Re: MILO - NAP and "Age of Consent"

[john cena]

After watching the MILO video, I am very confused. I had never actually thought about how the NAP relates to age of consent. Specifically in the case of milo at age 13 and the priest. I am not disagreeing with stefans interpretation, I fully understand where he is coming from, especially about Milo not reporting the people hosting "parties" with underage boys. 

My confusion more specifically, is if a 13 year old consents to sex with an older man, how has the older man broken the NAP unless it is a forced event? I am assuming from stefans tone that YES it does, however I can't seem to find his arguments on the subject. 
 

In the podcast Stefan refers to what happened to Milo as rape/molestation. If stef invents a time machine, goes back to that moment, and subdues the priest, has Stefan violated the NAP? As such, in calling the priest a rapist while Milo declared it was consensual, is Stefan not implying that force was moral to use against the priest? Is he in the podcast expressing a will to violate the NAP stefs subjective idea that a 13 year old should not be with a 29 year old? Or is there some logic I am missing? 

[neeeel]

1. How does the NAP justify violent use of force against those over age that have relationships with minors

 

 

It doesnt. That is, the NAP doesnt justify punishment or retribution ( as far as I understand it). 

 

 

2. What age does the NAP objectively set as "being able to consent" and how is this logically derived

 

 

The NAP says nothing about the age of consent

 

3. IF there is no logically derivable age of consent, then how could these cases where there is no force used by the assailant ever be prosecuted in a free society with any degree of fairness?

 

 

Im not sure they would be prosecuted, but the perpetrators would be extremely ostracized, to the point of having to leave the area, or dying of starvation.

[john cena]

It doesnt. That is, the NAP doesnt justify punishment or retribution ( as far as I understand it). 

 

 

 

The NAP says nothing about the age of consent

Thank you for absolutely destroying my question. (Really) I certainly used the incorrect wording. Let me be more clear.

 

For example, If I am being raped, the NAP allows me to kill my rapist. The NAP also allows for self defense for any other agent, IE I can morally kill the man raping a helpless person.

 

To keep it simple I will stick to Milos example wherein he was 13 with an older priest. If the NAP says nothing about age of consent, and your 13 year old son is in the process of what I would consider being raped, how could one morally use force to stop the rape if the action is claimed to be consensual by both parties?

 

 

 

 

Im not sure they would be prosecuted, but the perpetrators would be extremely ostracized, to the point of having to leave the area, or dying of starvation.

The NAP says nothing about age of consent. In which case, it would seem to me that ostracizing someone for being in a relationship with a minor would be logically equivalent to ostracizing someone for drug use, racial differences, or any other subjective preference. Would this not simply lead to the ostracizing party being ostracized themselves?

 

Basically what I am asking, is if the matter is entirely subjective, the ostracism only coming from unprovable aesthetic whims of those who have a problem with pedophiles.

 

Again not trying to justify any of this. Just confused on if it would actually be immoral to have a "consensual" relationship between someone 13 and 29. Or 5 and 29 for that matter.

 

If you forcibly intervene to stop sex between someone of age 13 and 29, have you not broken the NAP?

 

Rephrasing the original question,

1. How does the NAP justify ostracism against those over age that have relationships with minors

3. IF there is no logically derivable age of consent, then how could these cases where there is no force used by the assailant ever be ostracized in a free society with any degree of fairness?

[UberHamburgler]

a43a2e1664132faSDFSADFasdf

 

To answer this, we must bring in biology. Parental protection is naturally required to protect children in order to ensure the survival and well being of children. It is thus unto the parents to act in defense of their children from sexual predators until they are mature enough to decide for themselves. Children may want to eat nothing but Reese's and Mt. Dew, but a responsible parent would prevent them from doing so, likewise in this situation - close kin protect each other from themselves when they are deem the other to lack personal agency. So when is that age, it depends on each individual child - some people will be ready at 12 and others not until their 20s. At some point the parents will almost certainly decide that their child is mature enough to decide for themselves, if they don't, or if they are going to take to long, then the child in question will have to decide if they are willing to live with the overbearance for the benefit of the support elsewhere in their lives or they can take the responsibility unto themselves if they are able to leave and make it on their own.

