Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I as a white person have some comfort knowing my race is the majority in America, so waging a race war against the majority is funny to me. If my race was 3% of the population, I would be more scared.
I would be much more concerned than you are. You presume that races are well defined categories. A complete integration of historical examples shows that collectivism allows for the creation, destruction, and alteration of arbitrary categories.
At any time you could be defined as a problem minority, it need have nothing to do with an immutable characteristic. This may sound like non-sense to the uninformed but the last decade has proven the more abstract analysis correct over more recent trends.
What is blackness? What is whiteness? Ask the race socialists, they don't care about the reflectivity of your skin pigment. No more than nazis really cared if you had blue eyes and blonde hair. They pile all their ideas of good and evil into a system of classification to define people as good and evil, sacred vs irredeemable.
If my race was 3% if the population, I would vote for whichever party treated my race the best (and democrats treat black people better than republicans with policies like Affirmative action). But since my race is very common in America, I have less insecurity about it.
That is flawed in multiple contexts. First: morally, morality has nothing to do with race. Voting personal interest for any reason may or may not manifest in evil actions and by that alone it is a morally unsound method of choosing.
Securing objective rights is the only justification for violence, government is institutionalized violence, thus the only justification for government is (as the word implies) securing justice.
A voter's purpose is therefore not to seek benefits, reduce risks, or even aim towards practical investment. It is first and foremost to choose the leaders and the options which prevent injustice and rejecting leaders and options that increase injustice.
Second from a game theory perspective, 3% is by definition a small minority. The more realistic 20% is still a minority. The reservoir of white guilt is not infinite and at the current rate it will run dry in less than two generations. One must at least attempt to appeal to a motivation which is shared by a majority. If the game is simply reduced to the arbitrary and mutually exclusive interests of a majority and minority, the minority loses in all cases.
Finally, affirmative action has predictably crippled it's so called beneficiaries over the long term. It was applied to K-12 and now democrat run city schools are producing classes where no one can do math. It has been applied to colleges and more rapidly than most thought possible a college diploma is becoming kindling (a lot like the dollar bill).
I said "predictably" and it was very predictable because the idea that success or failure is primarily determined by shallow indicators is the mindset of a conman. You might not be able to get a job without wearing a suit, but only a conman thinks he can retain a job with only a suit.
It was not opportunity that "blacks" (inner city poor) lacked, it was productivity; and they were growing stronger for a long time before democrats destroyed generation after generation. They destroyed the family by subsidizing single parenthood. They destroyed education by catering to the lowest common denominator and allowing kids who despise achievement to set the youth culture. They destroyed virtue by deemphasizing the individual in every context.
Under such tender ministrations the most civilized and educated population in the world would become scattered gangs of thugs in three generations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
It wasn't a "yes/no" question. It was "more or less" and your answer was: neither.
If beauty is not correlated (positively or negatively) with the occupation of being a politician than by definition the sample set is average. Therefore to be near the end of the distribution for beauty as a politician is also to be near the end of the distribution in general.
I think attractiveness is selected for in politicians, what is needed is not the same as what is gotten. In a large population one can easily see subsets with greater "attractiveness" which have hundreds or thousands of people in them. In media, entertainment, fashion, modeling, and pornography.
However those subsets represent a small minority of people. Presuming a linear scale where they are more than 1 / 1000 is a biased comparison. I put the second "attractiveness" in quotes like that because according to my aesthetics (which you can't dispute) simply amplifying the features which are often cited as factors of attractiveness sees diminishing returns.
You switched the term from "attractiveness" to "beauty", beauty has a different shade of meaning and need not be associated with sexual selectivity.
I am not going around in circles, you simply aren't following. This is obviously a circumstance governed by a classic bell curve and using a linear scale is silly. You said 7/10, but if there are a 100 7s for every 10 the metric is inherently dismissive of the more average and favorable to the "freaks".
It then becomes apparent that by claiming someone can be deemed "thirsty" for considering a 7 "incredibly hot" they must not have access to 7s, yet if 10 is the end of the bell curve almost no one has access to 9s and 10s.
So we are left with two possibilities, your comparison set is indeed the people around you but you live in a very unusual population, like the fashion industry. Or.. (and far more likely in my opinion) your comparison set is populated by images from people in those unusual populations (the wings of the bell curve).
I wouldn't infer anything about someone's sexual desperation from their "indisputable" aesthetics, but if aesthetics were disputable and there was a generally true quantification of attractiveness I would at least hold back until the expressed skew is below the average. For example if someone said Nancy Pelosi or Stacey Abrams were incredibly hot....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
One final question, you said TWS clarified that it was a "political context".
Would you expect the political sample set to be more or less attractive than average?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Is taste disputable or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't know what porn has to do with that
Not just porn, and not all porn. Rather: Artifice. Cultivating a standard of attractiveness based on the contrived and unnatural.
if you think people that consume porn don't have sex you're totally wrong, especially us men who have a very sexual explosive nature.
Just because porn consumption does not strongly predict distressed celibacy does not mean distressed celibacy doesn't strongly predict porn consumption.
