Really? I thought the law specifically targetted paedophilia. Why else would they have to register as a sex offender and monitored constantly?

Oh it targets it, but its framed around the act. Otherwise it literally would be a thoughtcrime. So for example people who want to bugger animals can say thats their particular inclination but the act itself stays banned (and before you ask obviously it should be legal, but then i’ve never owned a pet so i don’t know what im talking about :p). If you banned the concept rather than the physical act it would be impossible to even discuss it any level. Similarly laws against obscenity are structured around acts not thoughts.

I’m sorry, it was a hypothetical question. Such cases are a rarity – thank the Eye In The Sky.

The law doesn’t really support that notion either, child abuse is a crime paedophilia is not.

Really? I thought the law specifically targetted paedophilia. Why else would they have to register as a sex offender and monitored constantly?

Anyhow, I have not read the responses after that. I think people are going off on one. I myself was more interested in your views on punishment for “thought crimes” vs actual sex offences. Should people be punished for looking at any picture and forming weird fantancies in their head – obviously not. Should people be punished for hurting someone sexually, whether it be a child, adult, or animal even – of course.

That’s my take on the whole issue. I am done with this until I find another interesting news story to share with you.

=>”LOL well that sure answered my question. But to be fair you’re the one now ‘fixating’ on sexuality…..If you want to concentrate on on children having sex we’ll do that but lets be clear this is something you’re choosing.”

That’s bullshit. You wrote an article based on the subject of sexual activity involving children. This entire thread has followed on from that. Don’t be a hypocrite by trying to turn everything back towards me and accusing me of being ‘fixated’ on children having sex, when — like everyone else here — all I have done is address the points you have been making during this discussion.

=>”(btw just to be sure, you’re calling me a paedophile amirite?).”

No. If I was going to call you a paedophile (or any other negative description) I would do so outright.

=>”Unrealistic how?? I freely admit i don’t hang around nor do i have any desire to hang around 6 or 7 year olds. But its not like im avoiding giving examples, its based in reality?!”

Devil’s Kitchen has explained this sufficiently during the last few posts, which mirrors my own viewpoint on the matter.

No offence to any Islamic creative directors intended

It might be worth considering there are limits to libertarianism, like everything else.

I wasn’t talking about advertising as brainwashing, but if you continue running the same advert (assuming the creatives behind it know their ‘job’) without information and knowledge beyond what is presented, it might as well be brainwashing.

As far as the creatives are concerned they are trained to appreciate the psychology of their target economic group(s).

I know that you are not replying, but I would ask you to consider why we insist that someone should look after any person under 16.

In other words, do you think that a 6 or 7 year old could actually live in the world without any help? No: which is why we assign a legal guardian (usually the parents).

We do the same for geriactric seniles, as it happens. The difference is that not everyone goes senile, whilst I don’t think that even 16 year olds are entirely cognisant of the consequences of actions. It not simply a question of biological development, but also of worldly experience.

DK

Only just noticed this…

If repeated exposure had little or no effect then there would be no need for advertising.

Er, that’s not entirely true, is it? Advertising tells people about products; I have bought a number of things having seen them advertised. It is not solely about brainwashing people through constant exposure…

DK

I don’t think this thread is going anywhere and i wasn’t planning on replying anymore but i feel you deserve at least some sort of responce (though it will be my final one, promise everyone!)

To try and shed more light on my pov beyond children. Take the example of geriatric seniles. Their mental capacity isn’t based on an age that is specified by the government but on them. I take your point about the use of the word arbitary and perhaps its is misleading so the ‘concept’ im trying to get across is empirically derived individualism.

That doesn’t mean that im supporting the idea that 6&7 year olds are anything other than the most extreme outliers (and i wish xtremey had never brought the bloody thing up) but to me there has to be an attempt to recognise them. Not the the mean of when puberty or any development occurs but them individually.

I’m not supporting the abuse of the elderly or of the young, nor am i suggesting that 99.999% of 6 year olds could ‘consent’ but if you’ve read the rest of my posts for the past 2 years you’ll understand i can’t conciously exclude the possibility. I just can’t; it would be dishonest for me to say the one in a trillion six year old that possibly could give consent should be ignored when my foundations of everything else is the individual.

Imagine (having read my other posts in other threads) being faced with a situation where the government said x% of everyone over the age of 100 is senile therefore it was reasonable to say they all were. Which is what you were discussing about ‘arbitary’ and you’re right.

But to me it just isn’t good enough and despite the horror i’ve probably raised in some reading i can’t just skew around it. The only solution i have is one where everyone is ‘measured/assessed’ individually – just as geriatric seniles. And those that are shown to be mature enough are given the rights that everyone enjoys.

I’d like people to just empathise with the point im trying to make. Disagree with it if you wish but i can’t, i just can’t support laws that are based on percentages across the population and not the individual. Obviously i wish all children grow-up free from abuse.

