ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Regardless of what happens in the legal case, that BBC article is a prime example of how the propaganda machine rolls. "A man has been arrested..." Literally no other references to this man. You can't make this stuff up.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
That you disagree with the moral vision presented does not imply that the whole thing, at its time, in the perspective of the people involved, had nothing to do with morality.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I've heard that you don't even need to make NPCs who intentionally lie to you to make it happen. Of course, yours would be like the final boss version of this game.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
And you see no connection whatsoever between the Mosaic law and any sense of morality?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
They make explicit covenants with that are about earthly rewards...
Sure, but what kind of things do they agree to do in those covenants?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Maybe for you, child sex taboo is inconsistent, but most people don't have a problem there.
They don't think they have a problem there, but then you ask them for details about how the rest of their moral system works... suddenly, the inconsistency is on full display for anyone who cares to view.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Sure. Rape is bad. I don't think that an example of someone being raped implies that all other people are incapable of consenting. Even if we try to draw a circle around a group of roughly similar people who are being raped because of a systemic societal failure. E.g., people could certainly recount horrible stories about black slaves being raped, and explain how a systemic societal failure led to this happening a bunch of times. Doesn't seem to imply that black people in general are incapable of consenting.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
child prostitutes presumably cannot consent
Why not? Especially because...
In fact, how much does the dying child part even matter? It seems it would only matter if we first establish that harm is always caused to children having sex, even if they ostensibly consent.
This seems to be the route Wertheimer took. It's a bit unsatisfying, because we end up not being able to make such bold proclamations as, "[C]hild prostitutes presumably cannot consent." Instead, we have to say that, sure, they can consent, but we have reason to believe that it would be harmful to them, anyway (and so we simply refuse to accept their consent). He bit this bullet and concluded that it was actually just an empirical question. That is, if we did a proper utilitarian calculation and determined that maybe it's not necessarily so harmful, then from a theoretical perspective, we just have to settle for saying that children consenting to sex is totally fine.
This theoretical tool could be applied to hypothetical societies, too. For example, if we built an extremely sex-positive culture with tip-top comprehensive sex education at young ages, we could raise children who think, like many others even in these spaces think, that having sex is mostly akin to just playing a fun game of tennis with someone, being aware that there are risks like tearing your ACL. Then, they'd be able to consent just fine, no differently than we think that they can consent to playing a game of tennis.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I think you have said words, but you haven't given any sense of what those words mean. If you're fine with that, so be it. However, it won't be very convincing to anyone else.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Does social stature as "adult status" mean "age"? If so, then "age and social stature" is redundant. If not, then you still have some explaining to do.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
So, you'd like to withdraw your "and social stature"?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Children cannot give consent.
the difference in age and social stature on the part of the child renders any of their agreement to be coerced and manipulated.
We basically never say that age/social stature differences inherently make agreements coerced/manipulated, invalidating consent. We don't even have to go to hypotheticals about Taylor Swift wanting to have sex with someone... though we could; how could a "normal" person possibly consent to having sex with Taylor Swift, given her immense social stature advantage? This sort of reasoning kills a normal person's ability to consent to the transaction of buying a ticket to a Taylor Swift concert! How could they possibly consent, given the massive different in social stature?!
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
The great part about realizing that your position is obscenely over-inclusive is that I can pick an example which falls within your over-inclusive claims but is optimally contrary to your intuitions. Therefore, let's go with Taylor Swift. Unless you'd like to introduce some form of distinction that you didn't have before which would be a good theoretical reason why Taylor Swift doesn't count.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Whelp, are you going to tell them all that they can't go see T-Swizzle's new tour, or am I going to have to?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I do not think a 14 year-old is mature enough and understands the social consequences to consent to sexual activity with an adult, simply because of their inexperience.
Ah, something like the "knowledge" prong in Westen's parlance. So, then, suppose that we instituted a top tier sexual education to help children understand the social consequence of consent to sexual activity with an adult. Would that make it fine?
This is not to say younger person could not agree to partake in the activity, but the difference in age and social stature on the part of the child renders any of their agreement to be coerced and manipulated.