A man may be content in his celibacy for periods of time that college locker rooms would find unbelievable, he may indeed be a regular consumer of porn during that time; but what is really unbelievable would be that a man who is not content in his celibacy would not consume porn.
It seemed to be that you were arguing you could infer that TWS was sexually desperate because of "impaired standards", "hunger is the best sauce" type of thing.
In my experience the sexually desperate often become lost in unrealistic fantasies both in terms of the physical and mental characteristics of their imagined partner. Rather than "settling" they focus on the ends of the bell curve and compare every man or woman to the vanishingly rare ideals they have latched onto.
Therefore you have two different dynamics which make it impossible (without quantification) to draw conclusions about sexual desperation from sexual tastes.
Perhaps as you said there is no disputing taste, or perhaps your standards are artificial and rather than TWS being skewed by sexual desperation you are skewed by unreasonable comparison.
To make it more explicit, you can't get much thinner than Tulsi without being unhealthy. If you have fewer skin blemishes at her age you've probably painted your face and called it makeup. If your mammaries are larger than Kari Lake's you're probably packing silicone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
She sure is sort of attractive, but that's all.
I am fully aware this is meaningless trivia in the context of politics or character, but according to my aesthetics she is fairly near the ideal (for someone that age).
I do somewhat buy into the idea that people who are raised on ridiculous models, overdone makeup, unhealthy thinness, and giant mamaries (especially in pornography) are 'spoiled for choice' and indulging in a fetish by using such artifice as a gauge stick.
Nothing wrong with a fantasy, so long as you know its fantasy.
What you call "sort of attractive" is more attractive to me than the wings of a bell curve because it's genuine. The world doesn't look like a K-drama cast.
In conclusion, finding a woman with realistic natural beauty attractive indicates not "thirst" but lack thereof. The "thirsty" people form gauge sticks from the porn they are constantly surfing instead of the people they meet in the light of the sun.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
This is outrageous and false.
it's on camera. It was hidden from the public despite a so called investigation by congress.
The traitors accomplish only their self-identification by denying evidence they failed to suppress. The FBI evidence destruction is only another boulder on the mountain of evidence that they were bad.
Whether the feds set it up, let it happen, or simply manipulated the released evidence doesn't matter. What matters is that they're willing to lie, and they keep lying even as a major network broadcaster transmits the contradicting evidence to millions.
Of course such people would doctor evidence, destroy evidence, plant evidence, and steal elections. They are so sure their tribe will believe them that video of supposedly murdered people walking around isn't enough to trigger a retraction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Romu
I sometimes tolerate brocoli bits in my cheese sauce.
I don't know if you'll find what you're looking for here, but trying to use a second language to debate is courageous, it may also be ingenious. People become grammar nazis when they're looking for any criticism.
Created:
I'm curious, did your washington post inform you that a member of Biden's cabinet stole and retained possession of expensive dresses?
I read through the monotonous writing out of morbid curiosity, you see I have found that sensationalist rags often display a gradient from absolute BS spin at the top of the article to anticlimactic nothing-burger at the bottom (where no left-tribe voter reads to).
In the seven-minute video, a visibly anguished Huffman says it’s about 12:45 a.m., gives his full name and describes the incident. Huffman also sent the video to a college friend, who watched it and spoke to him a few hours later, and to his wife, Jessica Huffman, whom he separated from last year.“You can’t make up the emotion he recorded in the video — the way he reacted and the shame he felt,” his wife said in an interview weeks ago. “He knows that I was the victim of a sexual assault, and he would never make something like that up.”
Called it, they mention "video and text messages" very early as if they were holding onto evidence. The evidence was the accuser recording himself accusing.... and then failing to make a police report.
Classic he said he said.
Also left-triber calling someone or something racist slightly reduces the chances compared to random sample expectation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
As do I.
Created:
Posted in:
Tulsi is the candidate you would back if you're trying to avoid a civil war and bring peace and stability to the world. Therefore she has no chance.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
They also don't accept maps to treasure you went back in time to bury.
Welcome to the future: https://nowpayments.io/blog/subscriptions-with-cryptocurrency *May not be here yet, but lacking a functioning product never stopped IBM from advertising did it?*
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
No that was in the mid 1300s, this one was recent :)
Created:
Direct support is the way to go, ads don't make enough with so little traffic (assumed). Do a poll, see how many people are willing to pay anything, divide $1000/year by that number.
I have often said of commentator subscriptions that they're too damn high, and not as in a "It would be better for me if that was cheaper" I mean the price is set at the wrong place on the supply demand curve.
Do you see Disney charging $15/month? No. They provide way more entertainment than any commentator or website (for the average person)
It's #Subscribers * Subscription amount that matters, if people charged like $1/month they would make more because then people could support their top 5 favorite "causes" where as at $15/month they might not even be able to justify supporting one.
So the above suggested $3 is orders of magnitude more likely to get people to sign up and stay signed up.
Created:
-->
@attackingandrogynusandy
Entropy endeavors ending enigmatic equations.Debateart deliberates denial determining decisive distinguishing decayForfeit finances, fatality fluctuates freedom for fluent forums.GG.
