Paedophilia (On Consent Generally)

[Francois Tremblay]

Who said it was? You're the one justifying rape, not me. I didn't say anything about feeding or clothing anyone. If you seriously think that you need parents to clothe or feed other people, you're just an idiot.

[jack]

Who said it was? You're the one justifying rape, not me. I didn't say anything about feeding or clothing anyone. If you seriously think that you need parents to clothe or feed other people, you're just an idiot.

Dude, what the fuck are you rambling on about? Seriously, enlighten me, because apparantly I support rape and I'd like to know how.

[Francois Tremblay]

Dude, what the fuck are you rambling on about? Seriously, enlighten me, because apparantly I support rape and I'd like to know how.

How the fuck should I know? You are the one who started this retarded convo by responding to my post that having sex with a three year old is rape by positing that that proved parenting. You are the one who should explain yourself.

[Zazaban]

I think he was trying to argue that if children can't consent to sex at 3, then they are therefore unable to reason in other areas either, thus justifying parents to reason for them. It requires an interesting jump of logic.

I believe that the people who gave birth to a child, providing they aren't horrible people, should be there to guide it, and provide for it until it can do for itself. But just guidance. No punishing or forcing.

[Yarrow]

someone needs to look after children if they're going to survive, and i don't hear any other suggestions...

[Zazaban]

There is the method of having the whole commumiy raise a child.

[Yarrow]

we were talking about taking responsibility for the child. parent or community, this would be the same situation. i can't really see any way around it, except for a safe environment and care-giving robots perhaps.

[Francois Tremblay]

I think he was trying to argue that if children can't consent to sex at 3, then they are therefore unable to reason in other areas either, thus justifying parents to reason for them. It requires an interesting jump of logic.

It's a completely arbitrary reasoning. It's impossible to rationalize "parents must control the child" from "a child needs some form of guidance." There is no good argument for parenting that I know.

[Noleaders]

I recently argued a point on a seperate thread thats relevant to children and parenting.

No, there are too things that justify a mother pulling her child out of the road.
The first is a kind of delayed rights approach to emergency situations. In an emergency rights can temporarily be suspended until after the emergency as long as everything is put right afterwards. For example if you were lost in the forest and stumbled across a house, if you were starving and broke in to take some bread that would be ok so long as you replaced the bread and paid for any damages. In the case of the child the mother can pull it out of the road so long as she relinquishes control afterwards.
Also children arent fully rational so it doesnt make sense to allow them the same amount of autonomy we'd allow an adult to have for the same reasons as someone in a coma would require someone to make decisions for them. In this instance parents would be able to control their children to some degree, relative to their rational capacity, if it was to promote what the child, if it were fully rational, would think was in its best interests. This approach would allow for children to fully retain their rights but with its parents as trustee owners for them.

[jack]

There is the method of having the whole commumiy raise a child.

Yeah, worked well for the Kibbutzes, no emotional scarring there .

[Yarrow]

It's impossible to rationalize "parents must control the child" from "a child needs some form of guidance." There is no good argument for parenting that I know.

what would you do if you were looking after a child, and found them about to shoot up heroin? someone mentioned this the other day, but i thought i'd ask.

[Howard509]

...

[Yarrow]

good answer. care to elaborate? i'll leave it a while, then post my view.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I was abused as a 13-year old, but it wasn't abusive just because of my age. No, it was abusive because this guy was lying to me and keeping me from my family. Sex is OK if it is consensual and safe, no matter what the person's age is. There isn't some metaphysical category of "children" who are all nonsexual, naive, innocent beings. Of course, you can't go around having sex w/ 5-year-olds without restrictions, because I don't think they can consent.