SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 11:56:29 pm
She lived in 1916, was writing at in 1916, therefore is an original source for the age of consent at that time (ten in some states)

Oh please, the relevant original sources are the laws of the time. You don't even know who "she" is. Got a name? Was she a lawyer? Legislator? Any sort of authority on the laws in the various states. You are grasping at straws again.

BTW, I do know the editor of that rag. It was the commie writer, W. E. B. Du Bois. Anything he edited is presumptively false, in my opinion. Remember my comment about the NYT thinking Stalin was a good guy? Read Du Bois' valentine to that mass murderer:

"Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. He was simple, calm and courageous. He seldom lost his poise; pondered his problems slowly, made his decisions clearly and firmly; never yielded to ostentation nor coyly refrained from holding his rightful place with dignity. He was the son of a serf but stood calmly before the great without hesitation or nerves. But also—and this was the highest proof of his greatness—he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate."

Show me the laws. Put up or shut up.

Plus,I am an original source.  I recollect my own youth and sexual activities.  Most of the world outside the US had fairly young age of consent until quite recently.  

You were a lawyer? You read the original statutes of those countries? If not, your "evidence" is just hearsay. Please, you are embarrassing yourself.

Recollect the Polanski case.  He raped a thirteen year old, was plea bargained down from actual rape to statutory rape, fled the US, and hey, no problem in most of the rest of the world because thirteen year olds OK.

Your obvious contempt for facts makes me doubt even your own youthful recollections. There was no evidence that Polanski raped the girl, i.e., forcefully had sex with her against her will. He clearly was guilty of statutory rape, which obtains even where there is consent, what appears to be what was present in this case. The reason Polanski had little trouble outside the US, was because he violated US law in the US, not French law in France.

So your facts are unsupported bullshit and I have no idea what your point is. Apparently you do not either, since you have ducked that question. Care to share your point about age of consent  and how it is relevant to a 12-year old being abducted and threatened with rape in EFT?

There can never be a law that says something is OK...

Are you daft? There are authorizing laws written all the time. That is the entire point of age of consent laws. They tell you when someone may get married, have consensual sex, etc. I.e., when it is okay. Have you dug up those laws yet? I'm not holding my breath. In any case, What is your point and how is it relevant to a 12-year old being kidnapped and threatened with gang rape and death as written in EFT?

And of course, you do have the burden of proof as to age of consent laws in America. Why? Because it is you who claims that such laws existed. So I guess logic and rhetoric are not your strong points in school. My guess is that you were a poli-sci major, assuming you went to college. That sounds about your speed.

and I will concede

No you will not concede - no records can possibly exist that meet your standards.

My standard is simple. Show me what you claimed, that is, laws that set the age of consent (to have sex, not just marriage) at the ages you claimed. Gee, that's a toughie. How difficult is it to look up the laws of the jurisdictions you claim and within those laws, look up the definition of age of consent. Most county law libraries are open to the public. I suggest you start there. The librarian will help you.

As I said, you might turn out to be right, but so far, you haven't even come close to meeting your burden of proof with regard to your claims about age of consent laws in the US.

sam on May 02, 2011, 01:54:30 am
She lived in 1916, was writing at in 1916, therefore is an original source for the age of consent at that time (ten in some states)

Oh please, the relevant original sources are the laws of the time.

And the laws of the time don't have anything about age of consent as such - it was not an issue until 1895.  We don't get laws specifically and explicitly addressing the age of consent until it was raised, and it was not raised everywhere in the US until well into the twentieth century - and in most of the rest of the world, not raised until well into the latter part of the twentieth century.

If you claim that sex with ten year old girls was illegal in Florida and so forth, you need to find a law making illegal.  I don't need to find a law making it legal, because things that are legal seldom have laws making them legal.  They just are - at least they are before women's libbers start making a fuss.

Show me the laws. Put up or shut up.

Before twentieth century, there were no such laws - at least none that addressed the issue explicitly and directly.  Judges had to reason their way from laws that arguably addressed the issue indirectly, or, as judges are prone to do, just make stuff up. They did not need to pass a law making it legal because there was no team of women's libbers worrying that it should be illegal.

Recollect the Polanski case.  He raped a thirteen year old, was plea bargained down from actual rape to statutory rape, fled the US, and hey, no problem in most of the rest of the world because thirteen year olds OK.

