I have no idea. What do you want? Assume that the child has the right to be free from aggression and then don’t aggress. Next you’re be asking be for example, other than sex and murder. of aggression. You are an intelligent man. You can figure out what is aggression and what is not. If not, I’m really not interested in discussing it. Our disagreement is not, and has not been about that. We disagree on whether a child has the right to be free from aggression or not.
Even with requiring a custodian, it’s still rape. Why? Because custodianship only means caretaking, not owning. Certainly we wouldn’t say that it’s not a violation of an alzheimer’s sufferers rights if we beat that person savagely, even with the person requiring a guardian to assist the person in day-to-day life. No different with parental custodianship.
I see your problem; you confuse the ability to seek justice with no rights being violated. Please don’t do that again.
I don’t think you are interested in an honest discussion, KoB. Even someone that claims that children have rights will admit that at some time in her life, she can have sex and magically it will not be rape anymore. So it is obviously impossible for me to give you a satisfactory answer when you do not even want to discuss reality.
Rather, the difference is between people knowing and people not knowing. Please do not create a strawman of your own position–that’s just the ultimate in assclownery.
true… consent and refusal have teleological meanings separate from, but related to, the causal meanings whereby we generally gather evidence of other peoples teleological /internal/ states.
The issue is that there is ambiguity between zygotes that we don’t pretend to ourselves and others have internal representations of things like consent and refusal, and substantially developed children who we understand as having and using them. Plus in cases where we conceive of the young child as being a self-owner we have a harder task than normal (than when we deal with mature self-owners) given the limitations of communication possible.
cutting off a persons tongue and cutting off the hands without consent is a horrendous crime, with consent a horrendous(aesthetically) voluntary act. It is a conventional wisdom, a kind of thymology , or familiarity with cultural, species related, and psychological norms that cause us to assume crime and lack of consent has happened in a tongue and hand cutting case, because it seems so unlikely that consent and voluntary act has arisen.
If the premise is that there was no consent, then crime falls out of the analysis, and vice-versa if we assume consent. a philosophic difficulty is to determine the truth of actual cases…
lol. i think economics is way easier than ethics … [;)]
Thank you for your concession. You now agree with me that it is rape. Any further denials from you will be met with a repetition of my question, which you have yet to substantially answer.
Prove it. Or is that also self-evident.
That was a non-answer. Obviously, you are not interested in an honest discussion. I don’t see the point in discussing this with you anymore.
Can you prove it? If not, will you stop lying?
Consent is magic?
I see no ambiguity.
Then we’d also have the same problem should we deal with a mature self-owner whose language we do not speak.
Yes, it is. And it demonstrates the absurdity of Stranger’s position, i.e. an inability to seek justice means no rights were violated.
Why is it rape when the person is 20 years old, but not rape when 4 years old? Answer the question.
Ask Bawaa, he called it magic.
Rather, it is your position that it is magic; I merely elucidated it for you.
Ahh. I must have missed that. Falling into the category on those who claim children have rights, I don’t think I would make the magic claim, though.
This thread is devolving. I’m honestly waiting for someone to bring up Hitler or Nazis (oops, looks like I have). The sad thing is, I agree with you, even in this thread, much more than I disagree with you. Most participants are horrified that one could hold the position that sex with a child should not be illegal, ignoring that fact that this position is not advocating such behavior.
Beyond, that, if I were to accept you premise that children have no rights, then I would be in full agreement with you. Parents would certainly have the right to use them as they see fit, as a buching bag and a blow-up doll and in any other manner. There is no other logical conclusion.
You’ve also agreed with me that if you accept my premise that children to have rights, then having sex with a child would be a crime, even if only the child could make a valid claim.
I’m not sure how much more there is to discuss. You’re certainly not going to convince me that children do not have the right to be free from aggression. I highly doubt i will convince you that they do.
Rather, I believe the position is that it doesn’t violate the child’s rights.
Actually, no. Reread Spidy’s posts. His claim is that children are not self owners and are the property of their parents, and therefore have no rights.
Then, following from that, why do the children have rights once they begin to be able to bring a case to court?
I’m not really here to explain Spidy’s position, but that wasn’t him. He claimed that children gain rights when they gain the ability to think critically, not anything to do with courts. You’re conflating his position with those of others who may agree with him in part.