First thing I see after months being away. I again have the eerie feeling that the civilization I live in is slowly reenacting the rat utopia experiment.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
It is the opinion of an expert in experimental psychopathology based on evidence acquired from interviewing those who have been subjected to sexual abuse as children and as such should be considered reasonable.
Reasons are what make a conclusion reasonable.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical that Western countries frown on pedophiles but child ponography is on the rise.
If you are a chatbot things with AI are starting to get real. If you're a human for whom English is a second language, you got plenty of learning left to do good luck. If you're a human for whom English is your first language....
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am questioning whether the activities are truly sexualIts not important if child thinks its truly sexual or fun or exciting or interesting or some other form of fun.Whats important is that child consents.The reason for consent, as I said, can be pleasure.
Consent is important, but it is not sufficient.
The responsibility to avoid a mechanism of harm that either through lack of communication, cognition, or wisdom cannot be delegated to someone else must be considered.
In this case no amount of gentleness or pleasure is going to change the fact that when the prepubescent child finds out (later) that what was being disguised as tickling, caressing, or some trivial game at the time was actually a massive turn on for the adult they are going to feel like they were deceived and betrayed.
Society may amplify that impression but it is unlikely (in my opinion) that society manufactures that impression out of whole cloth.
When puberty does its work you see orgasms, you see sexual attractions, you see porn... i.e. you see a complete sexual system coming together. That is the first time there is a chance to engage in sexual behavior as a partner.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
Her opinion is irrelevant, the data is what is at issue.As the author of the book her opinion is perfectly relevant.
To a book review perhaps, in debate evidence and logic are what matters. Studies are relevant when they introduce evidence. Expert analysis is relevant when it provides complex or creative logic.
A quote of a pure assertion that children cannot consent has no more weight than a quote from the same book claiming children aren't harmed at the time.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Those things are not relevant to my argument.My argument was:"Children can feel pleasure from sexual activities."Children know that pleasure is gained from sexual activities.When they want this form of pleasure, they consent to sexual activities.The only way for you to deny this would be to deny that children can feel pleasure.
I am questioning whether the activities are truly sexual as opposed to finding a nerve bundle that has been hooked up before anything else works.
Now if you're saying that a prepubescent who "masturbates" regularly is going to throw a fit because some pedo helps then, no I'm not saying that; I'm saying that's not going to register as a sexual experience which is probably close to the heart of the mechanism of later trauma.
Contrast with a 16 year old confusing infatuation with some kind of epic romance even with a 20 year old, there may be other issues at play there but there is no doubt the sexual drive in the 16 year old is a motivating factor for any sex. It's not just a "massage" that they find out eight years later was much more.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They all agree that even babies and toddlers masturbate
One of the sites had this to say:
We think of this as sexual because we look at this from an adult viewpoint. For a child, this is just curiosity. It just happens that some of the things that they are curious about have sexual functions.
That is something I would distinguish from masturbation, although the semantics I am not particularly interested in.
Prepubescent pleasure from sexual organs is not connected to psycho-sexuality. They don't imagine sexual situations when they're "masturbating", they aren't turned on by porn, they don't associate the behavior with a possible sexual interaction.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
his is a quote by Susan Clancy the writer of the book “The Trauma Myth” you mention.“Sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.”
Her opinion is irrelevant, the data is what is at issue.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Society does not determine the validity of consent, the objective implications of the well defined concept of consent do.Actually, society has the power to determine the validity of a consent by societys opinion and standards. Society has done so before. Society has done so in case of pedophilia.
Society can declare that the moon is made of cheese but that does not mean it is so. Are you going to follow Sidewinder's example and start stating the obvious and irrelevant?
Society can find consent insufficient and that is exactly what they do. I know most tie themselves in knots with "informed consent" like you have with "greater consent" but those concepts do not reflect reality.If greater consent doesnt reflect reality, then how come all the craziest examples which you have come up with to test it have resulted in its favor?
None did, you had to patch every example with a new term.
Eventually you could have explained how greater consent predicts whether a steel reinforced column would buckle. It failed the moment it was no longer a corollary of real consent which is a state of mind (requiring a mind).
Other sexual deviance have had volunteers come forward despite probable attack. There should be a fewThere have been. I already mentioned the book "The Trauma Myth" in which there have been plenty of cases where people came forward and talked about their sexual experience as children.The books authors, despite not being pedophiles or promoting pedophilia, were labeled as pedophile supporters.The fact that positive cases never get published in the media is the reason people usually dont know about them.
If you've read this book why don't you produce an example from the dataset?
Granted I didn't take polls but that was no my impression growing up with three siblingsI started masturbating at 7 and had interest in sexual activities because they bring pleasure.Many articles and studies have shown that children masturbate.
At 7? Bring it forth.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
For this, I had several options.One was that its invalid in case of harm.If I went for this option, there would probably be less confusion.But I felt like its too simple. It would just lead discussion into whether sex is harmful or not.There was also an option that consent is invalid when society says so.While this doesnt currently go in my favor, I could have claimed that society can change.Now, the third option was the greater consent. This is what came to my mind when the discussion about consent started.The idea itself sounds complex, very similar to informed consent.
Fourth option: leave the concept of consent alone and use the correct words for different concepts.
