This sounds like a cult like behaviour which is EXTREMELY easy to manipulate and corrupt.
Having essentially elders decide if you can sexual with them and others sounds one or two steps behind drinking the flavour-aid. At least with age of consent laws you have a hard limit so if a person doesn't even wait for that then they are usually a predator.
Yeah man because without government people would literally have no morals. It's not like religion would exist or anything. Unlike communisim, which denounces religion at every opportunity so that every leftist commune in history has been rife with child abuse and homosexuality
It's a tough subject for those of us who think 'no rulers, self governance' is the best way to live: when can a person independently give proper consent to form a contract (or consent to sex in this case) without a given standard?
Current government limits vary a bit, and some people (yes, including predators) would argue there's no reason for a strict age limit when it has more to do with their capacity to assess and accept risks/consequences.
So you end up with arguments like this clip where she's thinking "oh yes, having a community meeting about this girl's desire to have sex with someone sounds like an ideal way to handle things."
Autists are funny sometimes.
in a sense that's what age of consent laws are, the nation as a community has come up with a number that majority of the members can accept as reasonable, with fringe circumstances judged on the case by case basis
Sort of fine in theory (assuming for the sake of argument that children can consent)...terrible in practice. It suffers the same issues as something like communism or democracy...people aren't perfect, and some like getting things they shouldn't have or don't deserve. So, no, this is a recipe for abuse of the worst kind.
Utopianists are the worst. Any society planned to be ideal has to take into accounts that humans aren't ideal. And if humans were perfect, utopia would simply follow; you wouldn't need to plan shit, and you wouldn't need laws, or even community agreements. People would be perfect, wouldn't abuse children, and all interactions would be 100% consensual, because perfect people wouldn't take advantage of people.
Any utopia that involves in anyway pretending that people are better than they are is a recipe for the worst kind of nightmare scenarios.
assuming for the sake of argument that children can consent
Children, by definition, can't (legally) consent, making this statement self-contradictory. However, we define "child" somewhat arbitrarily as "persons under the age of 18", which has nothing to do with ones ability to give actual (informed) consent, which is naturally going to come at different times for different people on different subjects, as they gain experience. And as an aside, society currently abjectly fails to prepare even 18 year olds to give informed consent on a wide variety of subjects, let alone those who are even younger.
The rest of your argument is sound (utopianism in any form is a deeply flawed philosophy), but that one statement bugged me.
And I meant sort of what it sounds like you're talking about; some people under eighteen are mature enough to consent to various things others might not be. But, considering people aren't perfect, acting like everyone is is a recipe for abuse. That's all I meant; in a perfect society, with perfect people, you wouldn't need age of consent because everyone would just respect consent, and be able to read if someone is capable of giving it. But, considering that's not the case, that's why this is an absolute disaster of a scenario.
But didn't you hear? Traditional ideas are generally to be favored over crazy bullshit found in the present clown world. Except of course the extremely arbitrary age of 18 set by the US government to determine adulthood. That one is sacrosanct and if you even dare violate that sacred rule of the universe you are a monster.
My point stands completely unaffected because it exists completely independent of what you or anyone else perceives to be traditionalist. I didn't even use the term, I merely referenced a thought process that loosely aligns with it.
Caring about internet points while calling people cucks online. You're a clown.
Ok, then what's your position? ...What age should it be?
Well, that's the thing, I do agree it's somewhat arbitrary. But I think fourteen is too young for sex with adults or a big commitment like marriage, and is inviting predatory behavior. I think eighteen might be a bit too puritan, but I think it's in the ballpark. 16-18 is good, so I think the current system is decent. any younger is creep/abuse territory. And marriage should probably remain eighteen, as that's the age of majority.
Aww, I thought you were taking a based stand that young girls are the property of their fathers and therefore consent is an irrelevant and ridiculous notion. I'm disappointed in you.