And damnit ill argue that laws based on arbitary ages are irrational.

Yes, but it is not an arbitrary age is it? There is, generally speaking, an age at which sexual desire is felt (usually during or after puberty); the age that we assign to this is above that.

Then there is an average age at which we, as a society, feel that the human brain is sufficiently developed to understand the consequences of decisions. (I would say, actually, that 16 is probably rather young, but there you go.)

In practice, we tend to be flexible about this law; in one of your examples, a 15 year old boy is being prosecuted for statutory rape; this is not because he is fifteen, but because the girl is 11. Had the girl concerned been 15, or even 14, it is likely that the case would not have been prosecuted.

In any justice system – and a justice system of some sort is fundamental to any libertarian society – there are always going to be law based on “arbitrary” concepts. But, in our legal system, we do allow for individual discretion.

However, any libertarian society is based on the rights of people to make their own decisions; however, for any person to be able to make a decision, they must understand the consequences of that decision or it is not a freely-made decision.

That, at heart, is the point behind age-of-consent laws; we deem people below a certain age to be incapable of rationally foreseeing and determining the consequences of the course of action that they decide on.

Libertarian philosophy also strictly forbids the initiation of force against others. However, the age-of-consent laws recognise that, because they are incapable of rational decision-making, children (particularly) can be coerced into consenting to things that they do not understand the results of and that someone who does this is effectively initiating force against that child.

In this way, we can see that, first, the age set is not completely arbitrary (showing up a few exceptional examples does not in any way strengthen your case, I’m afraid): the law is not irrational because – although it takes an average age – that age is based on a rational assessment of the vast majority of people.

Second, the law is enforced in a way that allows for the flexibility that you desire (and without everyone having to show their government-sanctioned Fuck Test results before going to bed with one-another).

Third, the law is far from being inconsistent with libertarian principles. Those who are unable to understand consequences are not capable of understanding the consequences. I severelydoubt that your plane-flying seven year old really understood the concept of death when he took to the sky.

Third, nor is it inconsistent with libertarian principles. Libertarian philosophy requires people to be able to understand the consequences of their decisions or else they are not taking a voluntary decision; in fact, they cannot take a voluntary decision if they do not understand consequences because they are not making that decision based on a true understanding of what it means. Children do not and thus cannot be said to make free and voluntary decisions.

DK

Let’s not, because this topic focuses on pre-pubescent “sexuality”, and has no relation whatsoever with the notion of a 7 year old having the right (or lack of it) to drive. I will not be drawn into even a tangential discussion attempting to imply an equivalence between the two situations.

LOL well that sure answered my question. But to be fair you’re the one now ‘fixating’ on sexuality (btw just to be sure, you’re calling me a paedophile amirite?). I’m advocating equal rights based on merit and exclusive of age. And punishment of those who cause harm. If you want to concentrate on on children having sex we’ll do that but lets be clear this is something you’re choosing.

Neither do I, but if your lack of experience of a certain situation or the people it involves results in your understanding of both being insanely unrealistic

Unrealistic how?? I freely admit i don’t hang around nor do i have any desire to hang around 6 or 7 year olds. But its not like im avoiding giving examples, its based in reality?!

=>”but lets concentrate solely on ‘driving rights’.”

Let’s not, because this topic focuses on pre-pubescent “sexuality”, and has no relation whatsoever with the notion of a 7 year old having the right (or lack of it) to drive. I will not be drawn into even a tangential discussion attempting to imply an equivalence between the two situations.

=>”I don’t support the idea you can only discuss something you’ve experienced.”

Neither do I, but if your lack of experience of a certain situation or the people it involves results in your understanding of both being insanely unrealistic, then it is obviously necessary in your particular case for you to gain some direct first-hand experience before you can start advocating the “rights” of the individuals concerned.

If you have had such little contact with young children via your relatives and friends, perhaps in your case you will only understand the dynamics invoved if and when you have children yourself.

I’m not going to play ball with you here. There is a considerable difference between the scenarios of children flying planes and engaging in sexual activity.

That wasn’t the analogy i was making, but lets concentrate solely on ‘driving rights’. If a 7 year old that had showed the ability to fly a plane as well as anyone else desired to drive a car would you support his wish?

Not if the factors you are considering in order to address a particular real-life scenario actually have no basis in reality, especially if you have no experience of the scenario concerned or the people it involves.

I don’t support the idea you can only discuss something you’ve experienced.

=>”Can you tell me how a 7 year old can fly a plane but at same time in your mind not be capable of driving a car?”

I’m not going to play ball with you here. There is a considerable difference between the scenarios of children flying planes and engaging in sexual activity.