"There was also an option that consent is invalid when society says so."
Society does not determine the validity of consent, the objective implications of the well defined concept of consent do. Society can find consent insufficient and that is exactly what they do. I know most tie themselves in knots with "informed consent" like you have with "greater consent" but those concepts do not reflect reality.
If a 16 year old thinks he and his friends can go on a drinking binge and stay out all night, and he's told "no" that is not "No, you don't really want this" it's "No, I'm deciding this will harm you and others so what you want doesn't matter."
In fact, anyone who says that they had sex as children and werent harmed will be told to "get help".So in translation, they will be marked as crazy.
Yes, but they would not be at risk for direct attack. Other sexual deviance have had volunteers come forward despite probable attack. There should be a few... unless the number of people who had a positive experience is exceedingly small.
Did you know that when child-adult relationship is discovered, adult is arrested? You knew that, yes.
Well we were all wallowing in ignorance in that regard until sidewinder came to save us.
But have you ever wondered what happens to a child?"He hurt you.""He just used you for his pleasure.""He wasnt your friend"Sentences like these are standard in convincing children that they are victims.The more the child denies that she is a victim, the more she gets attacked.Of course, in such conversation the child is no match against adults.
I was not talking about a pair who had been caught. I'm talking about a fully adult (probably late middle aged) former child and a dead or gone older party.
If the relationship was a net positive and the child grew up and lived a good life keeping the secret there would be none of this direct indoctrination as a child. The former child would have decades to reflect and nobody could (intelligently) say they have no perspective at age 50 (for instance).
Also, you have mentioned that children dont have sexual desires.
"children" is as useless in this context as "pedophile".
I claimed that prepubescent children don't have a functioning psycho-sexual system (which is different from specific organs or reflexes). My claim is based on the incidence of child-on-child sexual behavior. They don't have the urge.
I am saying that sexually speaking a 10 year old and a 16 year old are as different as night and day and their own unrestrained behavior gives overwhelming evidence of this.
Plenty of children masturbate before age 10.
Granted I didn't take polls but that was no my impression growing up with three siblings.
Even toddlers masturbate.
This is almost certainly false. Masturbation is more than just rubbing an organ and not associating it with a social interaction.
Plenty of cases of children having sex with each other.
The elbow is between 10 and 20. Almost no 10 year olds have sex.
It seems that as soon as children gain knowledge about sex, they become interested in it.
Four year olds will play house, that doesn't mean they've got what it takes to get married. Children will often show interest in anything an adult is interested in, that's instinctual. That doesn't mean the specific sexual instincts have come online yet.
Fact is that parents try to hide such knowledge from children and once discovered, parents try to supress it by saying "you can only do it when you are old enough".
That's true, but we have ten thousand years of history to study. There were times when parents probably said nothing of the sort and people got "married" at 13. They still didn't naturally consummate until years later (unless forced to by enormous social pressure).
Parental guidance isn't delaying natural sexual activity for ten years, more like three (and not so much these days).
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
This is not consistent with what you have said beforeI clearly defined regret in that case as when caused by knowledge that becomes available after.So not goals. But knowledge.The goals are always treated as existing in present.
"greater consent" becomes more complicated with every patch. Now it has nothing to do with consent and is determined by considering regret given potential knowledge and the overall goals as percieved by another cognizant being.
Why do people feel the need to mutilate simple concepts like this?
The person can have a goal about good life. Maybe the needed knowledge will come later, but the goal exists in the present.
Person... or tree; because we're not talking about goals the subject has but goals a perceiver might imagine or infer the goals of the subject would be overall, if it had a mind.
Alright I've gone around in circles enough on "greater consent", I'm just going to translate it to "best interests" in my head so as to not be annoyed by the improper use of "consent".
Now, you have one theory of the best interests of people less than 18, and society has another. Previously I pointed out that the assertion of harm or major risk of harm is a positive position, one that incurs a burden of proof.
There is really no point in restating the obvious fact that some people have been deeply harmed by sexual relations involving a significant age gap, you would no doubt claim that is a biased sample set. I admitted that statistically speaking getting a reliable sample is fairly impossible.
There are, however, there are more forms of analysis than statistical.
1.) If there are are significant number of people going through pedophilic relationships and suffering no significant trauma, holding no ill will; some would stay silent to protect the older party.... but there must be scenarios where the older party dies, goes off to some distant country, etc... If these non-victim children thought the relationship was a good thing, and thought that how the older party would have been treated by society was an injustice; why wouldn't some of them come forward?
Now I know that anyone who even hints at not being against pedophilia is going to be a target, but such individuals would have a victim card that could only be printed at staples. They would not be guilty of a crime. Not a single one has been willing?
2.) When people say "pedophilia" they're talking using one word for a range of contexts with wildly different moral calculus. They'll use the word for a 19 year old viewing the sexting of a 17.8 year old. They'll use the word for Epstein's blackmail based sex trafficking operation (almost all the victims were closer to 18 than 16 by the time the clients got at them). They'll use the word for a baby being raped and murdered.
