Athias

It's odd because political pandering doesn't modify the long term effects of the vaccine. As for speaking to those effects, as I already said, there can't have been studies going on for long enough to make that possible, but that doesn't mean that there's substantive reasons to be concerned.

I don't think it has to be one or the other. You can disagree with the mandate if you wish, I'm not going to argue that, but I don't think there's substantive reasons to be concerned about the long-term effects of the vaccine, and I also don't see efforts to push people to be more hygienic as sufficient to quell the pandemic on their own.

I'm not sure how you derive that conclusion from my statement about fewer infections leading to fewer mutants. Again, I see supporting improved hygiene as additive to supporting more widespread vaccination.

This, as a start.

It doesn't mention the coronavirus vaccines.

I mentioned that later because I feel that if you're going to argue that there are major long-term concerns regarding adverse events, then there should rationally be some basis for that belief, as opposed to just a statement that we cannot know yet.

Haven't seen evidence of what you've bolded here, at least not with these vaccines. Maybe you're talking about the broader set of all vaccines, but I'd rather keep this focused on this set for now if you don't mind. 

Doctors in Norway have been told to conduct more thorough evaluations of very frail elderly patients in line to receive the Pfizer BioNTec vaccine against covid-19, following the deaths of 23 patients shortly after receiving the vaccine.

“It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,” Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told The BMJ. “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients. [**]

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That's less than 1%.

If you think the data is fallacious, then I don't see us having a friendly discussion over this.

You can argue that the kinds of studies that they can do are limited, which is partially true because they cannot actively challenge vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with the virus to see what happens.

That being said, they can actively monitor the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of antibody production, incidence of illness, severity of illness, and numerous other factors. It's never going to be perfectly controlled, but that doesn't mean that the studies are functionally worthless and in no way demonstrate any effectiveness of vaccination.

The vaccination of large populations produces some pretty impressive datasets that can be used to make the case as well. If you don't agree, I guess that's your opinion, but this is a pretty hard line of difference between us if so.

It strikes me that that two year timeframe was pretty arbitrary to begin with.

You can argue that they haven't met it anyway, but I'm not clear on why that specific length of time is what makes the data sufficient, especially if you're talking about long-term data.

Well, I disagree on multiple fronts, but your suspicions aren't actually verifiable.

I'm not sure what patents you're talking about,

or why they're relevant here,

but it seems to me that when you're dealing with a pandemic, particularly one responsible for as many deaths as this one, responding with vaccination on a wide scale seems entirely appropriate.

I didn't say that it was, though to say that the long term effects of vaccines are somehow manipulated by political pandering seems a bit odd.

I have no problem with practicing good hygiene. I have a problem with the argument that vaccines should be a distant second to something that many individuals don't practice as well as they should.

Don't know what you mean by a "steroid-boosted vaccine", but my argument is that more infections = increased numbers of mutants. Fewer infections = fewer mutants. Vaccines reduce the number of total infections, their duration, and their spread.

Actual data?

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but it's a pretty easily demonstrable fact that vaccinated people are less likely to get the virus, far less likely to be hospitalized if they do get it, and far far less likely to die if they get it.

Mind detailing those adverse effects?

A minority of cases in which the vaccine fails to elicit strong immune responses is not demonstrative of overall vaccination failure

Similarly, incidence of adverse effects does not "undermine the intent of one's inoculation", since in the vast majority of cases, even people who suffer from adverse effects are still protected. And I disagree wholeheartedly that "vaccination = health/protection" has not been substantiated by the data. With over a billion people vaccinated, there is more than sufficient data to make that conclusion, and I would argue that the studies undergone by the companies that produced these vaccines had sufficient controls to reach that conclusion.

You are more than welcome to discuss any data you've seen that indicates that the vaccine remains in the body beyond a few days after the administration of the vaccine.

Yes, there isn't data for it because none of the vaccines have been around long enough to make those conclusions. That doesn't mean that there is good reason to suspect that such long-term effects are likely, or that they outstrip the long-term effects of the virus.

I read quite a bit into the subject. I disagree that the research into it is "incredibly limited" and I disagree that there is something wrong with their methodologies. Not every study is perfect, but quite a few of them have demonstrated this very effectively from where I'm sitting.

I have never seen it this blatant.