Your obvious contempt for facts makes me doubt even your own youthful recollections. There was no evidence that Polanski raped the girl, i.e., forcefully had sex with her against her will.

There is ample evidence that Polanski had forceful sex with her against her will and in the face of her vigorous physical resistance and verbal protests, but that is irrelevant to the fact that having plea bargained down to statutory, he was then safe in the rest of the world.  Whether he actually raped her with violence, or she consented, he was still safe in the rest of the world, as was I.

And of course, you do have the burden of proof as to age of consent laws in America. Why? Because it is you who claims that such laws existed.

It is I who claim such laws did not exist until after women's libbers started carrying on in 1895, often did not exist until well after they started carrying on in 1895 - until then most people had not even heard of statutory rape, just as before 1965, most people had not heard of date rape.  It was something that was arguably illegal, but to prosecute, you had to argue from existing laws.  It was not directly and explicitly addressed by existing laws.

Before 1895, judges had not thought about this issue much, and legislators had not thought about this issue at all.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 02:20:36 am by sam »

Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 02:36:42 am
Quote
Sandy: You still have not addressed this weak point in your evidence. How about giving it a go?

What laughable mental contortions.

A) I gave you a direct quote of the definition of "age of consent" in the article, and you still insist that it means something else.

B) Ten seconds worth of thought and you'd have figured it out for yourself. If you ask a "Reasonable Man" what age of consent is, he'd say "The age one is permitted to have sex." Since when has "age of consent" ever been the exact same as "legal marriageable age"?

C) Here's a table compiled from a number of listed sources. It turns out that sam was right: in 1880, most states had 10 as the age of consent, and Delaware's was 7. Note, the NYT was not one of the sources listed.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24

Time to put some sauce on that crow and dig in.

D)  And yet, I just said that none of the above mattered, that even if your interpretation were correct, that "age of consent" was really, despite a direct quote to the contrary, about marriage, it didn't matter. So why did you continue to go on about the issue? Straw man, anyone? What would a "Reasonable Man" say about picking on details that I already said didn't matter?

Quote
Sandy: Stop! Please stop saying stupid words such as "citizen." Clearly, you do not understand how silly that is in the context of a market anarchy.

Not silly at all. You want to quibble about the word "citizen"? Look at definition #1. Clearly, it fits Ceres and the Belt. What do you call them, inhabitants, followers, votaries? If you don't like the term, just say what term you prefer instead of nagging others for not being able to read your mind.

"Definition of CITIZEN (merriam-webster.com)

1
: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

2
a : a member of a state
b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
3
: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state"

Quote
Sandy: Man, you guys just cannot think outside the collectivist box, can you? As to when girls can decide to have sex, it is you, not I, who keeps yammering about an "age of consent." What is your point?

I don't know, Sandy, you tell me why you keep demanding sources if you don't think they matter. Personally, I could care less at what age the girls of this hypothetical society on Ceres have sex. Apparently, it's a big deal to some who might be queasy at the thought of doing a ten year-old, or paying for an eleven year-old prostitute, but it affects me not at all. Me, I just like to go where the facts take me.

J Thomas on May 02, 2011, 07:26:08 am
Quote
Sandy: You still have not addressed this weak point in your evidence. How about giving it a go?

What laughable mental contortions.

A) I gave you a direct quote of the definition of "age of consent" in the article, and you still insist that it means something else.

B) Ten seconds worth of thought and you'd have figured it out for yourself. If you ask a "Reasonable Man" what age of consent is, he'd say "The age one is permitted to have sex." Since when has "age of consent" ever been the exact same as "legal marriageable age"?

C) Here's a table compiled from a number of listed sources. It turns out that sam was right: in 1880, most states had 10 as the age of consent, and Delaware's was 7. Note, the NYT was not one of the sources listed.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24

I think reasonable people would agree that Sam is right about this factoid, or rather fact.

In the interest of pedantry, though, I want to point out that the source you give did not include any original source but only secondary sources, none of them before 1995. And of the older sources it links to, the only one that actually says something about the question is one from Texas that lists racist reasons not to put the age of consent above 13 or 14, and what is quoted is a redacted quotation through other sources.

It said, "Information on the ages used historically in western age of consent laws is not readily available."

So, on the one hand we have researchers who could lose their reputation if they misrepresent the data. One of the sources was published by UNC-Chapel Hill press, and they would hate to have their name on something scandalously wrong. On the other hand, it's obscure enough that maybe nobody digs it up except politically-motivated biased researchers all on one side, and they trust the scandal will not happen.