Labels aside, there is a thing called puberty; and before puberty there is every biologically grounded reason to expect that no natural sexual desire exists. This can be corroborated simply by looking at the unrestrained sexual behavior of children with each other which has been variously allowed intentionally or unintentionally.
At sixteen, a culturally unrestrained group of children will be having sex with each other at some rate. At ten, none will.
It seems reasonable to infer with very strong probability that any prepubescent sexual cooperation was bought with bribes or extorted with threats.
3.) There are these things called parents, and all other claims aside I have found the willingness of pedophile advocates to endorse deceiving parents as the single best indicator that their computation of best interests is flawed. Dishonesty is the core of almost all damaged relationships, the parent-child relationship is almost always the second most (if not most) important relationship a typical person can have.
Sex can be a good thing, but no one acting in their own best interests thinks sex is worth destroying unique and irreplaceable relationships.
Would you justify lying to parents?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Why are you responding as if Shila is engaging honestly? Your post was very obviously a joke, the first post pretending otherwise was questionable. This is what the fifth?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The girl who fully consented to sex cant simply call it rape because she changed her mind 10 years after the act or 10 minutes after the act.
This is true.
Greater consent is not about what person will think in 20 years.It has nothing to do with predicting future.Its about current goals of a person matching the action that the person consents to.Only in cases where individual is obviously unaware of the harmful mismatch can the consent be treated as invalid.
This is not consistent with what you have said before (emphasis added):
In post #56:
[ADOL] The unique quality of the adult citizen in human civilization is that as peers no one is permitted to tell them what they may or may not do, even with the best intentions. The adult is allowed and should be allowed to shoot themselves in the foot. That is why consent without fraud is "good enough" in most cases.Children are not and should not be allowed to shoot themselves, at certain ages letting them hold a gun is parental negligence.[Best.Korea] Consent is only allowed to be violated in cases where violation uphelds the greater consent.For example, little girl is not allowed to shoot herself. This is not because she cant consent to that. Its because if she shot herself, she will probably regret it. This "regret" is based on knowledge that only became available after the action. So in this case, violating her partial consent to upheld her greater consent is justified.
I didn't specify an age, but no matter what age (or really cognitive level), you can't have it both ways.
If the greater knowledge is possible in the moment it could simply have been communicated at the moment. If it's only possible later or never possible (as with a tree) greater consent is about the future and you explicitly tied it with regret.
A six year old girl can hold something of a conversation. You could tell her that the gun would cause great pain and lasting scars.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Simple way for seller not to violate the greater consent of a buyer is not to sell. This would mean greater consent of a buyer would be upheld.
Which would mean that cops show up to drag the seller away because of what the cops might think about the house rather than what the buyer thinks about the house. Well an appeal to absurdity only works if both sides agree on what is absurd. Fallacy can always get more absurd if the right example is chosen.
So in case of a child adult relationships, the answer is that society violates childs greater consent.
You're skipping right past foundations, you can't disagree on ethical theories and then expect to agree on conclusions.
In this case the flaws in the "Greater consent" theory (which you have refused to address head on in my opinion) are again evident in the fact that you can't actually know what a person might think 10-20 years in the future. You can make educated guesses, but you don't know. In fact you can't be expected to know exactly why someone gives (real) consent in the present.
Leading us to the obvious observation that "society" thinks it is doing what the child would want in 10-20 years by using force to keep them out of sexual relationships with adults.
You've crafted a conceptual wild-card that cuts any which way you want. Truth is objective, objectivity requires constrained identification, the algorithm which produces contradictions is flawed.
Created:
-->
@ahiyah
They then claimed that pedophilia does not harm children, which is a demonstrably stupid and untrue thing to say.
That may be, but it would be better to not say anything at all than to strut around asserting it and then not demonstrating it.
It can be inferred from the fact that everyone ignores an assertion, that it is not widely known to be false; then if one hears opposition one might give it some weight.
On the other hand, if everyone brashly and loudly denies/asserts something but refuse to give their reasons; it can be inferred that general disagreement is not an indication that it is false. Disagreement can be dismissed as likely being more of the same.
For example if you were to walk through an ancient Omec society with rationality but no modern knowledge and someone told you that the gods demanded human sacrifice or the sun would not rise, you may think they were on to something.
If however you talked to 100 people and 99 simply threatened your life, called you disgusting, and clutched pearls "If you don't already know why human sacrifice is necessary you're beyond hope"; then you could infer that the belief, though widespread; is not based on reason nor held by people acting rationally.
Many children and adults (who were sexually abused as children) said that this sexual abuse harmed them, so who are we to call them liars?Pedo_troll may even say that they are vulnerable to harm by not being able to have sexual relations with children, and maybe that is true. To that extent, I wouldn’t deny the existence of that harm. If someone says something is harmful to them, we have to take their word for it.Multiple children have said that having sexual relations with adults was harmful, and I believe them.
That's a weak argument in more than one way. First it's anecdotal, to make a strong argument from statistics requires significant sample sizes and categorization of any potentially relevant context. Second you preempt an argument Korea didn't make and in so doing imply that somehow weighing relative harm is something that should ever be done.
The false belief that subjective values can be quantified and compared and that is the fundamental nature of ethics is called utilitarianism.