I recall a very different time in the 80’s and 90’s. I remember Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Diane Sawyer… one could not easily discern their political leanings because they did their jobs well. Contrast them with their current counterparts:  Don Lemon, Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, Jim Acosta, Yamiche Alcindor— their biases are obvious. Contrast yesteryear’s Tim Russert (RIP) on Meet the Press with today’s Chuck Todd.

Now, I know that journalism tends to appeal more to the left leaning, so a center-left bias has always been there. It seems that the more blatant variety I lament here started gaining momentum during Obama’s presidency. He was young, charismatic, the first black president, and he quickly became a media darling. Enter President Trump, and the script quickly flipped. Nothing he did or could do would ever solicit anything resembling a compliment from mainstream reporters. When Biden was elected, the media met him with an overwhelming sense of relief. All he needed to be and do to garner such a welcoming reaction was not to be Trump. He was treated with kid gloves. Whatever pushback he gets from the media lately is simply media not wanting to end up on the wrong side of history to an embarrassing degree considering Biden’s glaring missteps.

In summary, today’s TV media and most of the major print media have lost their journalistic professionalism and are now merely the media arm of the DNC. If you disagree, why? If you agree, do you think the profession will ever get back to its previous standard? Will it produce another one of the greats?

I agree that our "practises/habits" with respect to preventing infections matter quite a bit, but a) not everyone is consistent in those and we shouldn't expect that they will be, meaning that the bad habits of a large number of actors can continue to keep the virus active and thriving in the population, b) this means that having good habits is not a guarantee of protection,

I would say that it's inevitable that there will be new variants. It is not at all certain that those variants will always be "gentle to the youth" or will be consistently and effectively targeted by the immune responses generated in response to the vaccines, and the more opportunities that we give this virus to mutate, the greater the odds that a mutation may actually cause great harm to children or circumvent immune responses.

These patients still tend to do much better than the unvaccinated even when they are infected, but that doesn't mean that a vaccinated individual is perfectly protected, which is particularly problematic for those with weak immune responses. 

Vaccination failing to produce strong immune responses happen.

I disagree that there's substantial reason to be concerned over the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccines and their long-term side effects. The blood clotting has not been linked to either vaccine, nor has there been any substantially dangerous vaccine side-effects linked to these vaccines. You can point to the shorter term pain and difficulties that some have experienced, but nothing deadly nor anything terribly risky aside from allergic reactions have happened. If we're concerned about longer term effects, then the long haul issues with COVID-19 are already becoming clear, whereas no such effects have been detected in patients receiving these vaccines, and there is no indication that such effects will be detected since all traces of the vaccine are gone from the bodies of people who have received the vaccinations.

So far, the only longer haul explanation I've seen for why people might see side effects is the potential for autoimmunity in the generated antibodies, though to my knowledge, no cases of that happening exist.

@oromagi

I have recommended:

• auto-loss on first forfeit (to save voters time and effort)
  
• setting debates for a minimum number of votes before closing- 3 seems reasonable
  
• Make voting the price of  initiating a debate: something like writing 3 votes earns you 1 debate
  

This is the first I've seen of these proposals.

A resounding YES to ALL THREE.

Have you seen this ^^^ ??

sO, basICally, god "exists" with the same validity as lochnessbigfootspacealiens.

Is there no room in your ontology for a distinction between "concrete nouns" and "abstract nouns" ?

It's also worth considering that the QUESTION ITSELF is unlikely to be about a subject "highly disputed and controversial within the medical community" the QUESTION ITSELF is most likely something from a well respected and well referenced textbook that 999 out of 1000 doctors would generally agree upon.

So 999 out of 1000 mathematicians say that 2+2=4 and one says it is 5.2 is argumentum ad populum?

What if it turned out that the one doctor got confused and checked the wrong box, so now it’s 1000-0? Does that change anything? Serious question.

You can Google the actual statistics. On the show when the contestant asked the audience they turned out to be right 95% of the time and almost none of those examples had 99.9% agreement among actual experts, so claiming you are not more likely to be correct by going with them is just factually, objectively false.

You really seem obsessed with avoiding argumentum ad populum but don’t seem to understand when it is a logical fallacy vs when it’s not.

I would say that the one doctor who chose B probably had a brain aneurysm seconds before he selected B.