How is it stupid or a strawman? What I said is more reasonable and supported by human tradition than what you said. Their age is irrelevant. At least you finally gave some arguments for why 14 in your latest comment.
Speaking of strawmen, why do you keep mentioning age 18? Nobody else said that except 8BitArchitect who called it arbitrary. That's not the age of consent in most US states.
Good lord you're low IQ if not a leftist LARPer. Do you think saying STRAWMAN STRAWMAN to everyone's comments is distracting anyone from your literal "muh 18" strawman argument you still haven't explained?
Before confirming how far back on the bell curve you actually are, you had simply stated "14 year olds should be getting married". Not unheard of in the old days. I almost gave you the benefit of the doubt. But then you had to vomit out your "children can consent to sex!" fantasy too.
"a young woman belongs to her father/family who chooses when she can marry and to whom" -> this is historically reasonable and what I hoped you were going for
"14yo children can consent to sex" -> this is actual your retarded take
Don't read into it any more any than that. I'm not getting interested in a pissing match over age of consent. The concept of "consent" is a modern liberal construct. It has nothing to do with reality. "Her father gave her away at the alter" isn't just an expression.
Now go eat a dick because that's what most people on your side advocate for. :)
Again, where's the line? You say they can consent. Lots of children do things that aren't in their best interests, part of the whole idea of society is to prevent that stuff.
They already have sex with other teenagers or adults if given the chance.
And any adult taking advantage of that is a fucking creep. Just because there might be some sexual activity doesn't mean it's alright for adults to engage in that, or fucking get married to children.
I'm not making the argument for 12, though.
Why not though? What's the difference? Some twelve year olds have sex too, why shouldn't they be able to marry or whatever? See, that's what I'm talking about, where is the line? If you're saying it's fine at 14 because they have sex, why not younger?
This sounds like a cult like behaviour which is EXTREMELY easy to manipulate and corrupt.
Having essentially elders decide if you can sexual with them and others sounds one or two steps behind drinking the flavour-aid. At least with age of consent laws you have a hard limit so if a person doesn't even wait for that then they are usually a predator.
Yeah man because without government people would literally have no morals. It's not like religion would exist or anything. Unlike communisim, which denounces religion at every opportunity so that every leftist commune in history has been rife with child abuse and homosexuality
It's a tough subject for those of us who think 'no rulers, self governance' is the best way to live: when can a person independently give proper consent to form a contract (or consent to sex in this case) without a given standard?
Current government limits vary a bit, and some people (yes, including predators) would argue there's no reason for a strict age limit when it has more to do with their capacity to assess and accept risks/consequences.
So you end up with arguments like this clip where she's thinking "oh yes, having a community meeting about this girl's desire to have sex with someone sounds like an ideal way to handle things."
Autists are funny sometimes.
in a sense that's what age of consent laws are, the nation as a community has come up with a number that majority of the members can accept as reasonable, with fringe circumstances judged on the case by case basis
I guess we have found the female version of Amos Yee.
Sort of fine in theory (assuming for the sake of argument that children can consent)...terrible in practice. It suffers the same issues as something like communism or democracy...people aren't perfect, and some like getting things they shouldn't have or don't deserve. So, no, this is a recipe for abuse of the worst kind.
Utopianists are the worst. Any society planned to be ideal has to take into accounts that humans aren't ideal. And if humans were perfect, utopia would simply follow; you wouldn't need to plan shit, and you wouldn't need laws, or even community agreements. People would be perfect, wouldn't abuse children, and all interactions would be 100% consensual, because perfect people wouldn't take advantage of people.
Any utopia that involves in anyway pretending that people are better than they are is a recipe for the worst kind of nightmare scenarios.
Children, by definition, can't (legally) consent, making this statement self-contradictory. However, we define "child" somewhat arbitrarily as "persons under the age of 18", which has nothing to do with ones ability to give actual (informed) consent, which is naturally going to come at different times for different people on different subjects, as they gain experience. And as an aside, society currently abjectly fails to prepare even 18 year olds to give informed consent on a wide variety of subjects, let alone those who are even younger.