It is beyond stupid for pedo_troll to deny the existence of such harms.
I don't know if Korea is really a pedophile, really went to prison, or really believes anything he/she is saying. I do know it doesn't matter. Respond to the argument, not the man; and in this case Korea hasn't denied that harm could happen.
Both you and Korea (and a few others) have been casually omitting scope indicators (all, some, none, most, few, etc...) out and presuming the biased scope in their absence. Back when I was a minor one of the first things noticed when trying to debate people is to include the damn scope.
Created:
-->
@Shila
You wanted to know how to deal with buyers and sellers of a house and what to consider before giving consent.
No I didn't, not even close.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well now let's say everybody knows about the defect, but the buyer wants to take it on anywayIf the buyer knows about the defect and agrees to it, there is no greater consent being violated by anyone.
There is more than the defect, there are the implications of the defect.
The seller believes the defect cannot me remedied without taking a huge financial loss. The buyer believes it can.
You defined "greater consent" as whether someone with better knowledge would still consent if they could go back in time. You extended it to others, so the seller has an imaginary version of the buyer in his head that wouldn't consent after learning (for sure) that the defect is beyond remedy.
Therefore the seller violated greater consent by accepting "lesser" (aka real) consent.
Let's say that it turns out the seller was right, it was impossible to fix and the house had to be demolished; effectively wasting a decade of the buyer's hard work.
So the buyer came to the realization that it would have been better if he had never consented, therefore his greater consent was violated.
Yet the only way to "not violate" this greater consent would be to assume that the seller is right and reject the buyer's consent as invalid. Indeed in the full context of the analogy where minor/adult sex is actively punished by the state, police would have to come and arrest the seller before he violated greater consent.
This is absurd, it is incompatible with the principle of liberty from which the moral significance of consent arises.
Created:
-->
@ahiyah
All you can come up with in response to me is “where is harm, there is no harm...what harm...no harm.” Well fuck, that’s one powerful argument you’ve got there.
It's all the argument you need when the burden of proof isn't yours. If it weren't for Lemming posting a link to studies there wouldn't be an original argument to engage with. I know most of you are emotionally impaired on this issue but that is really extra pathetic.
The way Shila can't recognize (or pretends not to recognize) sarcasm and Sidewinder is hiding under a couch makes it worse. If it was twitter or a video game chat that would be one thing, but this is one of the last of a dying breed of debate sites. If reason is dead here, it's dead everywhere.
This thread has emptied my "faith in humanity" meter. It takes a while to fill that, very annoying.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
In every context, the greater consent comes as most important.
Ok, my last try: I gave you an example of where this concept of greater consent was not more important, buying an "as is" house. You said "well greater consent is violated but no one is to blame"
Well now let's say everybody knows about the defect, but the buyer wants to take it on anyway.
If the seller doesn't think it's a good idea, they are not doing something immoral by selling the house. The buyer, after being given all relevant information possessed by other parties in the interaction, has a right to his or her own judgement.
Although it is moral for the seller to refuse to sell, it is not immoral to sell. The consent of a peer absent of fraud is sufficient. Thus "greater consent" fails to function as the "unified field theory" of moral interaction.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I have a better way to find out what someone really wants, ask them; not yourselfYes, usually, you should ask them. But there are situations where that is not possible.
Almost every response you give is orthogonal to the context.
In those situations peoole usually confuse "what does a child want" with what they want.
That's exactly what "greater consent" boils down to.
If you're going to act on your own best judgement regardless of what someone else thinks, that's not consent.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?I suppose you could see trying to keep a pedophile from acting on his impulse as trying to keep him free, and I have no idea why that's a problem for you, but then again, I don't really understand your alternative logic.
If he/she thought it was legal then he/she would just walk up to someone and ask. If he/she was informed that it was illegal he/she would create a secret plot. Got it?
Yea of course you know that, just like you know that every pedophile knows the consequences.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So it's a concept divorced from reality. Trees don't have minds. They have values and interests that we perceive, but it is not something they perceive.So they dont have will? In that case, they cant consent. Simple.
Yes it would be simple, until someone comes along and claims that even if they haven't, don't, and never will consent they have an aura of "greater consent".
I am not an expert on trees, so I will just assume.
Oh well, I wouldn't want you to comment on trees if you're not a botanist. Have you ever considered a career in the supreme court? I hear they like people who answer like that.
Much like "informed consent" this concept has nothing to do with the constituent words and is thus deceptive, confusing, and in the resulting confusion often leads to equivocation errorsIts not really confusing. Just ask yourself: what does the child really want? This is the best way to upheld their consent.
I have a better way to find out what someone really wants, ask them; not yourself.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nope, I see him trying to justify an illegal action and perhaps he needs to be reminded that his argument in favor of it just doesn't matter, it is still illegal, and he needs to understand that there are consequences.
You thought you needed to explain that he/she would be sent to prison when he/she claimed to have been sent to prison? I don't believe that.
In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You dont have to be all knowing. If you dont have all knowledge, then use the one that you have.
If you aren't all knowing, then there could be an even greater "consent" than "greater consent".
All knowing => greatest "consent"
I could talk about the "greater consent" of a tree with equal coherence.So?
