filc:The biggest problem Spidey has is an acurate method of measuring when a child has the capacity of being a self owner and when not.
And yet, none of you are willing to tell me at what age someone can choose to have sex and why.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
wilderness: This thread asking if children reason seems more to do with showing how the question itself involving rights isn't valid. This was a good post to elaborate on why reasoning doesn't pertain to rights to begin with.
This thread asking if children reason seems more to do with showing how the question itself involving rights isn't valid. This was a good post to elaborate on why reasoning doesn't pertain to rights to begin with.
Really? Then at what age can children choose to have sex and why?
Spideynw:And yet, none of you are willing to tell me at what age someone can choose to have sex and why.
That is specifically the point I am making that goes entirely over your head. Only a self owner can decide when they are ready for action XYZ. All other external judgments are only arbitrary biased judgments of action. Your argument is akin to a statist making a judgement on how far their responsiblity lies in the lives of individual people.
Your like a statist asking, "Well when should we allow you to drive?!". Why don't you let me the driver decide when he is ready?? Likewise why don't you let the child decide when they are ready to have sex. Why are you fixated on this concept that you must know yourself more then the self owner knows.
This key point you raise is a fundamental refutation of your entire premise and it's laughable that you keep bringing it up as it devastates your entire theory. Only the child knows when she wants to have sex, only her, the self owner. No one else knows, not you, not me, not the statist. As a self owner she gets first claim on when to make that decision. You or me cannot know when she is ready no more then a statist can know what level of healthcare I need. It's like assuming to know when she is hungry, assuming to know when she wants chocolate, assuming to know if she's gotten enough sleep. You can only make objective observations at the surface, only she can know internally when she is ready to do action.
The paralell's between you and the paternal statement is incredible.
Spideynw:Really? Then at what age can children choose to have sex and why?
I have answered the above to you countless times. I believe you choose to ignore posts which radically obliterate your silly theory.
filc:Only a self owner can decide when they are ready for action XYZ.
So at about what age does this occur and why?
Spideynw:So at about what age does this occur and why?
Only the self-owner can answer that question. I am now repeating myself.
filc: Spideynw:So at about what age does this occur and why? Only the self-owner can answer that question. I am now repeating myself.
You are just avoiding the question.
Spideynw: filc:Only a self owner can decide when they are ready for action XYZ. So at about what age does this occur and why?
This is as bad as your signature. We aren't looking for an exact age. We're looking for the qualities of the things in question.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Anyway, what are the implications of the child responds "yes" or "no"? Or should I ask a child psychologist or pediatrician? If you can't figure this out, you're probably not the one who should be asking these sorts of questions. Rly? So if I do not know the answer to a question, then I shouldn't ask the question?
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Anyway, what are the implications of the child responds "yes" or "no"? Or should I ask a child psychologist or pediatrician? If you can't figure this out, you're probably not the one who should be asking these sorts of questions.
Daniel Muffinburg: Anyway, what are the implications of the child responds "yes" or "no"? Or should I ask a child psychologist or pediatrician?
Anyway, what are the implications of the child responds "yes" or "no"? Or should I ask a child psychologist or pediatrician?
If you can't figure this out, you're probably not the one who should be asking these sorts of questions.
Rly? So if I do not know the answer to a question, then I shouldn't ask the question?
I do not know what rly or any of your reply means.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Spideynw:You are just avoiding the question.
I am not avioding anything. It's an impossible question to answer. It's like asking me "What is the meaning of life". I would never be able to answer this question. There is no evasion involved. The problem is your comprehension level.
I cannot answer on other people's behalf without assuming a state of omniscience. Do you understand what omniscience means? It is the fundamental error a statesmen makes, you are making that error.
E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: filc:Only a self owner can decide when they are ready for action XYZ. So at about what age does this occur and why? This is as bad as your signature. We aren't looking for an exact age. We're looking for the qualities of the things in question.
You are just avoiding the question. But I already know you are not interested in an honest discussion.
filc:I am not avioding anything. It's an impossible question to answer.