What if the primary sources are all scurrilous pamphlets that got things wrong? In 2200 someone might use links to EFT articles that claim the US government staged 9/11 or that Iraqi civilian casualties were low in Operation Iraqi Liberation, as evidence that the US government staged 9/11 etc. Well, the possibility is there but it's remote. There's every reason to think that these are reputable historians who collect the truth to the best of their ability. Almost always, people question academic integrity only after they dislike the results and want to discredit them.

One last nit to pick -- one of the arguments in the Texas document against an age-of-consent law was that the seduction laws already covered the topic. And the central idea in one of the british sources was that pimps could grab young virgins and force them into prostitution, and there was nothing anybody could do about it. The newspaper editor who made the claim, attempted to prove it by kidnapping a girl to show how easy it was, and on publishing his evidence was convicted and served 3 months in prison. Perhaps the original purpose of age-of-consent laws was not the current purpose. Like, it might have been focused on how young a girl had to be before it was illegal with her consent and her parents' consent. And perhaps in the early days there was a more libertarian view, that if the parents agree and the girl agrees, it shouldn't be an issue for third parties unless she's very young. I don't know that this is true, but how the law was used before, versus how laws with a similar name were used after the Women's Christian Temperance Union did their lobbying, might have been very different and that would surely make a big difference in what the laws actually meant.

So, as lawyers, I'm sure that Sandy and Sam would agree that it's less important what number went into the law, than how the law actually got used....

SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 08:46:25 am
Oh please, the relevant original sources are the laws of the time.

And the laws of the time don't have anything about age of consent as such - it was not an issue until 1895.

You wrote:

In 1895, age of consent in Delaware was seven.  In 1901, age of consent in the US was generally around ten.

You have offered zero evidence beyond hearsay. Show me the "age of consent" laws before or after 1895 that comport with your above assertion. Show me a law review article that contains citations that prove your thesis. If you cannot do that, your naked assertion quoted above is dispositive of nothing. Repeating your assertion does not make it stronger. Put up or shut up.

If you do not either put up authoritative evidence (i.e., laws or law review articles with citations) or admit you cannot find such evidence, I will relegate you in my exclusive "Plonk File of Losers."

The way it works is, after I plonk you, as I have done with losers Holt and Contrary Guy, if I see a post by you, I will ignore it. I will only read your unsupported opinions within posts by others who wish to waste their time commenting on your, unsupported blatherings.  You have until Friday evening to put up real evidence or admit you don't have it. In the meantime, I will only read your post to the degree necessary to verify whether or not you have addressed the evidence question sufficiently to avoid plonking. Clear enough for you?

SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 09:24:05 am
Quote
Sandy: You still have not addressed this weak point in your evidence. How about giving it a go?

What laughable mental contortions.

A) I gave you a direct quote of the definition of "age of consent" in the article, and you still insist that it means something else.

I agree that the age of consent is largely about the age one can have sex. However, the section quoted only explicitly references age of consent for marriage. If you want to pretend that the specific reference sex, I say take that remedial reading course. I don't see anyone with Forum cred defending our assertion. In any case, I have clearly discredited the cited evidence supporting the assertion. NYT, my ass.  ::)

B) Ten seconds worth of thought and you'd have figured it out for yourself. If you ask a "Reasonable Man" what age of consent is, he'd say "The age one is permitted to have sex." Since when has "age of consent" ever been the exact same as "legal marriageable age"?

C) Here's a table compiled from a number of listed sources. It turns out that sam was right: in 1880, most states had 10 as the age of consent, and Delaware's was 7. Note, the NYT was not one of the sources listed.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24

Your B) is totally speculative.

You C) does not support sam. In fact, it clearly contradicts his recent excuses for not show us the law. He said that there were no age of consent laws before 1895. That is not what your chart says.

Now, the chart alludes to age of consent laws, but fails to cite those laws. If these laws existed, where can we look at the original sources? Well, it turns out that Stephen Robertson--a history professor--only cites other people's books. He cites no statues, just repeats what he read in sources of dubious authority.
Show me the law. How hard is that?

Not silly at all. You want to quibble about the word "citizen"?

In common, modern usage, it means a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection. It's clearly not what inhabitants (better word) of the Belt would call themselves. If that is not what you meant, I am more than happy to let you use a less usual definition of the word. Knock yourself out.

