When your three-year-old is about to step into traffic, what's needed is the imperative voice. — tim wood
When your twelve-year-old is at the edge with cigarets, liquor, drugs, promiscuity,criminal behaviour, & etc. the imperative voice has a place — tim wood
Nice point, nicely expressed. However (this is TPF, there's always a "but," even if padded as a however, else why are we here?), operative here is the "because." The because warrants the imperative on the grounds of combined ignorance, ineducability, and circumstance. Narrow grounds, however comprehensive within their own boundaries. Let's move outwards....is appropriate including force because the child cannot learn from their mistake, nor be persuaded otherwise. — Pseudonym
When your twelve-year-old is at the edge with cigarets, liquor, drugs, promiscuity,criminal behaviour, & etc. the imperative voice has a place
— tim wood
This is not at all like your last example. The children can learn from their mistakes, they can (theoretically) be persuaded otherwise. — Pseudonym
C'mon! Sure they are! You're tripping over degree, maybe. But in themselves they're bad, even by definition. That we can survive and even learn and benefit from the experience of the bad is agreed. But that is not a merit of the bad things, else we reasonably could have, teach, official smoking, drinking, drugs, promiscuity, and criminal behaviour in schools (don't waste our time on the joke implicit here).Cigarettes, drink, drugs, promiscuity and criminal behaviour are not definitely bad. — Pseudonym
An example is perhaps simplest: your twelve-year-old hears your advice and your beliefs about promiscuity (no imperative), makes her own decision, goes out and contracts Aids or gets pregnant, or fathers a child. — tim wood
I for one would hope the last to be true. — Sir2u
Anyway, to proceed we need to keep track of what "sex" we're talking about, which is, I think, not developmentally appropriate child play-sex, but rather more like what adults call sex, which by its name suggests that children can't do it - notwithstanding whether the child makes a good job of it or not. — tim wood
And you missed an option - why did you miss it? - because Mom and Dad love me; I trust them; and they told me not to, that I shouldn't. So I won't. — tim wood
"Should not," too often means can. — tim wood
You're right to focus on this. I thought you were saying the twelve-year-old was possessed of a maturity adequate to making right decisions on difficult questions. I thought that was what you said, but in fact you didn't say it. You said she [merely] considered. In that sense, I can suppose she did what she was told for her own reasons. My point is that children, by definition, are not adult thinkers. And whatever you implied, you did not write as an option that the child just did what it was told. There are children who obey their parents, not from fear or anything like, but because they trust them. But that requires that on the relevant occasions, their parents have to actually tell them. And "should not" should not be confused with, "Do not!" Children know which is which, so don't confuse them.What exactly do you mean when you say "a twelve year old can't do it"? — Sir2u
My point is that children, by definition, are not adult thinkers. — tim wood
And "should not" should not be confused with, "Do not!" Children know which is which, so don't confuse them. — tim wood
With all due respect, whether or not a girl of 16 yrs old "likes to have sex" is irrelevant when you are speaking sex with a man over the age of 40 yrs old. Hanover would know better than I what the law is but I can tell you what a mother or father of the age of 40 would think of such a pursuit. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Wow, thanks for taking a stand and biting the bullet of consistency. No one else has. — Tree Falls
You assert as a fact "that there are some sixteen year olds which are sufficiently adult-like... to consent to sex." With whom under what circumstances for what purposes and reasons? And what evidence do you have that they can? — tim wood
And to be sure, to resolve these we're going to have to figure out what is meant by "sex." — tim wood
The community from time immemorial has decided and usually decreed that inequality between sexual partners is not a good thing to the point of proscribing it usually under threat of stern punishments. — tim wood
There are also a matters of psychological, psycho-sexual, and physiological development. All these argue against adult/child sexual contact. [sic] — tim wood
Your view of the matter seems to be if a person can engage and consents, then they should be free to do so. [sic] — tim wood
That view is less than a millimeter deep, and won't do. — tim wood
Do children engage in sex? Of course they do. Most are better off for it. But in pretty much every case, those better off were in like-age relationships, with their peers. Those in unequal relationships usually are injured in some way. It may be statuary as opposed to violent, but there's still a reason it's called rape. — tim wood
But not being a court doesn't mean that you don't have freedom-of-speech, or that you're required to keep his sex-with-children secret. — Michael Ossipoff
Do you think it's relevant that most likely over 90% of mothers who have daughters would think my brother's behavior is deplorable? — Tree Falls
How about we institute a sex license test? And forget the age limit. — Sir2u
I think that that's a terrible idea. I think that you'd have priests, scout leaders, and youth football coaches quitting their jobs en masse to apply for this job. — Sapientia
Not so much of a question type test, but more in line with psychological development and maturity. Obviously there would be a part of it that would question the person's knowledge about the risks and consequences of sex would have to be included, but it would be more important from my point of view to evaluate their ability to make rational decisions.