No it isn't. You just don't want to answer it.
filc: Only the self-owner can answer that question. I am now repeating myself.
filc:I am not avioding anything. It's an impossible question to answer. It's like asking me "What is the meaning of life". I would never be able to answer this question. I cannot answer on other people's behalf without assuming a state of omniscience.
I cannot answer on other people's behalf without assuming a state of omniscience.
Spideynw:No it isn't. You just don't want to answer it.
I physically and mentally do not have the capacity to answer that question without assuming to be omniscient. Since I admit that I am not divine, you will have to take your questions to god, or whomever. But an honest human being would never be able to answer the question with any degree of honesty.
I do not appreciate your accusation that I am being dishonest, especially on questions where I would have to be god to know the answer.
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: filc:Only a self owner can decide when they are ready for action XYZ. So at about what age does this occur and why? This is as bad as your signature. We aren't looking for an exact age. We're looking for the qualities of the things in question. You are just avoiding the question. But I already know you are not interested in an honest discussion.
I am not avoiding anything. I am telling you that an "age of consent", in terms of a quantity of time, is as incoherent of a concept as "square circle".
E. R. Olovetto:I am not avoiding anything. I am telling you that an "age of consent", in terms of a quantity of time, is as incoherent of a concept as "square circle".
I didn't say anything about an "age of consent". I will re-phrase the question for you. Do you agree that at some point in someone's life they can choose to have sex, where you would not consider it rape? If so, why? What changed?
filc:I physically and mentally do not have the capacity to answer that question without assuming to be omniscient.
I will re-phrase the question for you. Do you agree that at some point in someone's life they can choose to have sex, where you would not consider it rape? If so, why? What changed?
Spideynw:I will re-phrase the question for you. Do you agree that at some point in someone's life they can choose to have sex, where you would not consider it rape? If so, why? What changed?
When the self-owner makes a conscious decision to perform such an action, there is no violation of rights involved. So it's never rape. I don't subscribe to an arbitrary age like some.
So if a 16 year old consents to another 16 year there was no violation of rights. Unless of-coarse there was a prior agreement between daughter and father not to perform such behavior during the occupation of his protective services, offering food and shelter in return for her behavior and willingness to grow and learn. When that agreement is violated then sometimes the parents kick their kids out. Or if the parents feel they have more to offer the girl they may make some arrangement.
In all cases however I am conceding the point that only the child can make such decisions as a self-owner over her body. She alone bears the physical and mental consequences of her actions.
Let me ask you this. Do you have kids? If not pretend you do. Can you imagine a situation where your child asks you permission for something, and you tell them no?
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:I am not avoiding anything. I am telling you that an "age of consent", in terms of a quantity of time, is as incoherent of a concept as "square circle". I didn't say anything about an "age of consent". I will re-phrase the question for you. Do you agree that at some point in someone's life they can choose to have sex, where you would not consider it rape? If so, why? What changed?
You can take this as dodging the question, but I don't have time right now to fully explain. I will try to post something tonight in the main child rights thread. There is quite a lot of information related to child development and needs that I have to sort out in order to present. I've had this somewhat prepared for a while, but was just waiting because of some other issues I am working on.
In that thread, your opinion seemed to boil down to, "Uh, whatever age the judge chooses, IDK, I am not a child psychologist." You also never mustered up a response to the need to qualify your arbitrary distinction between children, invalids, and a sleeping man. I told you a long time ago that your whole approach was flawed and that you really can't handle the more difficult argument if you are stuck saying that children have no rights at all.
Speaking of a dodge, there are several questions there in the first couple pages you never answered either. We can explore your idea that children have no rights, even if it has been disproved. My original question there was: "Given that children have no rights, how do they become free of their slavedriving parents?" Whether you can advance your theory beyond step 1 is really of little consequence to me.
Spideynw: filc:The biggest problem Spidey has is an acurate method of measuring when a child has the capacity of being a self owner and when not. And yet, none of you are willing to tell me at what age someone can choose to have sex and why.
It is not up to us to tell you that when the actuall question is "what evidence is required to prove that anyone can reason?"