...and we've taken a massive left turn, actually. This is a totally different and contradictory basis on which to make the claim. It sort of also comes from nowhere. We basically never say that age/social stature differences inherently make agreements coerced/manipulated, invalidating consent. We don't even have to go to hypotheticals about Taylor Swift wanting to have sex with someone... though we could; how could a "normal" person possibly consent to having sex with Taylor Swift, given her immense social stature advantage? This sort of reasoning kills a normal person's ability to consent to the transaction of buying a ticket to a Taylor Swift concert! How could they possibly consent, given the massive different in social stature?!
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Along the way, you made a vastly broader claim. If you find that vastly broader claim now undefendable, no worries, but then you might have to reconsider what you wanted to talk about.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I believe the phrase they usually like to use is "stochastic terrorism". At least, they like to use it when it can be used against their enemies.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Children cannot give consent.
I am so incredibly disillusioned by the persistent poor use of language on this topic and the fact that the only tool in the toolbox for the current Morality Police is consent. I've read the professional philosophers on the topic, and once you see it, this sort of base simplification is big oof.
The first basic classification is whether you mean, "Children cannot give factual consent," or, "Children cannot give legal consent." If it's the latter, then the response is simply not relevant to these sorts of hypotheticals about morality. If it's the former, then huge questions remain. Why can't they? What does factually consenting consist of? What capacity do they lack that prevents them from doing so? Why is this particular use of "consent" so different from many other areas where we might use the term "consent" to mean things that everyone agrees a child would be capable of doing? What's the difference?
Now, we could have rich discussions on these questions. I don't know that I personally think they can all be answered in a simple way that comes to the result that you might like, not because I think that child sex is good, but more because I think the "consent only" sexual ethic is probably wrong. But we basically never even get to the meaningful questions, because this oversimplification is viewed as an atomic first principle. It's just a thought-terminating slogan that kills any meaningful progress rather than elucidating anything interesting.
This is why I also think that Hanania's efforts are more low-effort trolling unless he follows it up with something that really pokes people to consider how this question really rips raw their deficient conception of a sexual ethic.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Congress could pass laws like Germany's requiring prosecution where sufficient proof exists to gain a conviction.
I don't think they could. Likely would require a Constitutional amendment, given the currently dominant legal theory about the "Executive power" clause of the Constitution.
control of prosecution powers is temporary and divided
I think you are far too focused on Trump. The question is not whether Trump gets to decide what is and is not legal. The question is whether the Legislature really, actually, completely controls the matter. If anything, your point that the reality is decided by temporary/divided powers within the Executive actually supports the point that, in many more cases than is ideal (though probably a small fraction of overall cases), it is actually the Executive which decides what is illegal, not the Legislature.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Would you have been the ninth vote in US v. Texas to affirm that proposition, had you magically been in Scalia's vacant seat at the time? Because best as I can tell, the judgment below to the contrary was affirmed.
I really get the sense that you have an amazing blind spot for how powerful selective prosecution can be. The Legislature can write a law, but if the Executive simply doesn't enforce it, is it really illegal? Conversely, given Legislatures that write many vague laws, when the Executive decides to selectively enforce extremely vague wording, possibly taken out of context of the broader scheme in order to get at one particular action/defendant, possibly in a way that could not have been anticipated by the Legislature which passed said law, to what extent can it be said that the Legislature actually made it illegal?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Are they capable of consenting to having sex with one another?
...because right now, 'consent' is the only tool in the toolbox of the Moral Police.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Prosecutorial discretion don't real?
Let's be honest; that's total bullshit from hyper-risk-averse lawyers. Like, could there some day be a case somewhere that plausibly opens up some degree of legal liability? Possibly. This thing was on television. The guy had his name written on the back of his jersey, for the express purpose of identifying him. Their closest example of actual legal liability was one where they said he was charged, but he was not actually charged. Clearly, they're reporting an arrest and have confidence that an arrest was actually made. I cannot fathom how someone would construct any legal liability for them saying his name.
The article you link even goes on to say that news outlets actually do print names all the time, even though there is some scant vapor of possibly liability in an edge case somewhere. Sagan knows they wouldn't wrap themselves in the most hyper-risk-averse legal position if they thought it would promote their preferred politics. Would you make a prediction? After the police announce it officially, do you predict that they'll post a second article naming him or go back and alter this article? Or do you think they'll just wait and sit on it?
More options
Context Copy link