Why ? Because the latter is intimately connected to many aspects of human biology, reproductive development, neuroscience, psychiatry etc, as Katy has alluded to above and as I mentioned myself very early in this thread.

=>”But what do we do about it? How do we stop them raping each other?”

Depends on exactly what factors motivated them to engage in such activity in the first place. “Stopping them” in this case is primarily the responsibility of their respective parents, not people confortably ensconced in Ol’ Blighty and viewing the situation with an air of excessively academic detachment.

=>”Philosophy is very very much about reality”

Not if the factors you are considering in order to address a particular real-life scenario actually have no basis in reality, especially if you have no experience of the scenario concerned or the people it involves.

All right, forget the fact that there is no concrete example of your hypothesis.

Once again with the 7 year old flying a plane…

Or do you dispute my right to tell you that I find your ideas offensive?

There are no rights in the context of a private website, but yeah if you want to tell me you’re offended go ahead. That isn’t an argument though.

Do you think that six year old children should also have criminal responsibility and receive adult punishments?

Yup, though to put it the other way i think if child murderers can be reformed then reformative justice can work with adults as such the tendency to increase sentences for adults is something i disagree with.

That six year olds should be allowed to draw benefits and obtain mortgages, loans and other forms of credit?

If thats what they want yeah.

That six year olds should be allowed to run for government?

I’ve already said id grant voting rights based on application alone (for nationals)

Are you saying that there is no distinction between the rights of children and the rights of adults?

Bingo. Incidentally im not arguing there is no distinction, im saying there is but it isn’t based on anything other than saying ’18 is an adult’. I’m advocating equal rights for all.

I love the way your argument has moved from fighting for the “right” of adult perverts to downloading pictures of children being abused for their pleasure to fighting for the “right” of a six year old to have sex with an adult. As if there was ever a six year old who went looking to have sex with adults.

Ms Xtreme asked a question, i answered.

Oh please. Everyone has engaged with your arguments. No one is shy of reading about this or of listening to what you have to say. So don’t try you’re “Oh it’s because I’m so libertarian and none of you can deal with it” crap. So far no one agrees with you. Because they think you’re wrong.

‘you’re a deviant/rapist/shutupyou’resick’ argument always comes across well.

No one has told you to shut up. Or do you dispute my right to tell you that I find your ideas offensive?

I don’t see why i should need to spend time with children to advocate their rights

Oh, poo, evidence, who needs it? All right, forget the fact that there is no concrete example of your hypothesis. How far exactly do children’s rights go? Do you think that six year old children should also have criminal responsibility and receive adult punishments? That six year olds should be allowed to draw benefits and obtain mortgages, loans and other forms of credit? That six year olds should be allowed to run for government? Are you saying that there is no distinction between the rights of children and the rights of adults?

Incidentally, I love the way your argument has moved from fighting for the “right” of adult perverts to downloading pictures of children being abused for their pleasure to fighting for the “right” of a six year old to have sex with an adult. As if there was ever a six year old who went looking to have sex with adults.

when the ACLU were fighting for equal rights for homosexuals would you have sneered ‘fags’?

You’re drawing a comparison between the right for consulting adults to have sex with each other and the “right” of children to have sex with adults?

“Abstract” is exactly what you’re being, dude. You are not in a position to advocate the rights of children (especially in matters of “sexuality”) if you haven’t spent a sufficient amount of time with them and have little concept of the reality of pre-adolescent psychology.

Can you tell me how a 7 year old can fly a plane but at same time in your mind not be capable of driving a car? Is 6 year olds are universally incapable of consenting, were they raping one another in that jamaican classroom?

If you think they were, fair enough. I’m not going to disagree with you. But what do we do about it? How do we stop them raping each other?

Philosophy needs to be tempered and balanced with reality

Philosophy is very very much about reality

Irrelevant analogy. “Consenting adults”, etc etc.

Dude read the link i posted it was very much about minors.

=>”I don’t see why i should need to spend time with children to advocate their rights, and im trying to provide examples relevant to my argument – its hardly like im being completely abstract.”

“Abstract” is exactly what you’re being, dude. You are not in a position to advocate the rights of children (especially in matters of “sexuality”) if you haven’t spent a sufficient amount of time with them and have little concept of the reality of pre-adolescent psychology.

=>”As i said to Don i take my philosophy seriously, im a libertarian.”

Philosophy needs to be tempered and balanced with reality and common sense, otherwise it’s just pie-in-the-sky, living-with-the-fairies theorising. One of the dangers of pointless, mental gymnastics which has no basis in, or relation to, real life.

=>”But please, when the ACLU were fighting for equal rights for homosexuals would you have sneered ‘fags’?”

Irrelevant analogy. “Consenting adults”, etc etc. Plus I would have expected the ACLU to have had at least a basic level of contact with homosexuals, and an understanding of their psychology and motivations, to be in any informed position to advocate their rights.