Also, the Socratic method is not meant to be used by you to try to dodge a question that probably destroys the entire basis for your argument. So stop asking us at what age children can choose to have sex with you.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Anyway, what are the implications of the child responds "yes" or "no"? Or should I ask a child psychologist or pediatrician? If you can't figure this out, you're probably not the one who should be asking these sorts of questions. Rly? So if I do not know the answer to a question, then I shouldn't ask the question? I do not know what rly or any of your reply means.
If you do not know what "rly" means, then you shouldn't be on the Internetz. Lol.
filc:When the self-owner makes a conscious decision to perform such an action, there is no violation of rights involved. So it's never rape. I don't subscribe to an arbitrary age like some.
What changed that allows the child to decide?
Daniel Muffinburg:So stop asking us at what age children can choose to have sex with you.
Let me know when you want to have an actual conversation Daniel.
Stranger: If you can't figure this out, you're probably not the one who should be asking these sorts of questions.
Daniel Muffinburg: Rly? So if I do not know the answer to a question, then I shouldn't ask the question?
Stranger: I do not know what rly or any of your reply means.
Daniel Muffinburg:If you do not know what "rly" means, then you shouldn't be on the Internetz. Lol.
lolol
Daniel Muffinburg: If you do not know what "rly" means, then you shouldn't be on the Internetz. Lol.
I was under the impression we could speak English on the internet, although this newspeak of yours does make it convenient to sort out when one is addressing children or adults. (How topical!)
E. R. Olovetto:Speaking of a dodge, there are several questions there in the first couple pages you never answered either.
I don't bother reading most of your posts. It is apparent you have no interest in an honest discussion.
Spideynw: filc:When the self-owner makes a conscious decision to perform such an action, there is no violation of rights involved. So it's never rape. I don't subscribe to an arbitrary age like some. What changed that allows the child to decide?
The statement is nonesensical. The self-owner was always able to decide. In fact they made a conscious decision every day NOT to have sex, until one final day where they changed their mind. This is praxeologically self evident. Human action, and inaction.
So for me to point out the specific time and reasoning for why a self-owner suddenly decided they wanted to have sex I would again have to assume a roll of omniscience. You seem to be going in circles with this.
Perhaps the self-owner fell in love? Who knows? I cannot read the minds of others.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:So stop asking us at what age children can choose to have sex with you. Let me know when you want to have an actual conversation Daniel.
I do. But it is hard when you try to turn the tables on us, when the inquisition is on you.
filc:The statement is nonesensical. The self-owner was always able to decide.
Then having sex with a toddler is not rape. Just ask a toddler if she will have sex with you. I am sure you can get her to say yes (without using threats).
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: If you do not know what "rly" means, then you shouldn't be on the Internetz. Lol. I was under the impression we could speak English on the internet, although this newspeak of yours does make it convenient to sort out when one is addressing children or adults. (How topical!)
I didn't mean to treat you like a child.
Spideynw:Then having sex with a toddler is not rape. Just ask a toddler if she will have sex with you. I am sure you can get her to say yes (without using threats).
Explain to me how this is being honest? Right after you accused ERO and myself of being dishonest? You would obviously be duping the child. To answer your question, I ask another question. Is the child actually consenting to sex? Yes or no? If you answer yes, how do you know?
Likewise if I propose to have sex with a foreigner who does not speak English. How do I know if I have consent or not? Does the inability to communicate or comprehend the request mean that they auto-consent? IS that what you believe?
Any one who assumes that a toddler is agreeing or actually comprehends your question is blatantly being dishonest. I cannot think of a more clear example.
You also diliberately ignored my earlier question.
filc:Let me ask you this. Do you have kids? If not pretend you do. Can you imagine a situation where your child asks you permission for something, and you tell them no?
Guess that means your homesteadable Daniel.
filc:Any one who assumes that a toddler is agreeing or actually comprehends your question is blatantly being dishonest. I cannot think of a more clear example.
So everything I do to my toddler (like lock her in her room at night) is a rights violation? That's just dumb.
