 |
|
4Tigs - a serious attempt to help explain or at least
Posted on: April 16, 2020 at 11:02:30 CT
90Tiger STL
Posts:
163550
Member For:
23.38 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
10
reach understanding re: the "sex with children" discussion.
Rather than focusing on the case of children, focus on the act between any 2 parties.
If one of the parties is not able to (or is able to but does not choose to) give consent to the act due to any number of factors, then the act would be deemed a violation of the NAP and a "crime", an infringement of the rights of the victim.
Victims in this context are not limited to "children", and the "age of consent" is at very best an ambiguous and varying term - but you are seeking not a morally correct answer from pickle/ummmm, but a discreet and arbitrary "age setting" which would apply to all humans, regardless of individual situation.
What is more morally accurate - to apply the ability to offer consent to the individual and to assess it such, or to apply a blanket, arbitrary, universal biological age?
Others in this set of victims can be biologically mature individuals with emotional, mental, physical development issues.
Example: How about a 22 year old female who suffers from downs syndrome or any other developmental issue? Is not the right evaluation of consent based on the INDIVIDUAL nature of the parties involved?
The argument here is not about the right and wrong of infringing upon others...the argument here is about the application of an arbitrary biological measure rather than an evaluation of the individuals and situation involved.
In a Natural Rights private law setting, the case would be argued on the aforementioned terms, not "she was X years old, and thank goodness we weren't one state over" type of construct.
I think you're trying to find a moral loophole in the application of natural rights that isn't there - CONSENT is not an easy thing to evaluate in either construct, agreed? So why make it arbitrary when a finer instrument is clearly called for?
Edited by 90Tiger at 11:04:30 on 04/16/20
Rather than focusing on the case of children, focus on the act between any 2 parties.
If one of the parties is not able to (or is able to but does not choose to) give consent to the act due to any number of factors, then the act would be deemed a violation of the NAP and a "crime", an infringement of the rights of the victim.
Victims in this context are not limited to "children", and the "age of consent" is at very best an ambiguous and varying term - but you are seeking not a morally correct answer from pickle/ummmm, but a discreet and arbitrary "age setting" which would apply to all humans, regardless of individual situation.
What is more morally accurate - to apply the ability to offer consent to the individual and to assess it such, or to apply a blanket, arbitrary, universal biological age?
Others in this set of victims can be biologically mature individuals with emotional, mental, physical development issues.
Example: How about a 22 year old female who suffers from downs syndrome or any other developmental issue? Is not the right evaluation of consent based on the INDIVIDUAL nature of the parties involved?
The argument here is not about the right and wrong of infringing upon others...the argument here is about the application of an arbitrary biological measure rather than an evaluation of the individuals and situation involved.
In a Natural Rights private law setting, the case would be argued on the aforementioned terms, not "she was X years old, and thank goodness we weren't one state over" type of construct.
I think you're trying to find a moral loophole in the application of natural rights that isn't there - CONSENT is not an easy thing to evaluate in either construct, agreed? So why make it arbitrary when a finer instrument is clearly called for?
Edited by 90Tiger at 11:04:30 on 04/16/20
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
4Tigs - a serious attempt to help explain or at least - 90Tiger STL - 4/16 11:02:30
-