And I don't think that there should be a practical section to the test. — Sir2u
I think I specified that it would be a psychological test and that there would not be a practical part to it. And you forgot to mention politicians. — Sir2u
Yes, but who would be making the psychological assessments? — Sapientia
Or do we have have computers that can do that now? — Sapientia
It would increase the risk of sexual predation on vulnerable youths. — Sapientia
You've come up with the bright idea of fixing an imperfect system by replacing it with a weaker alternative — Sapientia
What you're suggesting is a bit like trying to fix leaking roof by demolishing the house. — Sapientia
Maybe a psychologist could do it? — Sir2u
That would at least be impartial and unbiased. — Sir2u
How so? In what way could it increase the level of "predation"? — Sir2u
How is it possible to state that something that has never been tried is weaker than the present unfair system? How did you make the comparison? — Sir2u
It is about time it was done as well. A system that discriminates against people needs to be removed and replaced. — Sir2u
At least my method would make a complete sex education for everyone obligatory so no one could claim that "I did not think she could get pregnant and she never told it it was possible" — Sir2u
Yes, great idea. And I'm sure that that would in no way be seen as an attractive position for child sexual predators. — Sapientia
And you don't think that that's vulnerable to exploitation? What planet are you living on? If it's happened in the Catholic Church, if it's happened in professional football youth teams, if it's happened in schools, and in the scouts, and with politicians and parents and children's TV presenters, why on earth wouldn't it happen here of all places? — Sapientia
I know that no one likes having their bright idea trashed, but you can't polish a turd. — Sapientia
My goodness. It doesn't have to be tried to foresee the risks. One would expect the people responsible for these things to think about these things long and hard before jumping straight into a trial and error methodology. — Sapientia
How did I make the comparison? Well, I thought about the one, and then I thought about the other, and then I compared the two, and then I thought some more and reached a conclusion. — Sapientia
Do you not have such an ability? — Sapientia
Not if the costs outweigh the benefits, and they would in this case. — Sapientia
Yes, and at least my demolished house doesn't suffer from a leaking roof! :lol: — Sapientia
It's been fun, as always, although I'm afraid the fun has been at your expense. No hard feelings. — Sapientia
You both seem to be arguing from a utilitarian perspective that because some harm can arise from the young adult's actions you (or the law) is justified in acting to prevent that harm. — Pseudonym
But this alone is clearly not enough, adults make really bad decisions and yet the law does not intervene. We could, for example ban people from drinking alcohol if they've ever made a bad choice and drunk too much. We could make it illegal to have sex with someone who has had an abortion. We could put anti-social octogenarians under house arrest. — Pseudonym
So why don't we do these things, they would be quite certain to avoid further harms.In fact someone whose already had an unwanted pregnancy has proved themselves at least likely to make the same mistake again. More than can be said for the teenager. — Pseudonym
We don't do them for one of two reasons, both of which you are both ignoring. Either we consider autonomy to be a right and so it is a duty to maintain it, or, remaining utilitarian, we consider the harms of acting outweigh the harms of not. — Pseudonym
So my question to you both is, if you think that a 17 year old should have the full authority of the law brought to bear to ban them from having sex with whomever they choose, then why would you not extend the same ban to those adults who have demonstrated themselves by their actions liable to make the exact same bad decisions that you are concerned the 17 year old will make? — Pseudonym
On a separate note, check your statistics. Countries with lower ages of consent have lower rates of teenage pregnancies, so if you're really concerned about teenage pregnancy then you should logically be arguing in favour of lowering the age of consent. — Pseudonym
I think you are mistaking a "utilitarian perspective" with a "Parents perspective". — ArguingWAristotleTiff
if it affects another in a bad way, the law most certainly does intervene. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
If my 17 year old chose to have sex with someone who was 40+yrs old, I would be looking to put both of them through a therapy of choice. He could go to jail and she would go to counseling to try and get to the root of why she is looking for comfort in the man my age, not her age. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Even though pregnancy is a huge concern of mine, the mental affects a 40+yr old man having sex with my 17 year old daughter would be far more lasting. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.