Spideynw:So everything I do to my toddler (like lock her in her room at night) is a rights violation?
Locking the child in their room is negligence.
There is an implied contract in a parent/child relationship. A guardianship relationship.
I personally would definitely send my child to their room, but never lock them up so that they could not get out
Spideynw:That's just dumb.
What a profound, well thought out assessment. So I can expect this level of intellectual rigor when ERO and I are allegedly being dishonest eh?
filc:Locking the child in their room is negligence.
Only in your crazy world. I don't know of a single law ever proposed suggesting that locking your child in their room at night is negligent. Apparently, most statists understand parent's rights much better than a lot of supposed libertarians.
It is an opinion. I'm sorry you have such a hard time with them.
Spideynw: I don't know of a single law ever proposed suggesting that locking your child in their room at night is negligent.
Laws don't make right or wrong. Do you understand what legal positivism is? Before you can argue what are rights you should perhaps spend a few minutes learning what a right is.
3 times now you refuse to answer the following question
filc: filc:Locking the child in their room is negligence. It is an opinion.
It is an opinion.
Law should be based on logic, not opinion.
filc:Laws don't make right or wrong.
I didn't say they do.
filc:3 times now you refuse to answer the following question
Do I have an obligation to answer every little question you ask? If so where is the evidence? If not, then why would I answer it? Just because you ask me my address, age, dob, ssn, etc. doesn't mean I am going to give it to you. Cops think that way though.
Spidey, here is a recap of what's been going this year:
Us: Do children have rights?You: No, because they cannot reason.Us: Prove that they cannot not reason.You: You are asking me to prove a negative.Us: What evidence do you require to prove that children can reason?You: At what age can a child chose to have sex?
So, please stop saying that we're being intellectually dishonest.
Daniel Muffinburg: Spidey, here is a recap of what's been going this year: Us: Do children have rights?You: No, because they cannot reason.Us: Prove that they cannot not reason.You: You are asking me to prove a negative.Us: What evidence do you require to prove that children can reason?You: At what age can a child chose to have sex? So, please stop saying that we're being intellectually dishonest.
Anyone can play make believe.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: Spidey, here is a recap of what's been going this year: Us: Do children have rights?You: No, because they cannot reason.Us: Prove that they cannot not reason.You: You are asking me to prove a negative.Us: What evidence do you require to prove that children can reason?You: At what age can a child chose to have sex? So, please stop saying that we're being intellectually dishonest. Anyone can play make believe.
Immaterial.
filc:To answer your question, I ask another question. Is the child actually consenting to sex? Yes or no? If you answer yes, how do you know?
Spideynw:So everything I do to my toddler (like lock her in her room at night) is a rights violation? That's just dumb.
Spideynw:Only in your crazy world. I don't know of a single law ever proposed suggesting that locking your child in their room at night is negligent
filc:It is an opinion. I'm sorry you have such a hard time with them.
Spideynw:Law should be based on logic, not opinion.
Spideynw:I didn't say they do.
It's implied in your statement that you take a legal positivist approach. When i said negligence I was simply sharing my opinion, something I am entitled to do. That doesn't equate to me saying I am going to call the police.
Laws do not make rights. Legal action is just one path we can take for detirmining who has more of a claim to action. There are other avenue's we can take, we are not limited to legal recourse alone. We have reason, logic, and argumentation among other things.
As opposed to
Spideynw:Do I have an obligation to answer every little question you ask? If so where is the evidence? If not, then why would I answer it? Just because you ask me my address, age, dob, ssn, etc. doesn't mean I am going to give it to you. Cops think that way though.
You don't have to do anything, but please out of respect don't accuse me and others of being evasive then.
The problem is you can deduce anything logically when your premise is flawed, and your conclusion will likewise also be flawed, even if the steps you followed were logically sound. It's like me taking a premise that there is no gravity, well I can deduce logically that we can fly. But my premise is apparently flawed.
The issue is your premise.
Mon. 10/03/22 17:36 EDT.post #21
filc:...if I propose to have sex with a foreigner who does not speak English. How do I know if I have consent or not?