Quote
Sandy: Man, you guys just cannot think outside the collectivist box, can you? As to when girls can decide to have sex, it is you, not I, who keeps yammering about an "age of consent." What is your point?

I don't know, Sandy, you tell me why you keep demanding sources if you don't think they matter.

Because I think rational discourse matters. Hey, they don't call it Big Head Press just for the fun of it.  ;)

Personally, I could care less at what age the girls of this hypothetical society on Ceres have sex. Apparently, it's a big deal to some who might be queasy at the thought of doing a ten year-old, or paying for an eleven year-old prostitute, but it affects me not at all. Me, I just like to go where the facts take me.

Yeah, but first you have to have some facts. I don't care either, but I did not bring up the subject. I am just trying to inject some accuracy into the discussion. This includes revealing the truth instead of phony facts.

Until you come up with some actual facts, e.g., the statutes in question I am disinclined to continue a discussion predicated on opinions. If you wish to keep picking the scab, be my guest.

J Thomas on May 02, 2011, 10:48:32 am

Now, the chart alludes to age of consent laws, but fails to cite those laws. If these laws existed, where can we look at the original sources? Well, it turns out that Stephen Robertson--a history professor--only cites other people's books. He cites no statues, just repeats what he read in sources of dubious authority.
Show me the law. How hard is that?

Let's back up a little. When Sam first made this claim, I had the impression he was arguing that 13-year-old girls have always had lots of sex, and until fairly recently the laws respected that.

But looking a bit deeper, what I'm seeing is more like -- say you seduce an 18-year-old girl from a respectable family and then you refuse to marry her. You are a cad, and if her family chooses to go that route you can be in big trouble.

Now, say you instead seduce an 11-year-old. This is worse than just refusing to marry her. You are more than just a cad.

These laws are not saying it's OK for 13-year-olds or 14-year-olds to have sex whenever they want to. They are providing a way to throw the book at guys who seduce 12-year-olds.

And then we get the WCTU saying the laws are not strict enough. Somebody is probably getting away with something. There are pimps kidnapping 10-year-old girls and forcing them into prostitution! Make it stop happening! Pass a law!

So it looks to me like age-of-consent laws before or after WCTU don't tell us much at all about how many 13-year-old girls were having sex in those days, any more than laws about under-age alcohol tell us how many teens drink.

Assuming we actually find out what the laws said, as opposed to what WCTU claimed they said. WCTU shouldn't have made lies that were easy to disprove, and so I tend to believe them, but I don't much believe them about what the laws meant. And I definitely don't believe that in a state with an age-of-consent of 10, that there was some sort of consensus that it was OK to have sex with 10-year-olds.

Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 12:17:48 pm
Quote
Sandy: Until you come up with some actual facts, e.g., the statutes in question I am disinclined to continue a discussion predicated on opinions. If you wish to keep picking the scab, be my guest.

Yep, keep moving those goalposts. Your original objection was that a NYT article was used as a reference. You also claimed that the definition of "age of consent" as it applied to the state ages, referred to marriageable age. Both objections, I thought, were absurd, but you chortled with glee that you "clearly discredited" the body of evidence -- and yet, those "issues" have both been resolved.

The NYT article in question is not sourced in the new link. The new link also supplies a definition of "age of consent": "In western law, the age of consent is the age at which an individual is treated as capable of consenting to sexual activity." Go to the bottom of the page where it references the source material and follow the link. It's in the top paragraph. If you do a basic search on "age of consent" definition, you'll find similar descriptions of the term.

Perhaps I could recommend a bit of remedial reading for you?

Not only have both your original objections been removed, it's been cross-referenced in greater detail. I repeat: the facts have now been established to your original demands. It's over. It would be next to impossible to satisfy any of your new demands -- even the Australian link mentions that the sources aren't readily available. It's quite possible, as sam claims, that statutes -- or some statutes -- weren't written into state law, but that a body of precedent had been established, in which case there would be no, or few statutes to find.

Unless you can convince me why that Australian University course would "fake" such statistics, the issue has been resolved well beyond any "Reasonable Man's" forum definition. If one were to go back in time to 1880 and defend a client in court, that level of detail would prove useful, but that situation is unlikely to happen. The crow is on your plate, whether you admit it or not. In fact, it's very well-done, and I see you frantically moving it all around with your fork.