You’re a contestant on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’. You are asked a question pertaining to the field of medicine. Being that you have no medical expertise and have no idea what the answer is, you use your lifeline to ask a crowd of 1,000 doctors. 999 of them tell you its choice A. 1 says it’s choice B. There are no other choices.

For $1 million dollars, what is your final answer and why?

In order to have laws, you need authoritarianism. 

We’re not talking about science, 

Thank you for the generous concession.

The premise is that, all else being equal, it is more reasonable to believe the 9 doctors than the 1.

To deny this is to take the position that it is equally as reasonable to accept the 1 over the 9.

9 is greater than 1,

so to claim that the 9 have no valid grounds to be accepted over the 1 is to claim that the 9 have no more expertise than the one,

which if they’re all equally qualified is objectively false.

So the only way to make this position logically valid is to deny the value of expertise itself like I already explained.

And if that’s your position I would like to know whether you believe in doctors at all?

Or mechanics, or plumbers, or accountants, etc.

If you’re asking me to pick one on these grounds alone I suppose I would go with the 30 year physician, but I would consider the alternative just about as reasonable.

The point of my question is to test whether you believe in expertise, your hypothetical doesn’t do that because it adds unnecessary complexity into it making it useful for little more than mental masterbation.

If I am having chest pains, and 9 out of 10 doctors tell me I need surgery, but the other just prescribes medication, then the "reasonable" thing to do is to determine whose assessment is accurate. Determining accuracy based on the mere number of doctors is fallacious reasoning consistent with argumentum ad populum. It could very well be the case that the one doctor's assessment is accurate. Believing 9 out of 10 doctors, because it's 9 out 10 doctors has nothing to with Medicine.

[God "exists" as a matter of definition] may or may not be a logically coherent claim

Yes, see Kant's refutation of the ontological argument.

It's a purely conditional statement.

(IFF) causing pain and or discomfort to animals is "morally wrong" (THEN) slaughtering animals must also be at least equally "morally wrong"

(IFF) causing pain and or discomfort to animals is "morally neutral" (THEN) slaughtering animals must also be at least equally "morally neutral"

(IFF) bestiality is prohibited because of deuteronomy 27 (THEN) parental contempt must also be at equally prohibited because of deuteronomy 27

That God really exists.

I'm merely trying to point out that nobody is shocking potatoes with cattle prods in order to get them to move from one cage to another.

Yes, If a majority of people believe in God it doesn’t make it true.

How much and what type of meat is required for a human to maintain health ?

OPERATION PAPERCLIP

You don’t need gastronomical gratification, people do need to eat (plants).

I really don't understand how people don't get that if 1 out of 10 EQUALLY qualified doctors disagrees, then whatever the the issue is, it ISNT SCIENCE...

You don't see 1 out of 10 doctors debating Einstein's laws....

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

"The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.”"

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

It's not the 9 qualified doctors we need to rapidly bobble our heads at, it's the 1 EQUALLY qualified doctor that insists we hold up a minute that deserves our utmost attention and consideration.

If a majority of people believe something it doesn’t make it true.

I am convinced that a great many of the people I know would be substantially better off if they had even a rudimentary education on finance. It's absolutely criminal that our society allows 18 year olds with no assets or income sign up for non dischargeable debt that can reach to the six figures without providing them in their TWELVE years of education the information necessary to understand that decision. These kids are the future, if you cripple them at the beginning of their adult lives, the next generation isn't going to materialize at all.

No, it’s not. First of all, you are confusing inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning. We’re not talking about the latter. I’m not saying the 9 doctors are right because they overwhelmingly outnumber the 1, I’m saying the 9 doctors are more likely right because they overwhelmingly outnumber the 1. And if we accept that they are more likely to be right then we are acting reasonable to follow their guidance, while doing the opposite would be unreasonable.

What you are missing in your fallacious equivocation is this concept we call expertise.

You claim listening to the 9 instead of the 1 is a logical fallacy.

If relying on the expertise of others is a logical fallacy

1) You've conceded that: "None of this matters because the only considerations--"capable" or not--that should be made as it concerns one's own body is by the very person him or herself," is a wild claim that leads to wickedly dark conclusions.

