Sofia on Nostr: Fir :transspecies star: >It is an assumption extrapolated from pro-c ideology that ...
Fir :transspecies star: (npub1yyl…y9hl)
>It is an assumption extrapolated from pro-c ideology that adults can receive consent from youths.
every discussion has shared assumptions (see: the cooperative principle), if you disagree with that assumption (fyi, being against it in current society but in favor after societal changes is still agreeing with it, which is my understanding of your position) then the discussion is pointless (though another specifically about that could happen)
>your reply was the irrelevant part, it was about what you believe the AOC should be.
you mentioned potential hurdles (physiological and psychological differences) to the ability to consent (and by extension how they might affect a moral aoc), and i elaborated on them
>That would imply prohibition on all adult sex would also advance youth liberation somehow
liberationism involves actions *regarding the liberated*, that criterion is evaluated before whether such actions advance equality, and both must be the case (which isn't true in your claim, as the first criterion is not met)
>why should it be different in this case
who said it should be different?
>I said it was at the center of your stance on youthlib not that you were saying it was the center of youth liberation.
*everything* someone says is true (except for cases where logical consistency is in question) is simply their stance on it, no human knowledge is ever fully certain (see: acatalepsy)
therefore by saying to me it is the center of my stance on youthlib, you are by proxy saying i believe it is the center of youthlib
>Whether it was an assumption or not, proving it was an assumption does not show that pro-c is inherent to youthlib.
and i never said it shows that, i said other things do
>bad or good thought experiment, that still doesn't prove your assertion.
your thought experiment was given as a way to *disprove* my assertions, so quite the opposite
>not that I think that could be untrue, but proof
see attachment, not the best quality since it's a scan but it should be readable at least (male n=103, female n=106), from a high school student sample
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01810.x
unfortunately, i find it quite unlikely that data from actual children exists, both due to difficulties researching them that apply to most fields of study but especially this one, for obvious societal reasons
>and how?
i would be lying if i said i know with a good level of certainty why people are attracted to what they are, as far as i know no one knows that at a societal level, but i don't see why the *how* would be relevant
>In what tangible way does allowing adults to have sex with youths tie into equalizing the power of adults over youths
it is part of equalizing the power of adults *and* youths, which is my point
that is, if adults have right X, youth gaining right X inherently increases their age-based right equality, i am not talking about one controlling the other
>instead of being a result of that equalization of power?
it's not an either-or situation, youth sexual liberation is an advancement that itself depends on other advancements also happening to occur safely (as i already agreed with you on that part in other comments)
>It is an assumption extrapolated from pro-c ideology that adults can receive consent from youths.
every discussion has shared assumptions (see: the cooperative principle), if you disagree with that assumption (fyi, being against it in current society but in favor after societal changes is still agreeing with it, which is my understanding of your position) then the discussion is pointless (though another specifically about that could happen)
>your reply was the irrelevant part, it was about what you believe the AOC should be.
you mentioned potential hurdles (physiological and psychological differences) to the ability to consent (and by extension how they might affect a moral aoc), and i elaborated on them
>That would imply prohibition on all adult sex would also advance youth liberation somehow
liberationism involves actions *regarding the liberated*, that criterion is evaluated before whether such actions advance equality, and both must be the case (which isn't true in your claim, as the first criterion is not met)
>why should it be different in this case
who said it should be different?
>I said it was at the center of your stance on youthlib not that you were saying it was the center of youth liberation.
*everything* someone says is true (except for cases where logical consistency is in question) is simply their stance on it, no human knowledge is ever fully certain (see: acatalepsy)
therefore by saying to me it is the center of my stance on youthlib, you are by proxy saying i believe it is the center of youthlib
>Whether it was an assumption or not, proving it was an assumption does not show that pro-c is inherent to youthlib.
and i never said it shows that, i said other things do
>bad or good thought experiment, that still doesn't prove your assertion.
your thought experiment was given as a way to *disprove* my assertions, so quite the opposite
>not that I think that could be untrue, but proof
see attachment, not the best quality since it's a scan but it should be readable at least (male n=103, female n=106), from a high school student sample
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01810.x
unfortunately, i find it quite unlikely that data from actual children exists, both due to difficulties researching them that apply to most fields of study but especially this one, for obvious societal reasons
>and how?
i would be lying if i said i know with a good level of certainty why people are attracted to what they are, as far as i know no one knows that at a societal level, but i don't see why the *how* would be relevant
>In what tangible way does allowing adults to have sex with youths tie into equalizing the power of adults over youths
it is part of equalizing the power of adults *and* youths, which is my point
that is, if adults have right X, youth gaining right X inherently increases their age-based right equality, i am not talking about one controlling the other
>instead of being a result of that equalization of power?
it's not an either-or situation, youth sexual liberation is an advancement that itself depends on other advancements also happening to occur safely (as i already agreed with you on that part in other comments)