Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 20. (Read 105875 times)

Yes


I think that since the kids broke the law by having sex at 5 to 15, it is your position that they should be fined or jailed.


It doesn't have anything to do with rights. Everyone has a right to consent at any age. Not everyone has the ABILITY to consent. And a state can't determine when someone can consent, either. That is different for each individual.

Let me ask you something. Why do you believe that sex is harmful, at any age, if done with consent? Just curious.

If I provide you with an answer, do you promise to read and try to understand it?

If so, then please read this blog post. It's by a friend of mine, and I cannot summarize the issue any more than he has. If you are unwilling to read this, then you are unwilling to have your question answered.

By the way, due to your hypocrisy, I'm going to be calling you out every I see that you don't answer a question or respond to a point.

It's not that they don't have a right to consent to sex. It's that they are unable to make an informed decision to do so.

If someone does something that they have no right to do, they should be punished. Children who have sex with adults because the adults convinced them to should not be punished, in fact, the adults should.

Seriously, why are you so obsessed with adult-on-child sex? You're creeping me out, man.

You still haven't answered my question.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.570269

If rights are what "ought" rather than what "is," where does your "ought" come from?

OK you are happy for a child of any age to have sex with an adult provided they make an informed decision.

As you probably know, a lot of priests in Ireland had consensual sex with children in ages from about 5 to 15.  Even though they consented at the time, later on the kids changed their minds and said they were damaged by the experience of sex with an adult at such young ages.

Is it your position that they consented so should shut up?

Or is it your position that there is a point where a person does not have the right to consent to sex?  Obviously at that point, society has a right to intervene and rescue the child.

If you disagree with The Law, that's just like, your opinion, man. The Law is The Law (because The Law says so).

By the way, in some US states, the minimum age at which a girl is allowed to strip for money is around 12 to 14. I guess since that's a law, and since rights come from law, 12 year olds have a right to strip for money, right?

But the 12 year old isn't locked up, or stopped. They get chastised, or punished by their parents, but as far as I know, there are no legal reprecussions for the 12 year old. And if that 12 year old has sex with another 12 year old, who is going to jail? Please tell me.


Oh my god! Even if I point out that saying this crap is totally idiotic and completely out of context, you still do it. If anything, since you were specifically explained a position, told that you would be an idiot for taking it out of contect to make it seem like it's something else, and then you went and did just that, the only thing we have established is that you are an idiot (or someone who specifically twists other peoples words with bad intention, but I don't think you're that mean/evil, yet). You keep throwing away important parts, like being sold into is NOT consenting, and that I specifically said "informed." Though, I guess, yes, if the 12 year old is somehow fully informed about sex (before puberty?), and if the parents just help them find clients but allow them to make all the decisions themselves, including what to do with the cash received, then yeah, I think it would be ok. It's a help of a lot better than how things were just 300 years ago, when that 12 year old girl would be sold to another family in "marriage" for some land or cows, when that 12 year old didn't know what sex was, did not consent to it, and was still forced to have sex (raped) and make babies. Do you support that good wholesome system?


Down to the point where the child is no longer able to make informed decisions. Getting into a drug habit and getting addicted was not a very informed decision to begin with. Give me a better example.

You've got some weird fetishes, Hawker. That's all I've got to say about that...

No its not the way things already happen.  If a 12 year old has a drugs habit and is selling herself for drugs money, anyone who pays for that gets locked up.  Even if they go to Thailand for it.

OK we have established that if someone is selling their 12 year old for sex, you are perfectly happy with it provided the child consents.

How low are you happy to go before you decide that a child with a drugs habit is not qualified to decide if she should or should not consent to sex?

Little Tommy's parents do not own him, he is not property. They have an obligation to prevent harm from coming to him until he is able to make rational decisions for himself. They are not justified in doing whatever they want with him. If Tommy doesn't like his parents, he can run away to someone that will take better care of him, or confront another individual with his problems and ask that they help him.

In today's world, the only entity that is legally allowed to protect children in this way is the state. If you can keep your child abuse hidden from the state, or abuse your child in a way permitted by the state, there is no recourse available to the child or others. How is this a better system?

As I said, i have an issue with someone selling someone else's services without their consent. That's literally slavery. But if you believe that's ok, then why should they stop selling any of his services at some randomly picked age? Tommy is 50, his parents need some money for pills, they sell him to their neighmor who needs his car washed. What's wrong or inconsistent with that?



Their right is to make personal decisions about when they want to do things with their own bodies. One person's right in that respect is not infringing on anyone else's. Where is the conflict between those three that needs to be resolved or decided on? The 12yo can go off and have sex, the 16yo can wait till they are 16, and the last one can wait till they are married. Why is it any of their or our business what they want to do? More so, why do you believe this isn't the way things already happen? Why bring up a hypothetical world where such a decision has been made?

P. S. Sorry, but there's really no topic that I find taboo, so, apologies if your "Oh think of the children!" tactic isn't persuading me.

You are backing off your starting position.

Really?  So one person sees a right to sex at the age of 12; another sees it at 16; yet another sees it only within marriage.  How do you decide between them?  Its all consensual in that the kid goes along with it.

The question was about little Tommy's parents selling his services.

So, at what age do you believe it is appropriate to be sold into or forced into sex? I thinkbeing forced or sold into sex is not a decision the child him/herself makes, and is not right regardless if they are 10 or 90. This is a straw an that goes completely against everything libertarianis, and the whole idea of rights, stand for.
I don't think society should ever intervene if the decision was not coerced. And should always try to intervene if anything is coerced.
If little Tommy learns how to give blowjobs, and uses that to make some extra income for himself, I personally don't see that as being worse that little Tommy going around cutting peoples lawns with a lawnmower to make extra cash. Both jobs are dangerous, one just has a stupid sexual taboo associated with it.

Where do you think little Tommy should get his rights from, and why is him wanting to make money by giving blowjobs not a right he is allowed to have, if he does it willingly, consentually, and is aware enough of the risks to do it safely? (<- Since you've proven yourself an idiot at taking my words out of context before, I am forced to point out here that I don't necessarily hold the view that little kids should be giving blowjobs. Please note the "consentually" and "aware of the risks," which likely makes little Tommy above 14)

You are answering the same question twice.  I followed your last answer with a simple "How low are you happy to go?" question.  If little Tommy is trained to give blow jobs for sweeties and Mommy is selling at $50 a trick, at what age do you think society should say "No - you don't have the right to sell that child for sex?"

If the person wants to have sex at the age of 12, what's the problem? I would educate them on the risks and ways to mitigate those risks, but I can't stop them.

Some parents sell their children for sex.  Others simply have sex with their kids for kicks.

How low an age do you think is acceptable before society intervenes to say "This is not OK" and takes the child into care.

Are rights arbitrary, or are they granted by the Magna Carta? Do you even care about consistency?


How are the decisions of some arbitrary 12 and 50 year old any of my concern? The only people that should have a say in what the 12 year old does are his parents, until the point that he is able to make rational decisions of his own accord. If both he and they determine that he is ready for a sexual relationship with a 50 year old, how is it any of your business?

My response is illustrating that rights are arbitrary creations. 

So you are OK with sex between a 12 year old and and a 50 year old. 

How low do you accept the age of consent going?