Juan:So children engaging in voluntary sexual activities is re-defined as 'molestation' - the rights of children who want to do so are not taken into account because allegedly children don't know what they are doing, and finally if the activities include 'adults', these adults are to be shot at first sight as Len proposed. Whoa.
Not re-defined, no. And I believe I already addressed this.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
maxpot46:Going further, it's also necessary to impose your will on your wife, at times. Not in a tyrannical sense, but in a pragmatic sense because there can be only one captain of a ship, and when the CO and XO disagree, the CO's will prevails. The family is a socialist structure where the father is the sovereign (though usually, for the sake of harmony, the father provides the veneer of democracy, and takes good account of the desires of the family when rendering decisions).
Well, I disagree with this. The husband and wife enter into the relationship as adults and voluntarily, contractually. If they both so choose, the wife can treat the husband as head of household. But it could also be the case that the husband could choose to treat the wife as head of household. My preference, though, is for the husband and wife to view each other as equal partners. I see no reason why we should retain patriarchy as the default arrangement.
Jon Irenicus: Juan, why do you feel the need to misrepresent Geoffrey and Len?
Len: ...he's pointing out why your unsupported assertion carries little weight. All we know is that such-and-such is your opinion.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
gplauche:My preference, though, is for the husband and wife to view each other as equal partners.
Equal in rights, yes, but likely not equal in ability, farsightedness or wisdom. This will likely lead to eventual disagreements as to the direction of the family, at which point your "two captains" system must break down and the true leader of the family must manifest. If that's the woman, it doesn't say much about you as a man, IMO.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Juan: Jon Irenicus: Juan, why do you feel the need to misrepresent Geoffrey and Len? Excuse me ? Where did I do so ? These gentlemen are explicitly advocating violence against people engaging in pacific activities.
By which you mean, "Peacefully having carnal relations with a child." It might surprise you to learn that there are those among us who would regard that as an act of aggression, just as if it were perpetrated against the mentally handicapped, the senile, or the insane, and would act to repel your aggression.
On what planet can one actually speak with a straight face of "peacefully having carnal relations with a child"?
--Len.
Len Budney:You're begging the question when you suggest that I'm "redefining" anything: sexual relationships between adults and children has been regarded as molestation for milennia.
You're begging the question when you suggest that I'm "redefining" anything: sexual relationships between adults and children has been regarded as molestation for milennia.
Juan, we are not basing our opposition to child molestation on any puritan moral doctrine. Child molestation is child molestation because a child is rationally incapable of consenting. The fact is that it is nearly always the adult that instigates sexual activities with a child. A child will engage in sexual activity without what may be called "coercion" (though not often, I would think), but not without the adult using a position of influence to direct the child into an activity in which he or she would not, as a rationally capable person, be likely to engage.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
If that's the woman, it doesn't say much about you as a man, IMO.
Amusing.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
scineram: Len Budney: You're begging the question when you suggest that I'm "redefining" anything: sexual relationships between adults and children has been regarded as molestation for milennia. 14 years and olders have been regarded as adults for milennia.
Len Budney: You're begging the question when you suggest that I'm "redefining" anything: sexual relationships between adults and children has been regarded as molestation for milennia.
Sure. More precisely, people have been deemed "adult" once they reach physical maturity to the point they are able to reproduce. The kids mentioned in this thread have all been under ten, though, so that doesn't apply to the discussion so far. (A completely separate topic of interest is what we're to make of the decreasing age of menarche today.)
scineram:14 years and olders have been regarded as adults for milennia.
Obviously we do not mean "14 years and older" when we speak of children. A child is a person who has not grown into his or her rational capacity, which does not describe most post-adolescents.
A child will engage in sexual activity without what may be called "coercion" (though not often, I would think), but not without the adult using a position of influence to direct the child into an activity in which he or she would not, as a rationally capable person, be likely to engage.
Yep. It's as far-fetched as a kid spontaneously speaking Klingon; before puberty kicks in, they won't think of such things unless they're taught it.
My six-year old told me the other day about how much he loves to rub his pee-pee, because it feels so good. He's also obsessed with sex jokes and talks about all the "hot chicks" at his school. And he's practicing pick-up lines in the mirror.
Just sayin'...
maxpot46: gplauche:My preference, though, is for the husband and wife to view each other as equal partners. Equal in rights, yes, but likely not equal in ability, farsightedness or wisdom. This will likely lead to eventual disagreements as to the direction of the family, at which point your "two captains" system must break down and the true leader of the family must manifest. If that's the woman, it doesn't say much about you as a man, IMO.