(2) You've failed to demonstrate that my original argument is irrelevant Should the age of consent be lowered? (debateart.com) because you've failed to substantiate the idea that children are capable of consent.

I've substantiated the idea that children are unable to consent through reference to brain development.

Moreover, children are unable to comprehend the implications, emotional aspects and risks involved in sex (much like how you wouldn't expect children to pay for a house, manage taxes, work a proper job etc.).

You affording the same "bodily autonomy" to children as adults is a bad idea because they are not the same and these differences matter.

Calling this "fluff" isn't a sufficient counter-argument

You are a pedophile because you believe there is no difference children and adults having sex

you have the capacity to be attracted to children.

That is not the same as claiming you're a convicted pedophile, you have committed pedophilic acts or that you are planning to (hence, my reasoning is not "asinine"). Again, people are pedophiles due to your capacity to be attracted to children (which you are). Whether you are an anarchist or not has no bearing on this conclusion

But really, this is you larping as a cringelord anarchist and accidentally revealing that you're a pedophile, Athias.

It’s not based on a lot of things. So what? It’s not based on chocolate cake, it’s not based on dolphins, it’s not based on verifiability. I didn’t allude to any of them. 

There goes the strawmen again. 

sigh* I’ll ignore how petty you’re being.  They wouldn’t qualify to be considered doctors and practice. 

For many medical diagnoses I wouldn’t know fact from opinion.

What does it have to do with?

Well considering the same people that are arguing for there be no age of consent are the same one saying it's okay to have sex with a cow.

All I said is we’ll have to agree that they do. Presumption is built in. Stop trying to make strawmen, seriously.

There’s the steelman. 

Here’s the ‘what if’ game again. Are you actually going to argue against the original argument or what? 

Because the person qualifying it is too ignorant to know the difference. What don’t you understand? 

First we’ll have to agree that most doctors will somewhat know what they’re talking about. Do you agree? If not, then this is a lost cause. 

I wasn’t referring to you specifically.

My original statement: “In general, quantity of professional opinion is quality.”

Do you know the old saying, if in doubt, get a second opinion? It’s a saying for those too ignorant to know otherwise. 

I’m not using ignorant as an adjective. 

Hence quantity of professional medical counsel, is quality. 

Due to your ignorance. 

So, what anyone happens to do with their own property is of no concern to the state.

Which you’ll be able to know how to fully interpret and understand, or will you still need doctors counsel?

Well it’s up to you if you want to go through with it.

Duh

The question being asked here is… how do you go about determining who to believe is right?

Do you self diagnose and then conclude that you know better that the overwhelming majority of doctors who told you the opposite?

Do you default to the idea that the majority of doctors must be trying to deceive you for nefarious purposes?

Do you assume that the one doctor must be more qualified than everyone else because he told you what you wanted to hear?

Okay Dunning Kruger, what does?

What would be the chances though? If we’re talking about in general, I would say very slim. 

Read what I said to Athias. In general, quantity of professional opinion is quality. 

You've failed to prove this.

Your want is completely relevant to this because we legally mandate what is consider "consent" through what we want,

and yes I'm arguing that we should legally mandate the notion of consent in regardless to sexual intercourse.

When society doesn't want 9 year olds having sex, that's because there are grave implications that result from it (children, costs, power imbalances etc.) You failing to not want that is completely relevant to the grave implications that result from that.

Also, the fact that you think 9 year olds should be having sex makes you a pedophile.

You are incorrect because you write words which reflect what registers in your brain. Therefore, I do have an idea.

Power imbalances in consent are the problem, pedophile.

For example, if a custodial guardian says to his 10 year old child 'have sex with me or you don't get fed', that is clearly an exploitation of the power imbalance rendering the child unable to give true consent.

But there is *always* a problem in regards to underaged sex because the children involved are unable to comprehend the implications, are at serious risk of being exploited, and are unable to deal with the real world implications of sex. That's the point.

I'm arguing that we shouldn't have this result in the first place, so I'm not going to open this can of worms because society should be looking to avoid this at a lot of cost.

Having general intelligence/being famous is different to having the emotional understanding of the implications involving sex.

Even with your extreme examples, children aren't emotionally equipped to deal with the blow out involved with having sex.

Zygotes and fetuses can't have sex, you stupid pedophile.