The rest of your argument is sound (utopianism in any form is a deeply flawed philosophy), but that one statement bugged me.
I completely agree with you, actually.
And I meant sort of what it sounds like you're talking about; some people under eighteen are mature enough to consent to various things others might not be. But, considering people aren't perfect, acting like everyone is is a recipe for abuse. That's all I meant; in a perfect society, with perfect people, you wouldn't need age of consent because everyone would just respect consent, and be able to read if someone is capable of giving it. But, considering that's not the case, that's why this is an absolute disaster of a scenario.
But didn't you hear? Traditional ideas are generally to be favored over crazy bullshit found in the present clown world. Except of course the extremely arbitrary age of 18 set by the US government to determine adulthood. That one is sacrosanct and if you even dare violate that sacred rule of the universe you are a monster.
My point stands completely unaffected because it exists completely independent of what you or anyone else perceives to be traditionalist. I didn't even use the term, I merely referenced a thought process that loosely aligns with it.
The only people who said eighteen were you and someone who agrees with you.
I didn't say it, and neither did anyone arguing with you.
Caring about internet points while calling people cucks online. You're a clown.
Well, that's the thing, I do agree it's somewhat arbitrary. But I think fourteen is too young for sex with adults or a big commitment like marriage, and is inviting predatory behavior. I think eighteen might be a bit too puritan, but I think it's in the ballpark. 16-18 is good, so I think the current system is decent. any younger is creep/abuse territory. And marriage should probably remain eighteen, as that's the age of majority.
Very good, you face wall now comrade.
ok groomer
As a pedophile you're more likely to be a sodomite. No one here believes that you'd stop at 14. You just wrongly assumed we'd agree with you
Why is there so much of this bullshit here?
You really think fourteen year olds have the the capacity to consent to marriage and sex? They're still children.
And, if it's lowered to that, what's to stop it from going lower? If it's fine at 14, why not 12? No thanks.
Aww, I thought you were taking a based stand that young girls are the property of their fathers and therefore consent is an irrelevant and ridiculous notion. I'm disappointed in you.
How is it stupid or a strawman? What I said is more reasonable and supported by human tradition than what you said. Their age is irrelevant. At least you finally gave some arguments for why 14 in your latest comment.
Speaking of strawmen, why do you keep mentioning age 18? Nobody else said that except 8BitArchitect who called it arbitrary. That's not the age of consent in most US states.
Good lord you're low IQ if not a leftist LARPer. Do you think saying STRAWMAN STRAWMAN to everyone's comments is distracting anyone from your literal "muh 18" strawman argument you still haven't explained?
Before confirming how far back on the bell curve you actually are, you had simply stated "14 year olds should be getting married". Not unheard of in the old days. I almost gave you the benefit of the doubt. But then you had to vomit out your "children can consent to sex!" fantasy too.
"a young woman belongs to her father/family who chooses when she can marry and to whom" -> this is historically reasonable and what I hoped you were going for
"14yo children can consent to sex" -> this is actual your retarded take
Don't read into it any more any than that. I'm not getting interested in a pissing match over age of consent. The concept of "consent" is a modern liberal construct. It has nothing to do with reality. "Her father gave her away at the alter" isn't just an expression.
Now go eat a dick because that's what most people on your side advocate for. :)
Again, where's the line? You say they can consent. Lots of children do things that aren't in their best interests, part of the whole idea of society is to prevent that stuff.
And any adult taking advantage of that is a fucking creep. Just because there might be some sexual activity doesn't mean it's alright for adults to engage in that, or fucking get married to children.
Why not though? What's the difference? Some twelve year olds have sex too, why shouldn't they be able to marry or whatever? See, that's what I'm talking about, where is the line? If you're saying it's fine at 14 because they have sex, why not younger?