And all for what? If you want to continue to deny the obvious, that's up to you, but according to both of us, none of that matters anyway. Who cares what the age of consent in the US was in 1880 or 1890? How does that relate to Cererean society? I'm repeating this because you ignored that very key point in my last reply, preferring instead to concentrate on a straw man.

To me, the issue is to define Cererean society and get a feel for how it operates. The age of consent is one aspect of that society. You have shown on page 658 http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=658 that girls of ten sometimes carry guns.

I repeat from two comments ago:
Quote
On Ceres and in the Belt, if girls of ten and twelve are considered to be full citizens, old enough to carry a gun, surely it follows that they have the right to decide when and with whom to have sex.

I noticed that you avoided commenting on that. Unless you care to claim that on Ceres, a girl is mature enough to carry a gun, yet her "self-ownership" doesn't carry to rights to her own body, this matter is closed.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 12:43:11 pm by Aardvark »

Tucci78 on May 02, 2011, 01:08:32 pm
To me, the issue is to define Cererean society and get a feel for how it operates. he issue at hand is the kind of society Ceres and the Belt would be. The age of consent is one aspect. You have shown on page 658 http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=658 that girls of ten sometimes carry guns.
(...)
I noticed that you avoided commenting on that. Unless you care to claim that on Ceres, a girl is mature enough to carry a gun, yet her "self-ownership" doesn't carry to rights to her own body, this matter is closed.

There does seem to be something of a Gordian-Knot-cutting nature about the recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms. 

Once it's established that a person cannot be prevented from exercising his/her ability to carry and use implements specifically designed to kill or wound other human beings, there's no argument possible to support the contention that said person can be prevented from exercising his/her ability to engage in sexual hanky-panky with other human beings.

Do "girls of ten" (and younger) have the capacity to find pleasure in the forms of genital stimulation we call "sex"? 

This is, of course, a purely rhetorical question.  Note that we're not saying "should they," but rather "do they." 

Inasmuch as they do, are there legitimate reasons to prevent (by way of violently forcible intervention) such girls - and their male age-peers - from exercising their rights to make such use of that capacity to whatever extent does not involve the violation of other people's rights?

In this forum, much is made of the characteristics of a truly anarchocapitalist society, and what might be seen in the various aspects of purposeful human action were the principles of AnCap instantiated. 

It's been made obvious thus far (get a look at those NSFW pages) that Mrs. Grundy would die the death.  Clothing would be worn for comfort, utility, the idiosyncracies of personal self-expression (that useless battered damnfool cowboy hat Ed wears), but not to assuage the neuroses of mental cripples driven into gibbering fits by the sight of human anatomy. 

The focus of the social/traditionalist "conservative" disputants on this thread (and, no, I'm not gonna let up on 'em) is on the horrible-sinful-nasty-victimizing sexual appetites of the adults - the "pedophiles" - who are desirous of sexual contact with people of years less than whatever wholly arbitrary age of consent is set in law or custom, all the while doing the "blank out" bit when it comes to what the youngsters themselves might want to do with their affections, their pleasures, and the bodies they own. 

Very traditional. Very "conservative."  Extremely stupid, and as maliciously anti-AnCap as are legal tender laws, price controls, and victim disarmament statutes. 
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Aardvark on May 02, 2011, 01:57:37 pm
Quote
Tucci78: The focus of the social/traditionalist "conservative" disputants on this thread (and, no, I'm not gonna let up on 'em) is on the horrible-sinful-nasty-victimizing sexual appetites of the adults - the "pedophiles" - who are desirous of sexual contact with people of years less than whatever wholly arbitrary age of consent is set in law or custom, all the while doing the "blank out" bit when it comes to what the youngsters themselves might want to do with their affections, their pleasures, and the bodies they own.  

Ah, you agree with me that Cerereans have no defined age of consent -- or at least that the right comes with the right to a gun. Now if Sandy would admit it.... :)

You're insulting social/traditionalist "conservatives," but I see none of those dreadful misanthropes here -- at least not the way you describe them.

How dare you insult cowboy hats! Ed's from Texas, ferchissakes. What else is he going to wear, a cap with "I *heart* Ceres" on it? :)
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 02:27:08 pm by Aardvark »

Tucci78 on May 02, 2011, 03:20:59 pm
Ah, you agree with me that Cerereans have no defined age of consent. Now if Sandy would admit it....

