I feel like a complete idiot for actually trying to give an honest answer about how you can disagree with something morally, but that doesn't mean that it must be illegal or punished by the state.
So what do we do with the people who deal in black markets for them and continue to smoke? What do we do with the illegal sellers and distributors and dealers of tobacco?
Either you give them ineffectual slaps on the wrist and we have a thriving unregulated black market, or you crack down hard and throw them in jail and we have expanded our carceral prison state with more poor addicts and made more criminals and handed a massive market over to the cartels and gangs.
I agree with this in a vacuum but I find this position odd in the specific context of the topic at hand. The way people talk about persons over 25 dating persons under 22, it seems people feel this is tantamount to actual pedophilia. So, you think this is almost as bad as molesting children, but also it should be legal? Why?
I don't really see any downsides to raising the age of consent if this is actually true. The only retort I've heard is that raising the AOC could be weaponized against queer youth, but couldn't that be said of the current AOC? Weaponizing the AOC against queers under 17, acceptable, weaponizing it against early 20s queers crosses a line! Also I think there's ways of preventing that which don't involve NOT having an AOC so we could just raise it and do those things.
Mind you I'm not advocating for raising the AOC here I'm just saying if you think 18-22/3/4 year olds aren't REAL adults and having sex with them is borderline pedophilia, then it's weird not to take the next logical step and make it legally pedophilia.
The answer is that consent isn’t a binary, it’s actually a complex gradient. We all acknowledge this when we talk about power dynamics involved, we are talking about a sort of half-consent.
Marxists also acknowledge consent in things like work and economy is not binary. The Libertarians who are obsessed with contracts and voluntarism believe there is a clear binary of consent, where if you sign a contract you agree to everything. They ignore the complex gradient of coercion that comes into play from desperation for employment, desperation for housing, corporate domination of the legal system, etc.
Actually reviewing every single sexual relationship to determine all of the factors involved including age, relation, wealth, traumatic pasts, cognitive abilities, sobriety level, etc. is an insanely monumental task for any government. One that would involve massive invasions of privacy as well.
So to function, we have to sort of have a line we draw in the sand where we say consent in binary. Otherwise the state could not function and would be overwhelmed by this complexity and scale (hundreds of millions of relationships to review).
Okay you make some good points here. I still think an argument could be made that the "line in the sand" should be moved upwards a bit could be made and I find it weird more aren't making it in this whole age gap discourse.
Actually reviewing every single sexual relationship to determine all of the factors involved including age, relation, wealth, traumatic pasts, cognitive abilities, sobriety level, etc. is an insanely monumental task for any government. One that would involve massive invasions of privacy as well.
Bit idea: SciFi future where and AI tells you who you can and can't bone based on a complex algorithm to assess power dynamics.
Yes, to be clear to my point so it’s understood where I am coming from, a Marxist feminist critique of the concept of consent, I believe in cases of doubt we should round down, not round up, so to speak. If consent in dubious, we should err on the safe side I believe and discourage such relationships. Whereas a Libertarian-minded person with a binary concept of consent would believe in assuming consent is present unless explicit non-consent was stated.
The most truly correct thing to do would be to have less severe punishments for more minor issues, and more severe punishments for more severe issues, taking into account all these factors. Unfortunately, that’s not really feasible for a legal system of a government to do.
The AIs are being made by fascist and right wing libertarian (so, fascist but too delusional to realize that's what they are) tech-bros like so the AI will say that only pedo shit is allowed :vomit:
The way people talk about persons over 25 dating persons under 22, it seems people feel this is tantamount to actual pedophilia. So, you think this is almost as bad as molesting children, but also it should be legal? Why?
Because I obviously don't think that, and I was trying to explain it to them from their perspective.
I feel like a complete idiot for actually trying to give an honest answer about how you can disagree with something morally, but that doesn't mean that it must be illegal or punished by the state.
For example: cigarettes
I hate them, hate their smell, hate being around people who smoke, will never smoke myself and think they are killing people
I still don’t think they should be banned
Other examples would be interpersonal lying and cheating on your partner. Both are immoral, both should not be enforced by the state.
I think they should be banned. They are quite literally cancer sticks.
So what do we do with the people who deal in black markets for them and continue to smoke? What do we do with the illegal sellers and distributors and dealers of tobacco?
Either you give them ineffectual slaps on the wrist and we have a thriving unregulated black market, or you crack down hard and throw them in jail and we have expanded our carceral prison state with more poor addicts and made more criminals and handed a massive market over to the cartels and gangs.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
De-addiction centres? (Although personally I don't think smoking should be banned as long as the smoker does not expose others to the poison.)
prohibiting substances does not have a great track record in terms of either effectiveness or collateral damage
I agree with this in a vacuum but I find this position odd in the specific context of the topic at hand. The way people talk about persons over 25 dating persons under 22, it seems people feel this is tantamount to actual pedophilia. So, you think this is almost as bad as molesting children, but also it should be legal? Why?
I don't really see any downsides to raising the age of consent if this is actually true. The only retort I've heard is that raising the AOC could be weaponized against queer youth, but couldn't that be said of the current AOC? Weaponizing the AOC against queers under 17, acceptable, weaponizing it against early 20s queers crosses a line! Also I think there's ways of preventing that which don't involve NOT having an AOC so we could just raise it and do those things.
Mind you I'm not advocating for raising the AOC here I'm just saying if you think 18-22/3/4 year olds aren't REAL adults and having sex with them is borderline pedophilia, then it's weird not to take the next logical step and make it legally pedophilia.
The answer is that consent isn’t a binary, it’s actually a complex gradient. We all acknowledge this when we talk about power dynamics involved, we are talking about a sort of half-consent.
Marxists also acknowledge consent in things like work and economy is not binary. The Libertarians who are obsessed with contracts and voluntarism believe there is a clear binary of consent, where if you sign a contract you agree to everything. They ignore the complex gradient of coercion that comes into play from desperation for employment, desperation for housing, corporate domination of the legal system, etc.
Actually reviewing every single sexual relationship to determine all of the factors involved including age, relation, wealth, traumatic pasts, cognitive abilities, sobriety level, etc. is an insanely monumental task for any government. One that would involve massive invasions of privacy as well.
So to function, we have to sort of have a line we draw in the sand where we say consent in binary. Otherwise the state could not function and would be overwhelmed by this complexity and scale (hundreds of millions of relationships to review).
Okay you make some good points here. I still think an argument could be made that the "line in the sand" should be moved upwards a bit could be made and I find it weird more aren't making it in this whole age gap discourse.
Bit idea: SciFi future where and AI tells you who you can and can't bone based on a complex algorithm to assess power dynamics.
Yes, to be clear to my point so it’s understood where I am coming from, a Marxist feminist critique of the concept of consent, I believe in cases of doubt we should round down, not round up, so to speak. If consent in dubious, we should err on the safe side I believe and discourage such relationships. Whereas a Libertarian-minded person with a binary concept of consent would believe in assuming consent is present unless explicit non-consent was stated.
The most truly correct thing to do would be to have less severe punishments for more minor issues, and more severe punishments for more severe issues, taking into account all these factors. Unfortunately, that’s not really feasible for a legal system of a government to do.
The AIs are being made by fascist and right wing libertarian (so, fascist but too delusional to realize that's what they are) tech-bros like
so the AI will say that only pedo shit is allowed :vomit:
Because I obviously don't think that, and I was trying to explain it to them from their perspective.
Okay but I think liberal socialist did think that way.
Applying to the bureau for a dating license after they analyze our current relationship parameters.
Honestly, probably better than tinder