You're treating 3 year olds as if they're adults with the "individual's bodily autonomy". I've got no problem if you want to talk about adults like that, but you think there is no difference between 3 year olds and adults having sex.

Three year olds don't understand the implications of sex, let alone anything in the adult world. All they know is that they want to play and learn about things they see in their lives.

I haven't argued any of this.

I have argued that you are a pedophile

and your illogical reasoning is harmful to society

and when you say things like "The age of consent should be eliminated entirely"

and that you're okay with 3 year olds having sex,

you do a better job at proving both those things than I do.

I don't think you realize how unacceptable what you are saying is.

You are fully advocating pedophilia.

There are strict, unforgiving laws against it all throughout the world that should be enough to prevent you from engaging in pedophilia, not to mention the extremely damaging abuse children suffer at the hands of pedophiles.

This is nothing to be owning or embracing

you are as bad for society as terrorists and serial killers.

You need to be rectified before you cause serious harm to a child, if you haven't already.

No.

I never called you a convicted pedophile.

I called you a pedophile.

I hope that if you ever get convicted of pedophilia, you are killed for your inhuman crime.

Everything you write points in this direction.

The most damning quote is this: "The age of consent should be eliminated entirely".

You are a pedophile, Athias.

That isn't how I came to the conclusion that you're a pedophile.

I've argued that because you don't see anything wrong with 3 year olds or 9 year olds having sex

To you, there is no difference between an adult and a 3 year old having sex. That is an essential belief of a pedophile, one of which you hold.

How is 9 doctors telling you that you need surgery indistinguishable from 9 friends telling you that you won’t be harmed if you stab yourself in the eye?

Are you saying its better to self-diagnose when it comes to serious health problems? Let’s run your logic to its conclusion. 

Hypothetical scenario; You are having serious chest pains. You go to 10 doctors to get looked at. 9 of them tell you that you need surgery. 1 of them tells you it’s not serious and prescribes you medication.

Question: What do you think is most reasonable to believe?

That's a wild claim that's going to lead to some wickedly dark conclusions.

So if a 9 year old (entered puberty early) is "capable" of having sex, they should be able to have it?

You want 9 year olds and 30 year olds having sex?

You want two 9 year olds having sex?

How does it not register in your brain that this is an appalling standard to have

with all the power imbalances involved with children and adults having sex

the issue with 9 year olds giving birth to children,

the cognitive inability to understand the consequences of sex,

how two 9 year olds are going to pay for a child etc.

Or would you wind it back even further and say that people *before* puberty are "capable" of having sex, therefore that's fine? Nothing wrong with 3 year olds having sex?

That's actually thoroughly disgusting, dangerously wrong and you're a pedophile. 

I don't agree with blocking people like that, but good grief is he a danger to society.

Convicted pedophiles need the death penalty.

This Athias guy is implicitly arguing there is nothing wrong with pedophilia.

This guy has to be a pedophile.

The human brain hasn't fully developed until roughly the age of 25. What this means is that until the age of 25, humans are less capable of making big, life-changing decisions due to the underdevelopment of the prefrontal cortex At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed? - Mental Health Daily. Ideally, if that was the only factor involved, humans should not be able to get married, have sex, drink alcohol, have political opinions, choose to go to college, enlist in the military etc. before that age. Also, the extra 7-12 years worth of life experience will further help make these decisions. I wrote an OP detailing how bad teenaged parents are for children (looking purely at outcomes): Children should be born into wedlock with their biological, adult parents (debateart.com) .

However, we also need to factor in the fact that young bodies have an advantage over their 25 year old counterparts. For giving birth to children, as women age they become more likely to have genetically unhealthy children https://youtu.be/4kfcsOhgzRA?t=550 . For men, they have the highest (natural) testosterone levels around the ages of 17-20 -- this is roughly where they are most virile testosterone levels in men by age - Bing images . So, purely for breeding purposes, it would be best if men and women of ages 17-20 could produce their children then.

Therefore, we have these opposing forces for age of consent: (1) societal factors wanting you to be far older to produce children (25+), and (2) the human body reaching breeding potential around the ages of 17-20 (probably lower for girls and higher for boys). Thus, the game here is to balance this out. If you set the age of consent too low, you'll have people having sex who don't understand the implications of it at all. If you set the age of consent too high, you'll miss out on the years the human body is at its reproductive best.

