Difference is, Children ***CANNOT*** where as adults ***Should've learned by then***

If we run with the existing premise that "a child below x years cannot be expected to give informed consent," then the laws as they exist now are representative of that premise.

I'm arguing that the laws are operating on the correct premise

even if the adults did not learn to act like adults, they have the mental fortitude to at least deal with the consequences of their actions

I'm not arguing that the premise is wrong or right, so much as it is satisfactory for governance.

children lack the experience and thus the mental fortitude required to deal with personal responsibility

ronin's argument was that the boy was consenting

I disagree

with that point

He literally participated and had his friend stand guard.

In the most literal sense, that is clear evidence of consent.

Consent relies on correct information. If were talking legal consent here then no I do not believe that is the case

It doesn't meet legal requirements and it's appropriate that the chick is punished because it's not like she can't be expected to know the rules.

By definition maybe, but that doesn't mean much

Consent without knowledge is just ignorance

Yes.

Consent coming from a 12 year old means nothing. It would be like assisting suicide with a depressed person

And accepting uninformed consent is considered predatory and that's why she's going to prison and being put on two life term probations and felt compelled to claim that she wasn't a threat to society.

Yeah

See, I'm not arguing the reality. I'm working through the hypothetical.

Because conversation and logical rigor are quite fun.

I don't really like debates for the sake of it

I've already had way too many and it doesn't normally achieve much

kids can never give informed consent because they cannot accumulate years of experience on a whim

I noticed. You just sat there and stonewalled and dug your heels in.

EM, say it a few more times. Maybe I'll understand what you're saying.

I stonewalled yes, but I'd argue that it was perfectly justified

You might as well have walked away.

You brought up informed consent which is different from uninformed consent

You're right, I even should've done that

i was previously only thinking about uninformed consent

The nuances are important, EM.

There's a reason the "reasonable person" doctrine is central to english commonlaw, which is what America uses as it's core structure.

Yep, thats why i disagree with the idea kids can ever have enough information to give consent

News headline: @Xychotic is for PEDOPHILIA!!

lol

You work for CNN, yuri?

Im an intern

<:lolz:480186121897377792>

The main reason I hate debates isn't really because of the pointlessness of it

Its mostly just from the fact that they're always for show