourself if this could have happened with creationism and ID. Obviously I believe it has. And much more so than in evo, where it is more pocketed, rather than part of the structure.
But dealing with kids under puberty, I really think there is rational, scientific reason to state that sex is off-limits, period, under any laws.
There is no rational scientific reason for this. You cannot get any ought or ought not out of science. It can only tell you what is.
I will again point out what IS. Throughout cultures (even now) and throughout history sex with prepubescents has occured and has been accepted, with no apparent ill effects on those societies. Also animals, including our closest relative (or genetically and behaviorally similar if you don't believe in evo, engage in that same behavior and there is no apparent harm.
If you want to get biblical about it, there is no (and I do mean NO) proscription regarding age in the bible whatsoever. You could clearly marry and have sex with girls (obviously not boys) who were not post-pubescent. There is one story in the bible which involves graphic depictions of pedophilic sex, and age was not the question there. Also. IIRC there was a passage of a young girl (12-14) being taken as a wife. As far as general AOC concepts goes, God would be labelled a pedophile and a sexual rapist for having impregnated Mary. Not only was she under age according to many state laws, he also did not ask her consent.
Your concept of age and sex, have nothing to do with your religion. It is cultural and you can trace it backwards to where they surfaced, and then back forward to how they spread.
Intriguingly in some Islamic nations they allow marriage as young as 9 and allow for sex, though there is the restriction that any harm done during sex is punishable. There is also a generally free attitude toward what we would call molestation of children, though to them it is simply kissing and rubbing genital areas out of pride and recognition it pleases the kid.
Kids themselves have sexual desires and engage in sexual acts well before they reach puberty. My own sexual fantasies and desires stretch back to pretty much my farthest memories. I have been able to secure one clear sexual desire (because I recognized a social event where I had the memory from a photo) at age 7. This is consistent with most estimates of sexually identifiable memories. It is routinely used by gays to justify the concept they were born gay (though I doubt that claim). You might ask yourself when you had your first sexual thought or desire. Or maybe your parents about when they first caught you playing with yourself... I mean before any pubescent masturbatory activity.
I don't know how many times I have seen parents having to stop their kids from getting naked or playing with themselves in public areas.
From this you can see that there is no intrinsic bar to it happening, or inherent ill effects from it happening. It was socially acceptable even to your own religion and culture for quite some time (for a guy that likes Washington, you do know he had been shopping around for a wife among 13yos, right?).
And even if there were effects on health, science could not then label it wrong. It is up to us to move from is, to should or should not, or labels such as harmful.
Despite coming from a strong libertarian mindset, I am not arguing that there should be no sexual laws, particularly when it comes to minors. Minors (and anyone under guardianship) are in a different class than full grown adults. They do not have the same set of rights. As such laws created to help preserve any family's views on sexual morality are valid. There should also be leniency regarding evidentiary rules with regard to rape cases, where a minor is involved. Harm could be redefined for the child's advantage in such cases, according to scientific findings regarding harm as connected to child sexual activity.
This both indicts our present system, which is wholly flawed and repressive, yet preserves the protections for any family or child that wants them.
What I am not going to do is claim that in any way this suggestion has anything to do with an objective stance. I view rape and coercion and harm as not healthy and worthy of moral sanction. Of course one does not need to appeal to that for laws, as they involve direct rights violations.
On top of that I would not want a bunch of jerks constantly making moves on my kids, and being able to sneak around my will. My subjective will which should be a right for my family. That is wholly subjective and an institution of a moral judgement within law. Thankfully OUR moral judgement (the parents rather than the community).
As far as I can tell it is the only logical basis for sexual laws regarding age, though clearly it is in effect subjective moral legislation. The key is it keeps jerks' hands off my kids when they want to have sex and I don't mind, as much as when they want to have sex and I do mind, as well as when we all don't agree with sexual activity.
Yes you might have to put up with the idea that adults or other kids will have sex before puberty. As long as harm can be prosecuted, regardless of whether everyone wanted to have sex or not, what difference would it make... to you?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:29 PM randman has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 87 of 206 (262269)
11-22-2005 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 8:42 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
You know, during my reply to this, I began to see the spark of merit in your position.
Well I am not going to gloat about this. I know you are smart and it is just a matter of really working out your system against many different possibilities, and against logical rules... in this case possibilities.
It has taken me quite a while of intensive thought to work out these issues of ethics, and I don't just mean sexual (as should be seen from some of the cases I mentioned in rebuttal). Ethical and moral rules often seem very clear. I've found that almost always means one has simply not found the wilderness it gets muddy in yet.
I hope with your seeing my point in this, our debates can get more focused and progressive. Maybe you'll even find the necessary fix. Its possible there is one.
Well, wait, now. You defined "consent" as merely the positive assent to an activity. How is your position consistent with that?
Its tricky but it is consistent. Coercion is not a system of open choices as I was trying to suggest with the second part of the sentence. Coercion involves forcing another into several choices that are truly not desired by that individual. Thus in a system of open choices there would be no consent at all.
Maybe it would be better understood through an analogy. A guy comes up to you and nonthreateningly asks would you like me to shoot or stab you to death? And you say no and he walks away. If you had said yes that would have been noncoercive and consensual. If a guy walks up to you and says I am going to stab or shoot you, take your pick, whichever you chose was not actually consensual. It is limited or coerced assent.
I'm on the record as asserting that age does not equal competence, so your criticism here is off-base.
I was not saying that was your position. I'm sorry if my writing it as quickly and briefly as possible made it seem that way. That specific quote was part of my introducing a possible side avenue of debate and chopping it off.
You didn't have to answer it and I wasn't taking it that you would have to agree.
That said I must raise the question if you do not actually assert age equals some portion of competence? It does seem that you link age with risk assessment. I am not saying this is unreasonable but it does seem to be something you want within your system.
How many children per year are injured playing with these tools? I guess I have a pretty high standard for what constitutes a tool too dangerous for a child, so what exactly are we talking about, here?
This gets into assessment of harm. And this is where numbers really start getting interesting. To answer your particular question I do not know the specifics for the tools and cultures under discussion.
In one documentary I watched a man was allowing his son to play with an extremely sharp axe. The documentary people were quick to ask about this, and he explained it as I described. They would not have taken a statistic which said a large number of kids got their hands cut as an indication that it was wrong to allow them to play with axes. They would have taken it as a sign there were a lot of kids whose curiosity got the better of their caution, and learned some valuable lessons. Those that died provided valuable lessons for the survivors.
The lesson of course not being not to play with axes, or not let kids play with axes, but to be careful with anything you are using. Telling a kids to stop playing with something teaches them nothing but obedience to authority, which is useless for an individual.
So stats can be looked at different ways. Also, even assuming we agree to use stats as significant for determining if we need to institute protections, it will start having some interesting effects on what we need to protect kids from.
How many kids do you think fall ill or die, simply because they go to school and schools are breeding grounds and excellent vectors for disease?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024