Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wyz_sub10 · 05-11-2003, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse
Actually, if this hadn't just been moved from MF&P, I'd be inclined to move it there. I'll wait a little bit to see if this mutates into a discussion of the cognitive abilities of children, or of the psychological effects of child sexual abuse by adults vs. the pychological effects of children playing doctor with each other, or something similar, but if not I'll probably ask permission from the moderators of MF&P to move it back.

I agree, Jesse.

If this is to be a scientific issue, perhaps someone with the expertise can discuss simply how a child's mind is less developed than that of an adult.

If this continues as a moral or legal issue, then it has no real place here.

cheetah · 05-11-2003, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Just because children consenting is as obvious TO YOU as 1+1=2, STILL does not make it so. Again, as skeptics, we don't believe what is OBVIOUS, but what is EVIDENCED. What if I told you that it is OBVIOUS to me that Asian people can read my mind? Do you just believe me? Do you not question me for some evidence? Is there some sanctity about things that are OBVIOUS to people that it must not be questioned? NOw, it is YOUR burden to prove Asian people cannot read my mind. You bear the burden, because it is already OBVIOUS to me, therefore I cannot be bothered to actually provide any evidence. Have fun with that...

NialScorva · 05-11-2003, 12:10 PM

Quote:

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

I take it you've never had sex?

The emotional issues alone would fry the brain of a kid.

Straight Hate · 05-11-2003, 01:15 PM

Extending Totalitarianist's position to encompass every legal age restriction set by society, far too much attention has been paid to the ridiculous claim that one's mental capacity is independent of age (keeping in mind the context). And existing as a socially-maligned adolescent (instead of your self-perceived status as an intellectual demigod) you ask for 'proof' of this fact?

Are the members of this board now required to 'prove' they physically mature? Will such proof satisfy your unstated standard, the one which is clearly superior to any other currently in existence?

Totalitarianist · 05-11-2003, 04:35 PM

Because there is no evidence that childhood consent is outside the circle of things which children are capable of doing, and because I believe that there is a considerable degree of truth in the preceeding messages, it is my belief that the question now becomes, Are there negative consequences?, and the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that there are negative consequences or for that matter that there are positive consequences. I am skeptical with regards to the claim that there are negative consequences involved in children consenting to participate in the sexual act. Moreover I shall be skeptical about the claim there there are positive consequences involved in children consenting to participate in the sexual act.

Totalitarianist · 05-11-2003, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
I agree, Jesse.

If this is to be a scientific issue, perhaps someone with the expertise can discuss simply how a child's mind is less developed than that of an adult.

If this continues as a moral or legal issue, then it has no real place here.

No, the question is: Is a child's mind necessarily underdeveloped to the extent that he is incapable of comprehending the consequences of partaking in the sexual act. No one denies that a child's brain is underdeveloped. Even if we accept that a child has no understanding whatever of it, which is highly dubious, a skeptical man is inclined to ask Why is it necessary? Unless it is forced, what negative consequences could there possibly be?

Totalitarianist · 05-11-2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cheetah
Just because children consenting is as obvious TO YOU as 1+1=2, STILL does not make it so. Again, as skeptics, we don't believe what is OBVIOUS, but what is EVIDENCED. What if I told you that it is OBVIOUS to me that Asian people can read my mind? Do you just believe me? Do you not question me for some evidence? Is there some sanctity about things that are OBVIOUS to people that it must not be questioned? NOw, it is YOUR burden to prove Asian people cannot read my mind. You bear the burden, because it is already OBVIOUS to me, therefore I cannot be bothered to actually provide any evidence. Have fun with that...

Perhaps you should read that message again. Perhaps you should read the part which indicates that it is a positive assertion.

Quote:

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.

faust · 05-11-2003, 05:48 PM

Let me make sure I've got what you're saying...

Quote:

Is a child's mind necessarily underdeveloped to the extent that he is incapable of comprehending the consequences of partaking in the sexual act.

(emphasis mine)

Quote:

a skeptical man is inclined to ask Why is it necessary?

(emphasis preserved)
So wait. You're asking why it's necessary for a person to comprehend the consequences an action at all before they make a decision? You seem to miss the point of informed consent.

You're postulating that so long as neither the adult nor the child forsee negative consequences, and excluding forced acts, the adult can make a decision w/o regard as to whether it is necessary for the kid to comprehend the consequences?

Let me try again more directly, since I don't care much for obfuscation.

Are kids too young to know what they're getting into when an old person asks them to play doctor or sit on his lap?
And who cares if the kid knows what's going on or what it means so long as the old person thinks it's "ok".

I prefer concrete examples myself.

Say, ya think that cute little 8 year old girl playing barbies in the mall would like to come see the barbies and dolls i have at my house? I want to play dress up and undress up with her. I won't force her to do anything, so long as she's passive and it won't hurt her, at least I don't think it'll hurt her, I don't need to ask her permission. From an 8 year old no means yes anyway. It doesn't matter if she knows the consequences.

Have I lost anything in translation?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-11-2003, 01:15 PM	#24
Straight Hate Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 4,171	Extending Totalitarianist's position to encompass every legal age restriction set by society, far too much attention has been paid to the ridiculous claim that one's mental capacity is independent of age (keeping in mind the context). And existing as a socially-maligned adolescent (instead of your self-perceived status as an intellectual demigod) you ask for 'proof' of this fact? Are the members of this board now required to 'prove' they physically mature? Will such proof satisfy your unstated standard, the one which is clearly superior to any other currently in existence?

05-11-2003, 04:35 PM	#25
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Because there is no evidence that childhood consent is outside the circle of things which children are capable of doing, and because I believe that there is a considerable degree of truth in the preceeding messages, it is my belief that the question now becomes, Are there negative consequences?, and the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that there are negative consequences or for that matter that there are positive consequences. I am skeptical with regards to the claim that there are negative consequences involved in children consenting to participate in the sexual act. Moreover I shall be skeptical about the claim there there are positive consequences involved in children consenting to participate in the sexual act.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.