Or sleeping… or comatose.
Can this mute individual not write?
If one is mute, blind, deaf, & incapable of writing, then maybe they would be a rather huge problem (sans the possibility that such an individual’s family might realize how incapable this individual may be of autonomy, & may take responsibility).
And if a pen and paper aren’t handy? Of the mute has extremely poor handwriting, or better yet, can’t write at all?
Better yet, what if somebody has an accent that you don’t understand, you then proceed to mug them and therefore can’t be sure that they’re refusing to comply. Hence when they take out their wallet you merely see it as a sign of consent.
Would you still buy insurance from a company that stops providing for people that go into a deep coma? I guess not. Bottom line is you can’t extend that argument to people that were previously able to consent.
Why? That just means the insurance agency will use force. It does not mean it will do so in the protection of a right that somehow vanishes when you are not able to express consent… and thus one may conclude it is aggressing.
Okay, what about protection agencies and private courts that stop enforcing the rights of such people?
What about them? BTW, in case it is unclear, I do not hold to the view that rights vanish along with the ability to express consent…
They lose buisness?
I was under the impression that you extend the situation of people born without the ability to express consent to those that lose this ability at some point, thereby trying to argue that the former should have the same rights as the latter category. So I was trying to explain that this extension cannot be made, as the situations are rather different.
lol what?
I would promptly be arrested, after a trial (or two; being that there would most likely be multiple courts etc.) in which I promptly hire Alan Shore, whom somehow miraculously claims the victim is to blame for “miscommunicating” consent to being robbed, & I am found guilty of not only the criminal act of mugging, but of the sheer audacity to blame the victim, & possibly of questionable intelligence to go with an imaginary lawyer as my defense.
The hypothetical is important, however, I admit that.
My point was simply this: abiltiy to consent is a poor starting point for rights. If not for other reasons then because it cannot be ascertained at the time.
Right but then you at least agree that consent is not all there is to it to possessing rights. At best it’s an indicator. So it does not follow from the fact that a child cannot express consent that it does not possess rights, and thus that “anything goes” with relation to it.
Of course, if you ask my opinion, I agree, they do have rights. I’m merely pointing out the difficulties of enforcing those rights when consenting is absent.
I agree that it’s difficult. I’m just trying to determine whether a parent has free rein to do whatever they wish to their child, i.e. whether children possess any rights at all or not.
Mutes can still communicate. So they would fare just fine.
Look Jon, it is simply irrational to assume that a child did not want to have sex with their parent. Granted consent was not given, but it was not witheld either. Again, it can only be rape if someone has the ability to reason, as such has the ability to withold or grant consent. Because otherwise, we do not know.
But we do know the child is a being with the capacity for rationality (knowledge we lack with respect to animals). And we know that the development of rationality is gradual (and thus by no means clear-cut.) And we have no idea whether the child would consent or not. So it would seem the best (most reasonable) option is to be as minimally invasive as possible, whilst acting within the child’s best interests, i.e. not to aggress against the child, allowing for the possibility of restitution where possible (e.g. in the case of bathing it nude.) Courts will have discretion in interpreting whether a parent has acted in a child’s best interests or not, and it is dubious (in the extreme) that any court will take at face value the claim of a parent who had sex with their child, to be looking out for its well-being. If they honestly believed this, the court may refuse to continue enforcing their custodial rights, due to their incompetence, leaving the child up for grabs by the more competent.
My point is that it is fatuous to argue that because someone cannot consent to an action, that it therefore follows one may carry out the action out on them. The precise opposite seems to be the case.
Hm. So again it’s been assumed that children don’t know what their best interests are…Well, this is no different than governments working for the best interest of their subjects.
And yet, children are not capable of rational argumentation, so yes, parents may be forced to coerce their children sometimes.
I was thinking about this. Kids are capable of some rational thinking for sure. After the age of 5 or so, they definitely have the ability to leave. But most kids stay. They realize it is in their best interest to stay close to their parents.
And the majority of kids who run away? Not very good parenting, sometimes downright dangerous or life threatening.
I’m not sure kids are any less capable of rational decision making than 30 something year old slobs who live with their parents.