 

Here we run into where many people find fault with the NAP. If a parent refuses to protect their child, how does that child receive protection. What if someone refuses to acknowledge another's moral agency and keeps them locked in a bedroom to prevent them from acting out their will. One could say that the neighbors would intervene to defend said person/child, but that is so incredibly subject to abstraction and abuse - I.e. we must bomb the hell out of Kandahar to protect the Afghans from the Taliban.

[neeeel]

To keep it simple I will stick to Milos example wherein he was 13 with an older priest. If the NAP says nothing about age of consent, and your 13 year old son is in the process of what I would consider being raped, how could one morally use force to stop the rape if the action is claimed to be consensual by both parties?

 

 

 This doesnt make sense, it cant be both consensual and rape. 

 

 

The NAP says nothing about age of consent. In which case, it would seem to me that ostracizing someone for being in a relationship with a minor would be logically equivalent to ostracizing someone for drug use, racial differences, or any other subjective preference. Would this not simply lead to the ostracizing party being ostracized themselves?

 

ostracism only coming from unprovable aesthetic whims of those who have a problem with pedophiles.

 

1. How does the NAP justify ostracism against those over age that have relationships with minors

 

 

 

 

NAP and ostracism are different things. NAP doesnt "justify" ostracism. You simply get to choose who you associate with. Yes, the ostracising party could end up being ostracised themselves. 

 

 

 

Again not trying to justify any of this. Just confused on if it would actually be immoral to have a "consensual" relationship between someone 13 and 29. Or 5 and 29 for that matter.

 

If you forcibly intervene to stop sex between someone of age 13 and 29, have you not broken the NAP?

 

 

I find this a confusing question too. Most people would think you are justified to step in and stop sex between someone of age 13 and 29.

Rape has always been rape, right? so, 300 years ago, or whatever  teenage brides were being raped? 

 

 

 

3. IF there is no logically derivable age of consent, then how could these cases where there is no force used by the assailant ever be ostracized in a free society with any degree of fairness?

 

 

Ostracism has nothing to do with fairness. You can have any reason, or no reason, to ostracise someone.. You are free to choose who you associate with, for any reason, or no reason. 

[john cena]

 This doesnt make sense, it cant be both consensual and rape. 

Because I don't understand which it is. Stefan repeatedly calls what happened to milo rape/molestation in the podcast, yet you are telling me that it is in fact not rape if the child consents, which Milo says he did. I vaguely remember him talking about children not being able to consent in the past but I can't remember which podcast it was.

 

 

 

 

 

NAP and ostracism are different things. NAP doesnt "justify" ostracism. You simply get to choose who you associate with. Yes, the ostracising party could end up being ostracised themselves. 

Sorry again for imprecise language. What I mean by the NAP justifying ostracism such as in the case of murder. You aren't very likely to be ostracized for ostracizing a murderer, while you are likely to be ostracized for ostracizing all people of a specific race. In a free society my goal would be to ostracize as little people as possible, IE only people breaking the NAP.  

 

 

 

I find this a confusing question too. Most people would think you are justified to step in and stop sex between someone of age 13 and 29.

Rape has always been rape, right? so, 300 years ago, or whatever  teenage brides were being raped? 

Were those teenage brides sold off by their fathers to the highest bidder or forced into arranged marries? If so then obviously yes. But if no, the case could be made that children today are infantalized and coddled all the way to college. People of age 13 in that time period were much more mature and capable of making rational decisions, since often they worked full time jobs and took care of families, while 13 year olds in our society are prevented from doing so. But that's really a tangent from my confusion, although an interesting discussion. 

 

 

 

 

Ostracism has nothing to do with fairness. You can have any reason, or no reason, to ostracise someone.. You are free to choose who you associate with, for any reason, or no reason. 

Right but I assume in a free society you would want to ostracize as few people as humanly possible while still adhering to ethics. This would be the most profitable option. Again an interesting discussion for another time but really tangential to my confusion.