I don't subscribe to this chauvinistic view of manliness. There are biological differences between men and women, yes. But I don't need to marry a woman who is generally lesser than me to be a man, and women are not always generally lesser than men. If this isn't your view, my apologies, but this seems to be what it is being hinted at.
I agree that even in an equal partnership-style marriage that it won't always be the case that they can come to full agreement on everything. Some compromises will be necessary. It will also be necessary to learn what each other's strengths and weaknesses are in order play to the strengths and shore up the weaknesses. The man might be the decided leader in some situations and the woman in others.
maxpot46:My six-year old told me the other day about how much he loves to rub his pee-pee, because it feels so good. He's also obsessed with sex jokes and talks about all the "hot chicks" at his school. And he's practicing pick-up lines in the mirror. Just sayin'...
Every kid figures out the former by experimentation. As for the latter, you don't think that's learned? He made up the expression "hot chicks" himself did he? You don't have a TV in your house? He'd be doing the same if he were home-schooled, say?
Juan: That chidlren have individual rights ? That rights are to be respectd ? That you're proposing to murder pacific people ? That you are a bunch of violent puritans ?
This is all question-begging. I've argued that children have individual rights and it is also clear that we see child molestation as a violation of their rights. Accordingly, child molesters as not being pacific. The charge of puritanism is hyperbolic and a gross exaggeration.
Just a thought. because individuals develop at different stages, and this is so unique, would it be out of line for some sort of court to determine whether or not the act is criminal in each case regarding a child between the ages of say 9 and 13, with anything under 8 being clearly wrong and anything over 14 being legal, consent provided of course. perhaps a panal that would be established....
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
Juan:Amazing. So what world do you live in ? You've not yet learned that children are interested in sex ?
Interested in something they never heard of? In any case, you're scaring me. So far, I've only thought you sound like you're apologizing for child abuse. It's getting harder and harder to be sure of that. Are you blaming your victims here?
Roderick's blogpost, which I linked to above, addresses the issue of adolescents. I recommend reading it for a nuanced view of age-of-consent issues.
Juan's specific example involved a 2 year old.
Attackdonkey: Just a thought. because individuals develop at different stages, and this is so unique, would it be out of line for some sort of court to determine whether or not the act is criminal in each case regarding a child between the ages of say 9 and 13, with anything under 8 being clearly wrong and anything over 14 being legal, consent provided of course. perhaps a panal that would be established....
I recommend reading Roderick Long's blogpost, which I linked to above, for a nuanced view addressing these issues. What you propose is reasonable although I'm not sure about all the particulars.
gplauche:women are not always generally lesser than men. If this isn't your view, my apologies, but this seems to be what it is being hinted at.
Not at all. Women are not lesser than men. I do think they have different strengths and weaknesses than men, and that in general men have more attributes that lend themselves to effective leadership than do women (e.g. emotional stability (lack of menstruation), logical thinking, aggressiveness, risk-taking, personal strength allowing for forceful representation). I also believe most women are more comfortable in the subordinate role and that "manliness" is an attribute they seek in a mate (i.e. experience tells me they aren't looking for an "equal partner").
Obviously history has produced exceptional female leaders. I'm speaking in generalities, not apodictically.
gplauche: I've argued that children have individual rights and it is also clear that we see child molestation as a violation of their rights.
Len Budney:He made up the expression "hot chicks" himself did he? You don't have a TV in your house? He'd be doing the same if he were home-schooled, say?
Yes, because I like girls and have been known to use the phrase "hot chicks" myself, especially this time of year .
Juan:Len, it seems that you need to learn the facts of life http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/child_behavior/sexdev.html
Don't forget Kinsey. No reference library is complete without him.
Baloney aside, though, kids don't know what parts go where until they're told. Today they're told by age four, perhaps, but they don't know until they're told. And they realize that certain bits of skin are sensitive, but that doesn't translate into wanting to sneak off with an adult and get sweaty in the back seat of a car.
They're usually keenly interested after they're introduced to the subject, through some combination of delinquent older kids, criminal adults and negligent parents with big-screen TVs.
What worries me is your laser-like focus on how much these kids supposedly like being initiated by adults. Please be aware that I'm not the only one in Pittsburgh who shares my views on the matter, and a high percentage of us consistently carry concealed weapons.
glauche: Juan's specific example involved a 2 year old.
Juan: gplauche: I've argued that children have individual rights and it is also clear that we see child molestation as a violation of their rights. Of course, that's a question begging answer. Although children give their consent, you just claim they don't. So you define the problem away. According to you, by definition, children are not capable of consent. Of course, from your definition, your conclusion follows - so the problem is your definition.
