GirlChat #726224

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

More than just "alleged", fam Part 1

Posted by Dissident on Friday, August 17 2018 at 10:30:18PM
In reply to solutions to alleged problems posted by EthanEdwards on Friday, August 17 2018 at 8:37:28PM


Not dirty pool in the least. Giving parallel examples and challenging opponents to find the relevant differences if they can, and explain them to me, and then the conversation can move forward.


Comparing actions that are imposed upon someone's will to actions that are fully in accordance with their consent, with the implication they are comparable, is dirty pool. The conversation does not typically move forward in a productive manner when you're trying to operate from such assumptions.

You frame it as "consensual activity" yet of course that is part of what's at stake, whether the activity is consensual at all and whether the consent is sufficiently informed.

For those who are objectively interested, please do read what Rind and other mental health professionals have written about simple consent, and see how loaded and near-impossible the common definition of "informed" consent is. Note the statements made by many college-aged samples interviewed in Rind's meta-analysis and many previous and subsequent studies, including those by Allie Kirkpatrick, about how people who engaged in consensual relations they mutually desired with adults when they were children insist the consent they provided and were allowed to provide was sufficient in retrospect. Then consider that if girls were allowed to receive the access to objective information and access to objective support networks to make the best decisions for themselves as individuals, then they would be able to make informed consent by any definition of the term. But you, Ethan, want adult agencies and adult-dominated institutions to continue to deny them access to such information and support to produce kids as ignorant as possible for the first 18 years of their lives, which is another textbook example of dirty pool.

Note also that the only time you ever believe the law should listen to girls without question is if they happen to say what you want to hear. This is why you will insist we should take their word for it without question and without asking for evidence if they say they were coerced or forced into a relationship, but insist we do not listen to the opposite assertion if made by them even if they can provide evidence in their favor. Yet more dirty pool, and more proof that your concern is not about what they want or what is actually true, but what adult-controlled power structures want and what they want the "truth" to be considered in a default manner.

But I'll make a good prediction of what would happen if the net effect was to lower the voting age to 14 or so on average: absolutely nothing.

With the growing amount of young people becoming politically active and the recent resurgence of the walk-outs at high schools and the youth liberation movement, I'd challenge that any day of the week. But of course, you're trying to persuade the public not to give 14-year-olds the vote on the basis of arguing that it doesn't matter if they had it or not because they wouldn't act on it anyway. Once again, assumptions used to justify the continuation of draconian legislation and the continued assumption that people do not actually want their rights.

A great many wouldn't vote,

Maybe, then, we can use this rationale to take voting rights away from the nearly 50% of American adults who never vote each year. How about that? Oh, wait, you would never suggest that because they're adults.

others would vote as their parents or peers vote,

Because adults never do that, especially people like yourself that finds it so important to go with the consensus on just about everything lest you lose their respect and admiration, correct? And I'm sure you're aware that this very excuse was used in an attempt to rationalize denying the extension of voting rights to women: they would just vote exactly as their husbands did, it was argued, so what would be the point? Until it was successfully argued that the above rationalization was totally missing the point of democracy.

I am sure you know that, but you ignore it, because to acknowledge it would be to undercut the perceived effectiveness of utilizing the same silly rationalization to deny another demographic the vote. See, again, Ethan, it's not me or others here that think you're stupid. It's you who thinks we're stupid, and not as well-read as you are, and not aware of common political tactics that were old when our great-great-great-great-grandparents weren't even born yet.

a few of this not-very-numerous group might vote differently than those slightly older.

Mmmhmmm, another of your tactics: try to claim the group you want to deny rights to is such an extremely small demographic that their rights are not really worth even considering. Which is not only untrue, but also misses one of the main points of democracy: the few have as much inherent rights as the many. Otherwise, you have a tyranny of the many.




Dissident






Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?