 

 

In the podcast Stefan refers to what happened to Milo as rape/molestation. If stef invents a time machine, goes back to that moment, and subdues the priest, has Stefan violated the NAP? As such, in calling the priest a rapist while Milo declared it was consensual, is Stefan not implying that force was moral to use against the priest? Is he in the podcast expressing a will to violate the NAP stefs subjective idea that a 13 year old should not be with a 29 year old? Or is there some logic I am missing? This might not be a question you can answer but I appreciate the dialogue so far. 

[Will Torbald]

Wondering about the NAP in order to make up your mind on whether this subject is good or bad is peak libertarianism.

[mgggb]

My confusion more specifically, is if a 13 year old consents to sex with an older man, how has the older man broken the NAP unless it is a forced event? I am assuming from stefans tone that YES it does, however I can't seem to find his arguments on the subject. 

 

 

Let's look at this on a spectrum. Someone who is 25 years old has a fully developed brain and can give consent. Someone who is 2 years old has a very under developed brain and cannot give consent. Someone who is 13 is 12 years away from full brain development and almost certainly cannot consent. 

 

Think of a bell curve on a graph. How many standard deviations would you have to go before a 13 year old is developed enough to give the same consent as a 25 year old? Probably so many that the odds wouldn't be any less than one in a thousand billion. The odds of that ever happening are so slim that saying in absolute terms that 13 year olds cannot consent to sex is so similar to saying 1 in a thousand billion that it is negligible statistically. However if you leave the possibility open it gives predators the out that maybe what they are doing isn't evil because of such a remote possibility.

[neeeel]

Let's look at this on a spectrum. Someone who is 25 years old has a fully developed brain and can give consent. Someone who is 2 years old has a very under developed brain and cannot give consent. Someone who is 13 is 12 years away from full brain development and almost certainly cannot consent.

 

Think of a bell curve on a graph. How many standard deviations would you have to go before a 13 year old is developed enough to give the same consent as a 25 year old? Probably so many that the odds wouldn't be any less than one in a thousand billion. The odds of that ever happening are so slim that saying in absolute terms that 13 year olds cannot consent to sex is so similar to saying 1 in a thousand billion that it is negligible statistically. However if you leave the possibility open it gives predators the out that maybe what they are doing isn't evil because of such a remote possibility.

The problem I have with the consent argument is that its unfalsifiable(not sure if that's the correct term). Consider, if it was theoretically possible for a 13 year old to consent(not saying it is possible, just to be clear) . Would you, in that case, not have a problem with it? I am fairly sure that you would have a problem, which indicates that the consent line of reasoning is not what is really behind your position

[mgggb]

The problem I have with the consent argument is that its unfalsifiable(not sure if that's the correct term). Consider, if it was theoretically possible for a 13 year old to consent(not saying it is possible, just to be clear) . Would you, in that case, not have a problem with it? I am fairly sure that you would have a problem, which indicates that the consent line of reasoning is not what is really behind your position

 

If a 13 year old were capable of giving consent I would not have issue with it because it would be definitionally consensual. However, for someone to be able to consent they would have to be of sound mind and outside of a power structure. So even if there was someone 13 with a hyper developed brain, the odds of the adult not having some kind of structural power over them is all but nonexistent. It's not unfalsifiable, just that the odds of it ever being falsifiable are so infinitesimally small that its negligible.

[neeeel]

 However, for someone to be able to consent they would have to be of sound mind and outside of a power structure. 

 

The problem I have with this is that 1) it applies to all humans. There are few, if any, aspects of human life that dont involve some sort of power structure.

 

And 2) it applies to any act or action. So, using your reasoning above, I could argue against a 13 year old being able to consent to anything. they arent outside a power structure, therefore they cant consent to eat broccoli. They cant consent to touch of any kind. etc. This seems blatantly false to me.

 

( disclaimer, because I know this is an important subject here. I in no way support or condone any sort of abuse. The consent argument has always seemed vague and weak to me, which is why I want to look into it more)

[mgggb]

The problem I have with this is that 1) it applies to all humans. There are few, if any, aspects of human life that dont involve some sort of power structure.

