Because at 20 years old, the victim can argue her complaint in front of a judge.
well, the answer is rape at 20 violated the body property rights of a self-owner, who has reason and will and is comprehensible from a teleological analysis. (this makes rape comprehensible as a term in that context) if the same goes for a 4 year old, terrific, but then the 4 year old is a sovereign and is not in the ‘potential sovereign requiring a custodian’ camp a la Block/Rothbard… rape can be meaningfully applied to a thinking being; otherwise its just sex. the most depraved person could not ‘rape’ a zygote.
Filc. i understand your disgust etc. but i think your examples of things you find disgusting show a subtle confusion about the arguments being put forth by those with whom you are disgusted. maybe not, but this is a suggestion…
your example about the 8 year old, is prima facea an evil act of rape against a sovereign who has the ‘logical possibility’ of consent in the present in which the evil is enacted upon them. yet just as mountains become heaps down the continuum of removal of material, aren’t we compelled to admit that human offspring biological material always travels through at least two stages, the second of which is a moral agent etc, the first of which is just so much matter.
now perhaps your sensitivity to this is strong since after a 9 month gestatation (perhaps months earlier than that) you think that an offspring is already sufficiently conceivable as a sovereign mind-having being that parents and others when interacting with them, must necessarily treat them as the rights having beings they presently are under natural law. would you agree though that before that offspring has developed sovereignty, it is not sovereign and so issues of rights are moot at this stage? (perhaps you think it is only on the first day that the zygote begins to divide, but you at least think it of the zygote?
Spidey, may imagine , like Rothbard and Block, that sovereignty is achieved at a much advanced age, typically with some years on the clock, this explains why RothBlockian position is that there is a ‘custodianship’ period, because they hold that children are simply not sovereign until some substantial time after birth…? or he may not, perhaps he thinks sovereignty comes much sooner and leaves no space for custodianship, but merely the challenge of caring for a sovereign who needs physical care to survive, yet has barriers to communicating its consents and refusals, even whilst it is sovereign and does consent and refuse.
I think Spidey has considered/entertained your stated p.o.v that a child is not property. he then wonders how an adult that wants to respect the childs sovereignty might hope to achieve the care necessary to support the physical and physcological development of the young offspring, given that the sovereign child that demands care has impediments towards communicating their sovereign decisions; their consents and their refusals. to which the adult carer would wish to comply with
No children were hurt in the making of this post.<
A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not.
Now, given that you seem to think you’re so smart, I would love to see you attempt to answer my questions.
While she’s being raped? According to Spidey’s logic, it wouldn’t be illegal at the time of the rape, because she wouldn’t be able to bring the case to the court.
Are questions logical fallacies? I would concede that complex questions are, but I did not ask any complex questions, and you did not accuse me of such. Now, can you be intellectually honest, and actually attempt to answer the questions?
Really? Can you prove it? If not, then will you admit you are lying and move on?
Seriously? You want to me go through every single possible action and tell you if it’s a violation of rights? Keep it simple: Initiating violence is a violation of rights.
Of course not. No one in this thread has claimed so as far as i can remember.
Sex without consent is always wrong. Killing without consent, and not accidentally or in defense is always wrong.
Non sequitur and irrelevant. It does not matter if I never say yes or if I say yes to everything except sex with you - the result, as far as the question of sex with you goes, is the same: You do not have my consent. You may not have sex with anyone unless that person consents. It is none of you concern why the person did not consent. Whether a person cannot or will not consent, the result is the same - he or she has not consented.
A perfect strawman. Sex with a non-consenting child violates the child’s rights, therefore all interactions with a child violate the child’s rights. Very well put together.
??? If you ever get raped, let me know afterwards if you were able to bring a case to the court while you were being raped.
I think everything is getting too caught up in the rape part of the arguement. I think the question that Spidey is getting at is : in terms of raising a child, it seems that parents must do things to the child without the child’s consent that strange adults would have a big problem with if done against their consent, is there a line? how is it determined? where is it? who determines the line?
JackC, in an attempt to bridge the Gap..
Spideyn question is as simple as, is my bathing you without your consent violation of your rights? is my placing a bottle, filled with milk. in your mouth, without your consent a rights violation of you?
So locking my toddler in her room at night is a violation of her rights?
So are you saying babies/toddlers cannot ever consent to anything?
Nowhere in my question did I claim that since sex with a non-consenting child violates the child’s rights, that therefore all interactions with a child violates the child’s rights. Will you admit to your lie and also answer the question?
So, will you directly answer a question with a non-question?
Can you move on now? As far as I know, I always try to answer questions posed to me. Let me know if there are any I have not tried to address.
Then we are back to ability to argue one’s complaint as the defining measure of rights? In that case, the story someone posted about the 40+ year old locked as a sex slave in a German basement contains no rights violations. She was physically unable to argue her case, therefore it wasn’t a violation. For that matter, if someone is murdered and has no surviving heirs to their property, no injustice has been done.
How can we if you refuse to directly answer questions with non-questions?
My understanding is that he answered by suggesting that if he took on board the sensitivity to expressed consent his toddler would go uncared for, as it has not been observed to consent to the things needed to keep it well cared for, in the manner in which an older more expressive child might be expected to. I could be wrong though.
No where in this thread have I stated or implied that all interactions with a child, regardless of consent, are a violations of said child’s rights. Sex and killing were all I’ve discussed, though honestly, I’ve tried to focus on sex. Though these are not an exhaustive list of rights violations, you are in error to claim that it somehow leads to all interactions.
taking a crack at it, the whole custodial/guardianship idea seems to hold a lot of weight with me. Which sort of puts children in a third category that is inbetween property and a self-owning moral agent. It would seem to make sense that someone could challenge a parent or set of parents in court for custodial rights and it would be up to an arbitrator to determine who had the better claim to the custody rights. I am not sure exactly on what grounds the arbitrator would decide the cases, but I have a good idea that extreme physical violence/rap are going to be reasons to rule in favor of anyone willing to take on the custody rights.
The bolded is not a question. I assume that you missed the fact that there is a period at the end of it and not a question mark. So again, can you move on now?