Totalitarianist

I ask for scientific evidence which indicates that the form of a child's brain is such that he is incapable of consenting to the sexual act. The burden of proof is on any person who posits that children are incapable of consenting to the sexual act.

It must be stressed that the design of this post is to generate discussion on the ability of children to consent to the sexual act. It is hopeful, therefore, that the discussion remains one on the ability of children to consent to the sexual act and not on related but irrelevant subjects such as child molestation, child pornography, etc. If we include such subjects in our inquiry this discussion will become needlessly emotive and lengthy.

Nostalgic Pushhead

Fact: Kids play in dirt all day and then stick their finger in their nose and eat dirty boogers.

Conclusion: Kids are retarded.

cheetah

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. In point of fact, it's the responsibility of the person asserting a positive to prove it. I posted this before and I'll post it again. One cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove there is no God, but it's up to believers to prove there is one. I also cannot prove children have no ability to consent. If you say they do, you have to prove. I'm not the one saying they do! And you, who so tout yourself as a skeptic, should know better than to just assume something till someone can prove you wrong; that's not the way skepticism works. You have to have evidence of something to believe it could be true. So, where's the evidence?

Totalitarianist

To me it is obvious that 1+1=2. If someone asserted that it is false that 1+1=2, which is a negative statement, it would be reasonable for me to ask him to prove it. If he cannot respond with a convincing argument, then I will assume that he is false -- the burden of proof is on him for denying it, since it is so obvious.

Likewise, if someone says that "Children cannot consent", I will ask for evidence, since, like 1+1=2, common sense tells me that children can consent, i.e. it is exceedingly obvious. But, for the sake of argument, I will suppose that it is not true that children are capable of consenting. I will suppose, likewise, that it is not true that children are incapable of consenting. That is to say, the statements "Children can consent," and "Children are incapable of censenting" will both be regarded as false by me until someone can provide me with evidence scientific.

However, to say that children are incapable of censenting is a positive assertion. If a man said that ants are incapable of forming colonies, we would either laugh at that man or we would ask that man for evidence.

And so it is not proving a negative. This is a statement positive:

Children can do everything children do but consent.

To posit is to negate. To negate is to posit.

When you posit, i.e. say that something is, you are at the same time negating, i.e. saying that it is not something else.

Likewise, when you negate, i.e. say that something is not, you are at the same time positing, i.e. saying that it is, although what it is we may not know.

And so all negative statements have a positive element to them, and all positive statements have a negative element to them.

However, it is nonetheless a positive statement:

"It is true that children are incapable of consenting to the sexual act," or

"'Consent' is outside the circle of things which children do."

Whoever says that children can consent to the sexual act, I ask him this: "Where is your evidence?" Whoever says that it is true that children are incapable of consenting to the sexual act, I ask him this: "Where is your evidence?"

Since nearly every one here believes that it is true that children are incapable of censenting to the sexual act, it is my belief that it is reasonable to inquire, why cannot they consent to the sexual act, and by "why" is meant the scientific explanation therefor.

I would like to know the scientific foundation behind the positive belief that children are incapable of consenting. Again, that is a positive belief.

The burden of proof is not on me inasmuch as I am assuming that it is false that children can consent and and that children are incapable of consenting until someone provides me with evidence scientific for either side.

echidna

Define child.

The Other Michael

Totalitarianist,

It looks to me that you are looking for a discussion of children's cognative abilities rather than an MF&P discussion, and so I'm moving this to the S&S forum.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

Totalitarianist

As for your "God" analogy, please give me a better analogy, because "existence" is the least we can say about a thing. We all know that "children" and "consent" exist. "God" cannot even be defined. "Children" and "consent" can be defined. If saying that a child consenting to the sexual act is not compatible with the definitions of "child" and "consent", what is required is proof that our definitions are wrong, i.e. a scientific investigation of childhood which indicates that childhood consent is an impossible action, which would result in a re-definition of our conception of "consent" and "childhood" if and only if science indicated that children are incapable of consent.

To say that children cannot consent amounts to saying that our definitions of "consent" and "children" are incorrect. By the definitions of "child" and "consent" it is self-evident that the form of a child's mind is such that he is capable of consenting. A consenting child breaks no known laws of science. If this flows from the definitions, it is therefore self-evident. Any truths which flow necessarily from definitions are considered to be "self-evident". When one denies a self-evident thing, the burden of proof is on him, and he is required to provide us with evidence.

Also, and this is more important, to say that children are incapable of consenting is a positive assertion because it amounts to saying that the childhood consent breaks the laws of logic or science. The burden of proof is on the the person who posits. When you say that something breaks a law, you are positing. Therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Jesse

"Children cannot consent" is a legal issue, not a scientific one. Of course they can consent to something in the sense of saying yes or no. But legally it is thought that they do not have sufficient understanding of the consequences of their decision or all the issues involved to be able to give informed consent. For similar reasons, the law says that children cannot make the decision themselves as to whether to get an education, whether to work in a factory, etc. And similar legal limitations on consent or decision-making exist for the mentally retarded, schizophrenics, people who are extremely drunk or on drugs, etc.

echidna

T, I can gain consent from the average 5 year old to run out onto a busy highway or not needing to wear their seat belt.

I can gain consent from the average 10 year old that they should only eat junk food and drink soft drinks without ever needing to brush their teeth or exercise.

I can gain consent from the average 15 year old that socialising with friends and playing video games is a far better use of time than studying or exercising.

Big deal. Their minds are capable of saying "yes", but the reason most people don't equate this to consent, is that children are less capable of understanding the consequences.

Totalitarianist

Those are different issues entirely. Those have negative consequences. Child-child sex (out of curiousity) has no negative consequences.