 

And 2) it applies to any act or action. So, using your reasoning above, I could argue against a 13 year old being able to consent to anything. they arent outside a power structure, therefore they cant consent to eat broccoli. They cant consent to touch of any kind. etc. This seems blatantly false to me.

 

( disclaimer, because I know this is an important subject here. I in no way support or condone any sort of abuse. The consent argument has always seemed vague and weak to me, which is why I want to look into it more)

 

A child can comprehend the value of proper nutrition and can consent to eating broccoli because they can understand the basics of nutrition. You're making this far more complex than it has to be. You cannot consent to something that you cannot comprehend. A child cannot comprehend the physical and emotional ramifications of being in a sexual relationship and thus cannot consent. 

 

As for the majority of human relationships involving a power structure, you'll have to clarify more. The vast majority of my non work relationships involve no power structure at all. However when I was 13 the opposite was true in that all of my relationships with adults involved a power structure, ie parents, teachers, pastors, coaches, etc.

[neeeel]

A child can comprehend the value of proper nutrition and can consent to eating broccoli because they can understand the basics of nutrition. You're making this far more complex than it has to be. You cannot consent to something that you cannot comprehend. A child cannot comprehend the physical and emotional ramifications of being in a sexual relationship and thus cannot consent. 

 

 

so they can understand the basics of nutrition but not the basics of sex? 

 

 

 

 

As for the majority of human relationships involving a power structure, you'll have to clarify more. The vast majority of my non work relationships involve no power structure at all. However when I was 13 the opposite was true in that all of my relationships with adults involved a power structure, ie parents, teachers, pastors, coaches, etc.

 

I doubt there is ever an equal relationship. Someone will always have some type of power. Whether its more resources, more intelligence, more strength, more whatever, there is always going to be some sort of imbalance. perhaps we are meaning different things when we are talking about "power" though

[mgggb]

so they can understand the basics of nutrition but not the basics of sex? 

Nice strawman. 

 

I doubt there is ever an equal relationship. Someone will always have some type of power. Whether its more resources, more intelligence, more strength, more whatever, there is always going to be some sort of imbalance. perhaps we are meaning different things when we are talking about "power" though

Being better than someone =/= having power over someone

Were those teenage brides sold off by their fathers to the highest bidder or forced into arranged marries? If so then obviously yes. But if no, the case could be made that children today are infantalized and coddled all the way to college. People of age 13 in that time period were much more mature and capable of making rational decisions, since often they worked full time jobs and took care of families, while 13 year olds in our society are prevented from doing so. But that's really a tangent from my confusion, although an interesting discussion. 

 

What you are advocating is reprehensible.

[neeeel]

Nice strawman.

 

.

Huh? What strawman? I am quoting what you said. You said they could consent to broccoli because they can understand the basics of nutrition, implying that they can't consent to sex because they can't understand the basics of sex

[mgggb]

Huh? What strawman? I am quoting what you said. You said they could consent to broccoli because they can understand the basics of nutrition, implying that they can't consent to sex because they can't understand the basics of sex

Actually what I said was "A child cannot comprehend the physical and emotional ramifications of being in a sexual relationship and thus cannot consent."

 

I never claimed a child could not understand the basics of a biological function. My claim is that the physical and emotional consequences of being in a sexual relationship are beyond their range of comprehension because of the undeveloped nature of their brain. Unless you argue otherwise?

 

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

[neeeel]

Actually what I said was "A child cannot comprehend the physical and emotional ramifications of being in a sexual relationship and thus cannot consent."

 

I never claimed a child could not understand the basics of a biological function. My claim is that the physical and emotional consequences of being in a sexual relationship are beyond their range of comprehension because of the undeveloped nature of their brain. Unless you argue otherwise?

 

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

 

no, what you said was

 

A child can comprehend the value of proper nutrition and can consent to eating broccoli because they can understand the basics of nutrition.

 

 

this was in response to my statement " they arent outside a power structure, therefore they cant consent to eat broccoli."

 

So

 

1) you say consent isnt possible in a power structure

2) I say, in that case, you cant consent to eat broccoli in a power structure

3) you respond, They can consent, because they can understand basic nutrition

4) So you are implying here, that understanding the basics of something means that you can consent, even in a power structure. You understand the basics of nutrition, therefore you can consent to eat nutritious food. This also implies the opposite, that if you dont understand the basics of something, then you cant consent. You have already stated that 13 yos cant consent to sex, therefore, following your own reasoning, they cant understand the basics of sex

 

it follows logically from your argument. It is in no way a strawman. If you want to change your argument, feel free.

[mgggb]

1) you say consent isnt possible in a power structure

2) I say, in that case, you cant consent to eat broccoli in a power structure

3) you respond, They can consent, because they can understand basic nutrition

4) So you are implying here, that understanding the basics of something means that you can consent, even in a power structure. You understand the basics of nutrition, therefore you can consent to eat nutritious food. This also implies the opposite, that if you dont understand the basics of something, then you cant consent. You have already stated that 13 yos cant consent to sex, therefore, following your own reasoning, they cant understand the basics of sex

 

it follows logically from your argument. It is in no way a strawman. If you want to change your argument, feel free.

 

Consent is possible in a power structure but it has to be informed consent. ie surgeons explain the risks associated with surgery before they operate on you. You can comprehend the basics of medical treatment and can consent to treatment even though the surgeon is an expert and therefore has power over you. Likewise, a good parent would explain the rudiments of nutrition to a child so they would want to eat broccoli. My parents never forced me to eat anything I didn't want to but they did say things like "you've got to drink your milk and eat your broccoli if you want to grow up big and strong like daddy". Thats a highly simplistic view of nutrition, but its pretty much correct and can be easily understood by someone with an underdeveloped brain.

 

It's not as black and white as all consent or no consent. You can only consent to something you can comprehend. 

[neeeel]

 

 

It's not as black and white as all consent or no consent. You can only consent to something you can comprehend. 

 

This is the crux of our discussion. But you qualified it with the word "basic". Is basic comprehension all thats needed for consent? That was what you seemed to be implying when you said they can comprehend "basic" nutrition. That is all I am saying.

 

IF that is your point, then my point is that it seems clear to me that 13 year olds can comprehend "basic" sex and relationships, and therefore, by your reasoning, can consent.

[mgggb]

IF that is your point, then my point is that it seems clear to me that 13 year olds can comprehend "basic" sex and relationships, and therefore, by your reasoning, can consent.

 

I think I said the gist of it quite well here. 

 

Let's look at this on a spectrum. Someone who is 25 years old has a fully developed brain and can give consent. Someone who is 2 years old has a very under developed brain and cannot give consent. Someone who is 13 is 12 years away from full brain development and almost certainly cannot consent. 

 

Think of a bell curve on a graph. How many standard deviations would you have to go before a 13 year old is developed enough to give the same consent as a 25 year old? Probably so many that the odds wouldn't be any less than one in a thousand billion. The odds of that ever happening are so slim that saying in absolute terms that 13 year olds cannot consent to sex is so similar to saying 1 in a thousand billion that it is negligible statistically. However if you leave the possibility open it gives predators the out that maybe what they are doing isn't evil because of such a remote possibility.

 

I guess it depends on whether or no you think a 13 year old can comprehend the basics of sex and relationships. You said you think they can, but do you really think someone that age would make a competent parent while still being a child themselves? After all that is the entire purpose of sexuality. Do you think two 13 year olds would be able to provide for a child of their own and provide a stable environment for it to grow in? 

[neeeel]

 

 

I guess it depends on whether or no you think a 13 year old can comprehend the basics of sex and relationships. You said you think they can, but do you really think someone that age would make a competent parent while still being a child themselves? After all that is the entire purpose of sexuality. Do you think two 13 year olds would be able to provide for a child of their own and provide a stable environment for it to grow in? 

 

Do you think a 13 year old would eat healthily if left to his own devices, or would he just eat sweets all day?