So it's a concept divorced from reality. Trees don't have minds. They have values and interests that we perceive, but it is not something they perceive.
Much like "informed consent" this concept has nothing to do with the constituent words and is thus deceptive, confusing, and in the resulting confusion often leads to equivocation errors.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
No shit, of course this is a non-sequitor, my point was that engaging in pedophilia is illegal and it will land him on prison again if he does it.Trying to justify it on a debate board does not change that fact..
Forgive me for thinking you were trying to make a point.
Yes, he says "legally unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the law
Yet not an argument. You cannot justify a law by saying it is law. You cannot establish truth by saying it has been written in a law. If you aren't justifying a law or inferring a fact about reality you're acting as an unsolicited legal librarian.
It's unlikely you were simply compelled to start pointing out the blindingly obvious and uncontested fact that adult/child sex is illegal almost everywhere. It's far more likely you were angry and gave into the temptation to make threats by proxy.
Created:
-->
@ahiyah
I guess you didn’t notice, but I wasn’t attempting to explain “why”. I have no interest in explaining these widely accepted truths to someone who, if really a pedophile acting on their impulses, won’t assign any value to them.
Yea why would you justify your assertions on a debate site? That would be weak right?
Sometimes, we can all do things that cause people harm...and there is no point in denying that we do. You can be a totally evil person and still admit that your actions cause harm, lol.It’s whether you’re willing to consider that harm as being more significant than your own gratification. If you aren’t, this means you think your needs and wants are more important than other people’s. You aren’t special, so why should you get to do what you want?
Begging the question, Korea is not claiming gratification outweighs harm, he/she is claiming there is no harm. Saying you have no interest in explaining and then going on to explain something that is not even at issue gives the impression you're afraid or unable to explain.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Now let's say you have a dog, who like the two year old did not understand radiation build up; but unlike the toddler will never understand it."The consent is consistent of goals. Dog has goals. Even if dog never understands radiation build up, dogs goals would still be violated. Hence, dogs greater consent would be violated.There would never be a "greater consent" for the dog because the dog will never make the connection between the painful cancer and staying in the house.Dogs goal is to live a happy life. Dog doesnt consent to the painful cancer. Since that is greater consent, we must save the dog to uphold such consent.
Ok so you thereby retrofit "greater consent" to include a hypothetical fully aware version of an individual mind.
The problem is that after three retrofits from the original explanation it doesn't really have anything to do with consent. It's a word that means "best interests" and if you probed it "best interests according to god" for whom else is all knowing?
This concept is divorced from actual consent in the same way it is divorced from actual minds. I could talk about the "greater consent" of a tree with equal coherence.
It is a bad word choice, and if it's meant to subvert the concept of actual consent (you know, agreement from a mind which knows what it's agreeing to) it's deceptive.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Fraud is included in greater consent argument.With the presence of a fraud, consent is diminished.
But not the lack of fraud.
If no one defrauds me as the buyer, I can still come to regret buying the house. Therefore my "greater consent" was violated because with greater knowledge I would not have consented.
My consent in that case cannot be erased or ignored. I cannot (morally) go randomly suing people just because they were as ignorant as me.
The example with children being left in house is a violation of consent unless children agreed to it and no harm comes to them.
Lets make the child 2 years old. The problem with the house is severe radon buildup (unlikely a scenario as it is).
I cannot explain a radon buildup to a two year old.
Your "greater consent" conception would assert that consent to stay in the house is not real consent because later the individual would come to believe the radiation which caused cancer was not in their best interests.
Now let's say you have a dog, who like the two year old did not understand radiation build up; but unlike the toddler will never understand it.
There would never be a "greater consent" for the dog because the dog will never make the connection between the painful cancer and staying in the house.
So that's two failures for "greater consent" theory. It does not imply a moral problem for irradiating a dog when a moral problem exists, and it implies a moral problem with universally unforeseen defects (also known as "acts of god").
Now contrast this with the straightforward mechanics of two morally relevant concepts (Consent & Responsibility) co-existing:
The dog and the child consent to entering the house. They do not consent to what they do not understand, neither consent to being irradiated despite consenting to entering the house. The dog will never consent to being irradiated. The toddler may one day grow to be someone who voluntarily sacrifices themselves shutting down a reactor or something.
Their consent to enter the house is morally irrelevant to someone who has the power to stop them and who knows the house will irradiate them. If they could understand someday but do not today, it doesn't matter; the responsibility of the person who knows harm will come remains with the enlightened. If they can never understand the danger, it doesn't matter; the responsibility of the person who knows harm will come remains with the enlightened.
If someone understands radiation they can consent to be irradiated. A 14 year old can be fully aware of the horrible suffering that would result, and thus they can consent to being irradiated without anyone being less than honest and forthcoming. That consent could not be cancelled from the future. However the implicit social contract of parenthood means that a minor's consent is not sufficient to allow a behavior as it is for an adult.
What exactly constitutes objective harm, where the prerogative of a parent ends, etc... are complicated questions which I do not have the answers to. I certainly know that whatever the answers, finding them will require coherent and consistent concepts. Not tangled excuses.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.No, I'm saying the crime of pedophilaa is morally wrong, the connection be that by acting on that impulse that he's trying to justify, is what puts you in prison.
