Nostr Web Client

I didn't say being attracted, dipshit. I wasn't extremely clear, but I was saying setting the arbitrary age of consent below that, that's what I would find disgusting. I was agreeing with you about how stupid the arbitrary age of consent is, and you projected bullshit into my mind instead of trying to get my point. Go fuck yourself if you're so damn paranoid about how you'll be perceived that you can't listen when someone is even AGREEING with you. Pathetic.

SumRando 11mo ago

Here and I thought we were having a substantive and respectful discussion. Guess not...

I am at a loss as to what would make the idea that a 15 year old can have informed consent "categorically disgusting" when the idea that a 16 year old expressing the same consent would not be. Is there something particularly informative to a young person's mind between those ages?

That is why I shifted to the subject of attraction. I wrongly assumed that is what you meant when you mentioned below 16 being "categorically disgusting." The option of it being about the ability to have informed consent simply didn't seem like it could be what you were talking about, since there is nothing fundamentally different about a 15 year old's ability to be informed compared to a 16 year old.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mr. Krabs 11mo ago

You still don't understand. I want the age of informed consent bullshit to disappear entirely, with a more ethical standard put in its place. Some 15 year olds can legitimately consent, in my mind. Yet to set the bar to 15 or lower and make no other changes would be a severe error. That would be disgusting. Age of consent is a terrible idea whether high or low, and must be replaced with a better standard.

I do not claim to know for sure what that standard would be and how it would be determined in precise detail of all the specifics, but it must be something logical that is normalized and enforced by social pressures, by law, and by the market for protection. A natural order could do such a thing where the most basic standard is consent and self ownership.

SumRando 11mo ago

It's a difficult problem, for sure. I don't know that there CAN be an objective standard, because people are too individual. Some parents are very frank with their children or they actually find decent information on the internet, and they would be equipped for making informed decisions much earlier, while others get very little information except what they glean from their peers, much of which is bad information.

Laws, however, have to be pretty black and white in order to be effectively enforced. That's assuming one believes there should be a government enforcing laws in the first place. A lot of people here are anarcho-capitalists. I can't see that ending well, just letting the market decide on this issue.

Mr. Krabs 11mo ago

I'm one of those anarcho-capitalists. I'm a crab after all, I have to be as capitalist as they come. The market can and will enforce laws better than any government, especially when there is a general consensus that violations of consent, in anything regarding a person's property, of which their body is the most obvious part, are bad. It's precisely government that makes laws arbitrary.

Mr. Krabs 11mo ago

And anything that requires a subjective valuation, which honestly everything kind of does, can be handled in a more nuanced way in a free market.