But we've actually provided some arguments. You've only asserted your opinion. And we've also pointed out that the burden of proof is on you.
Incidentally, that website you linked to about sexual development in children seems to support our position rather than yours. Did you read it thoroughly?
maxpot46: Len Budney:He made up the expression "hot chicks" himself did he? You don't have a TV in your house? He'd be doing the same if he were home-schooled, say? Yes, because I like girls and have been known to use the phrase "hot chicks" myself, especially this time of year .
Well, there you go. Not that that in itself is so harmful to kids, but they're learning machines. It doesn't take much to sexualize them. If Daddy didn't have an eye for the ladies, he'd learn just as quickly to focus on baseball or cool cars. I'm happily married and don't go around leering at women, so my boy likes baseball, guns and pickup trucks. He'll get around to noticing girls in good time, but meanwhile all he knows is that sooner or later he'll probably have to marry one, and then she'll be in charge of the house, and he'll need her permission to get out and enjoy baseball, guns and pickup trucks.
Juan: glauche: Juan's specific example involved a 2 year old. Excuse me. That was not my example. I suggest you bother to read what I write before replying.
My mistake, and my apologies. I brought up two year olds as an example, of being too young. But you and banned objected. So I got the origin of the example mixed up, but the effect is the same. You and banned think it is perfectly all right to allow two year olds to have sex, presumably anyone of any age they "choose."
Len Budney:He'll get around to noticing girls in good time, but meanwhile all he knows is that sooner or later he'll probably have to marry one, and then she'll be in charge of the house, and he'll need her permission to get out and enjoy baseball, guns and pickup trucks.
Not very manly of you.
;o)
Only kidding.
If a child gives his "consent" to sex play with an adult, it shows a despicable adult but IMO the parent is not in a position to extract "justice" because such could only occur as a failure of parenting. For example, I have zero fear of my son being molested by an adult. Why? Because of two reasons. One, I am 100% aware of his location and surroundings at all times -- most of the time he's with me or my wife, and at all other times is with trusted adults in a safe environment. Two, even though he's six, I've trained my kid not to be a dumb@$$ -- he's not going to tolerate a stranger even talking to him, let alone playing with his pee-pee. I talk to him, and know his moods, and would be instantly aware if any disturbing influences appeared in his life.
As a parent, I understand the emotional response of wanting to blow the head off a guy caught in sexual play with a child. But Juan has the facts of the matter. If a child gives his consent then there is no crime, just a failure of parenting. This is not to say that the sexual "predator" should not suffer the humiliation of exposure as a pedophile, which would allow society to "punish" him by individual acts of shunning. I would also say a sound beating is in order, but an individually-administered as opposed to a state-sanctioned one.
gplauche: You and banned think it is perfectly all right to allow two year olds to have sex
Len Budney:they're learning machines. It doesn't take much to sexualize them.
So you're saying that sexuality is learned, not innate? I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
Obviously the empirical approach won't sway you. How about introspection? Were you interested in girls before puberty? What age? I remember Polly Hansen, the hottest chick in my kindergarden, and Barbara Sillness, my 3rd grade crush.
Hopefully my previous post comes through soon (held up in moderation), as it makes more clear who I think is at fault in child-molestation situations.
Juan: gplauche: You and banned think it is perfectly all right to allow two year olds to have sex Sorry, you are wrong again. I explcitly said that I thought banned's case was too extreme. (A previous reply of mine got moderated, I'm waiting for it to show up)
I'll go back and see, or was the post in which you said his case was too extreme the one that is stuck in moderation?
If his case is two extreme, and children of age two are too young to be consenting to sex with adults, how is that consistent with your views about self-ownership and consent and with your criticisms of our position? And at what age do you draw the line?
maxpot46:If a child gives his "consent" to sex play with an adult, it shows a despicable adult but IMO the parent is not in a position to extract "justice" because such could only occur as a failure of parenting.
Sometimes you can place some of the blame on the parents but not always, and what do you do then? And the adult having sexual relations with the child bears no responsibility in the matter?
maxpot46:I would also say a sound beating is in order, but an individually-administered as opposed to a state-sanctioned one.
No, you can't have it both ways. If he didn't violate the kid's rights, then you're violating his by administering a beating because you are initiating force.
Juan, if you saw me wandering into the street blazing drunk, insisting that I wanted to kill myself, would you stop me? If yes, then QED. If no, and you would condemn anyone who would, then reductio.
gplauche: I'll go back and see, or was the post in which you said his case was too extreme the one that is stuck in moderation?
maxpot46:most of the time he's with me or my wife, and at all other times is with trusted adults in a safe environment....
With his teachers at school, for example?