What lands you in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. What gets you tortured in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. That was appeal to force, nothing more.
Before I posted this you made it even more explicit:
"Legally unable" is not an argument.If you want to stay out of prison, you better accept that as a valid argument.
Prison is supposed to be a deterrent, he had a very bad experience in prison, but nevertheless, he's still here justifying the crime, saying it should be OK. But it's not OK, he needs to understand that or suffer the consequences.
When people who advertise their willingness to be rational by signing up to a debate site fling logic out the window and openly use well known fallacies in fits of anger and disgust it sends one message: You're right, we haven't a clue why it is wrong.
If you want to know why he/she might be able to look in the mirror and feel justified look no further than your own lack of control over your emotions, at your own shallow contemplation.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That is a complete lie. There are plenty of people who have died, children, babies and women and men due to the trauma caused by a sexual assault to their body. There are people who have been killed so they did not talk about being sexually assaulted.
You really should understand the difference between an implied "some" and an implied "all" before you sign up to a debate site.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
[ADOL] Incomplete theory because it assumes that complete knowledge is inevitable (or even possible).[Best.Korea] Actually, it only says that ones consent can be violated only in cases where it uphelds ones greater consent.Its purpose was to describe when is it allowed to violate ones consent.So, violations of consent that dont serve such purpose are unjustified.And of course, an effort to upheld consent needs to be made by entire society.
No that is not the context of your statement. You were describing situations where consent can be considered invalid, namely if some possible future version of the individual would regret consenting.
I explained, with an example, why that is not the case. Consent is consent, the only thing that invalidates it is fraud.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Greater consent is the one where individual has greater knowledge about an action related to his goals.In cases where individual is consenting but is unaware of a great violation of his goals by such an action, only such consent can be treated as invalid.
Incomplete theory because it assumes that complete knowledge is inevitable (or even possible).
For instance if I buy a house at age 25, and that house has major problems; but neither I nor the home inspector, nor the sellers, nor the county inspectors knew of the problem I still consented.
If however the seller knew about the problem but choose not to volunteer the information, that is fraudulent.
My indication of agreement is the same in both cases. The difference is fraud. Fraud abuses consent, absolute level of awareness doesn't matter at all and cannot matter because no one can say that there is nothing left to be aware of. If I let children or non-humans stay in the house expecting nothing bad to happen, I have not violated their consent. If I do so knowing there is something wrong, but I cannot communicate it to the children or non-humans I still have no violated their consent because I have not impeded on their autonomous will which was incapable of accounting for the knowledge, however I have committed an immoral act by allowing them to come to harm.
Where knowledge is withheld or impossible to communicate the responsibility cannot be delegated. The responsibility does not evaporate.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
It seems reasonable, which is my own subjective opinion.
If you're going to give a subjective opinion you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say imply that disagreement "blatantly disingenuous".
"It's blatantly disingenuous that you are trying to define anchovies as delicious."
"Anchovies are disgusting"
"That is my own subjective opinion"
Subjectivism and debate don't mix. If you can't articulate a reason common to others then by definition you can't advance an argument.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Harm is related to consent.
In an expressible non-absolute way:
Harm tends to motivate non-consent.
The violation of consent (liberty) tends to cause psychological harm depending on the perceived scale of abuse.
When a person fails to predict harm whether it be due to lack of information, lack of virtue, or physiological incapacity they may still consent. If they perceive that to protect a greater value they will consent to some harm (sacrifice).
Some people are psychologically resilient, often due to holding resilient philosophies deeply. They may endure many violations without permanent harm.
Harm and consent are not the same things.
Consent is only allowed to be violated in cases where violation uphelds the greater consent.For example, little girl is not allowed to shoot herself. This is not because she cant consent to that. Its because if she shot herself, she will probably regret it. This "regret" is based on knowledge that only became available after the action. So in this case, violating her partial consent to upheld her greater consent is justified.
You merely assume that in the fullness of time harm and consent become the same thing. That is not substantially different from looking at harm. It is thus needlessly confusing to call it "greater consent", in just the same way adding "informed" to consent (but not having to do with information) is almost deceptive labeling.
But same does not apply to sexual activities. Even in our society that is based upon shaming children for having sex and locking up their lovers, most of the children who had sexual activities with adults agree that their lovers should not be locked up.
I cannot disprove that, but nor can you prove it I think.
So if we actually had a free society, I am pretty sure we would have proper studies about child-adult relationships.However, since our society is far from free, then all available studies, positive or negative, fall under the factor of being pollutted by stigma, false education, force...ect.
Getting an unbiased sample set is impossible under the current legal and cultural conditions, that is true. However some kind of continuous function can be expected, look at the trend where age of consent laws vary.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
Consent is a decision given by someone who is competent, who has been adequately informed and has adequate understanding, and who is free from undue influence, enabling them to make a voluntary decision.
"competent", "adequately", "undue"
If the question arises "according to whom?" it is subjective.
One subjective qualifier is enough to render a concept subjective, three?
Created: