This would be considered leading, and it would immediately invalidate any results of the poll you have.

You are inappropriately narrowing your focus down to a level of detailed concern well below my approximate description. Totally unreasonable and inappropriate.

Sure, I didn't give an exact wording, or how exactly we would define the population of interest, how to get a sample, method of contact to use, etc.


I, Ethan, claim that when someone says a child can't consent, most mean it isn't informed, valid consent. Dante claims this claim should not be made without empirical support. If so, then the entire idea that most harm is iatrogenic should vanish from discourse.

I really don't understand how you can see the two claims as equivalent.

True in a way. Mine is far more defensible. The testing of my claim could be done quite easily. On the other hand, the iatrogenic harm claim is to a considerable extent a matter of faith concerning how societies can be changed and the parts that are empirically testable are extremely difficult to test.

One claims to know the existence of an opinion which has not been expressed.

It is a statement about what the person meant when they expressed an opinion. It is an educated guess based on judgement. It could be easily tested and falsified if it is indeed false. It hasn't been tested, to my knowledge. But do you really feel you need to test the question (worded approximately) that "When I said children can't consent, I did not mean that they are incapable of saying 'yes' or 'no' with some basic understanding of what behaviors they are saying 'yes' or 'no' to. I meant that if they said 'yes' their consent would not be informed enough to be valid."

Regarding iatrogenic harm...

The claim is that the respondents adjusted their remembrance of a sexual experience lived as a child, from positive or neutral, to negative.

Not really. Clancy's work documented many cases where the adults realized they as children did not experience it negatively at the time, but still clearly felt harmed later.

The iatrogenic harm claim is complicated and based on several speculative factors. One is that it is societal opinions rather than simple maturation and passage of time which has changed someone's opinion as to whether an experience was harmful. Implicitly it also claims that there is a different way to configure society that would prevent such altered views but not in other respects make things worse. That goes beyond anything that can really be tested.

At least Kinsey, Sandfort and Rind. [support the iatrogenic harm claim]

Those are interesting studies, but none bears at all directly on that question.

the entire idea that most harm is iatrogenic should vanish from discourse. -- Ethan Edwards, https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/602132.htm, Friday, September 12 2014 at 09:07:16pm
Hmmmm.

That is prefixed by "If so" in the original, and follows a premise which I argue is false. On your part this is either a bad joke, idiocy, or perhaps a political campaign stunt hoping no one will notice.

I have good friends who are econometrists, marketers, medical researchers, and political campaigners (and as I have said, I have been into campaigns myself) -- each and every one of them would consider you an idiot for this post; and would certainly fire you if they were your bosses.

You are violating your own rules by saying that. Shame on you! You do not have a research study to cite for what your friends would say. That is rampant speculation. Surely it would be inadequate if you asked them, because you are not a disinterested party.

But by ordinary rules of evidence, I doubt very much that you are right. Unless you blackmailed them, they would say that YOU are being ridiculous for writing YOUR post.