Nowhere in this calculation can it be concluded that 13 years old is a good idea for the age of consent -- the lack of physical maturation and mental maturation means you're getting the worst of both worlds. If you take it up to 16 (which is the case for some countries), you're basically at the physical maturation for girls (almost for boys), but the mental side will be horribly lacking (read my teenage parents OP). If you take it up to 20 years, you're on the back-end of the physical maturation and you're capturing more of the mental maturity -- this is where I'd like to see age of consent at.

If we set the age of consent to 20, we also lower the amount of useless sex before people can get married and have children (sex lowers people's ability to pairbond, and pairbonding is essential for a stable child-rearing unit) stable marriage rate as per teachman - Bing images . This will also mean that people will, on average, be having more responsible sex, thus lowering the chances of STDs spreading. We also help to avoid of the exploitative setups wherein older people have relationships with teenagers (think 30 year old dating 16 year olds).

Not only should we reject the age of consent being lowered (especially to 13), but I think it should be raised to 20.

There is less opportunity to take advantage of someone who is fully mentally equipped.

14 year olds... their brains aren't finished cooking yet, at least not until they're 18 AFAIK.

Retarded people and the elderly having cognitive decline come to mind. On the other end of the age spectrum we have stupid old farts who have zero sexual capital but tons of money. Scamming old people is a cottage industry these days, and we have plenty of elder abuse laws on the books to protect them from that.

Well, a 14 year old usually is dependent on his parents and subject to their oversight. He can be controlled by them. A 25 year old usually is independent and is not subject to parental oversight. 

Well, you seemed to ask why data and studies would be relevant IIRC. Yes, that question did go unanswered. Suffice to say there exists relevant evidence. Data and studies are usually the type of evidence that I find to be most compelling for policy making issues. Getting in to a discussion over which sort of evidence is relevant isn't really necessary we haven't really looked at any.

We should totally let 14-year-olds be considered legal adults and have their own jobs and apartments screw school learning anything just let him go get their own place and have sex all they want to that's a perfect idea because they're totally prepared for everything that life has to throw at them at 14.

At least the girls cuz that's who everybody keeps talking about how the girls should be able to decide to f*** a 30 year old man if they want to.

Can't speak for all the legislatures, but one issue is that a 25 year old is usually an independent person while a 14 year old probably is dependent on and accountable to his parents. I mean, I don't see any mechanism outside the law for controlling what a 25 year old does. That, and I'm imagining that there's simply less opportunity for 14 year olds to be abusive with each other because they're more on a level playing field mentally. (not that it doesn't happen) There's also less knowledge of the world and laws and what have you.

Teenagers are going to want to have sex with each other and they see each other all the time from schools. I don't see any purpose in having a punitive statutory regime for regulating it when it can already be regulated through parental oversight.

It is the parents' role to look out for their children.

RN it's a TLDR. Maybe later.

Being pro rape and child molesting is not a good look.

What makes you think it's reasonable to use "convince a lion not to initiate any form aggression" as a standard for "moral-agency" ?

It seems to fail as even a purely hypothetical standard.

You already declared that some humans are moral-agents and some are not moral-agents.

Would you suggest that humans who are not moral-agents are equal to animals ?

ANd, furthermore, can we tell if someone is a moral-agent simply by looking at them ?

13 is too young. Some guys and girl haven't even hit puberty or have had the talk yet with their parents. They simply don't know what consent is at the time and can not properly function at all.

There's also relative studies to confirm my point as well about maturing and adolescences and puberty. Hell I don't think I hit puberty at 13.

Age of consent is about protecting those who are mentally vulnerable to those who are more mentally savvy.

To state that a 30-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old is appropriate is not appropriate.

Taking advantage of a 14-year-old are convincing her that she wants to have sex is exactly the kind of thing people have been talking about when it comes to rape or lack of consent.

I'm for protecting children, and not penalizing people who are close in age from having sex.

Cases should be done on an individual basis to determine whether or not some sort of consent violation occurred.

But there's no reason people under the age of 18 should be having sex with someone that's more than 5 years older than them there is a huge difference between the mental and physical body of a 14-year-old and a 19 year old.