You're insulting social/traditionalist "conservatives," but I see none of those dreadful misanthropes here -- at least not the way you describe them.

How dare you insult cowboy hats! Ed's from Texas, ferchissakes. What else is he going to wear, a cap with "I *heart* Ceres" on it?

"A hat should be taken off when you greet a lady and left off for the rest of your life. Nothing looks more stupid than a hat." (P.J. O'Rourke, 1983) 

I think it possible for people in an AnCap society to generally agree on qualifications of competence required for a person to participate in binding commitments, such that contract (and other pledges of conduct susceptible to acceptible determination in arbitration) can function to make more predictable the vicissitudes of human interaction. 

Just how the hell much of a commitment, however, is made in having sex? 

When the objective of sexual congress is not the combination of gametes even remotely apt to bake a baby, but rather pleasurable erotic stimulation (in whatever ways the participants' erotic desires might find non-coercive fulfillment), who else has cause to care? 

And, yeah, I am "insulting social/traditionalist 'conservatives.'"  Notably sams.  I'm going to keep on insulting them, too.  Also refuting their cement-headed,  illogical, kneejerk neophobic contentions in all aspects of praxis. 

I quote from Eric Raymond's essay "A Political History of SF" (see http://tinyurl.com/mhlae9), in which he had written:

"There was also a political aura that went with the hard-SF style, one exemplified by Campbell and right-hand man Robert Heinlein. That tradition was of ornery and insistant individualism, veneration of the competent man, an instinctive distrust of coercive social engineering and a rock-ribbed objectivism that that valued knowing how things work and treated all political ideologizing with suspicion. Exceptions like Asimov's Foundation novels only threw the implicit politics of most other Campbellian SF into sharper relief.

"At the time, this very American position was generally thought of by both allies and opponents as a conservative or right-wing one. But the SF community's version was never conservative in the strict sense of venerating past social norms — how could it be, when SF literature cheerfully contemplated radical changes in social arrangements and even human nature itself?"


And that's why I hold the social/traditionalist "conservative" mindset in such profound contempt.  They're a buncha frackin' mundanes, damn them.  What any such critters are doing commenting upon Escape From Terra - except as obviously hostile trolls - I cannot accept or credit.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 03:41:49 pm
Quote
Tucci78: The focus of the social/traditionalist "conservative" disputants on this thread (and, no, I'm not gonna let up on 'em) is on the horrible-sinful-nasty-victimizing sexual appetites of the adults - the "pedophiles" - who are desirous of sexual contact with people of years less than whatever wholly arbitrary age of consent is set in law or custom, all the while doing the "blank out" bit when it comes to what the youngsters themselves might want to do with their affections, their pleasures, and the bodies they own.  

Ah, you agree with me that Cerereans have no defined age of consent -- or at least that the right comes with the right to a gun. Now if Sandy would admit it.... :)

I never denied it. It is axiomatically drived from the concept of self-ownership, which underlies ZAP and market anarchy. I merely declined to debate the obvious. Happy now?  ;D

So, that is what happens in a market anarchy such as the Belt. So it is your turn to provide primary evidence (or admission of your lack there of) in support of the claims from the "Purity" guy, quoted in the NYT? Any closer to putting up or being plonked?

sam on May 02, 2011, 05:39:47 pm
Who cares what the age of consent in the US was in 1880 or 1890? How does that relate to Cererean society? I'm repeating this because you ignored that very key point in my last reply, preferring instead to concentrate on a straw man.

It relates because of my original argument, that political correctness is a state imposition, and that an anarchic society would be substantially less politically correct, and would, if we continue to reproduce in the old fashioned way, probably be as patriarchal as past anarchic societies.

In past anarchic societies, protection is provided primarily by the father, and by people's connection to organized groups of fighting men, which connection tends to mediated by the father, and/or the family's primary income earner.  Thus parents would likely exercise more authority over dependents than today, and husbands more authority over wives than today, resembling what was normal over the past several thousand years, rather than than the new institutions.

Sandy objected to my suggestion that the current standards were abnormal and strange, among them the standard for consent.

Tucci78 on May 02, 2011, 05:54:06 pm
In past anarchic societies, protection is provided primarily by the father, and by people's connection to organized groups of fighting men, which connection tends to mediated by the father, and/or the family's primary income earner.

Damned peculiar definition of "anarchic," isn't it?  Under the premise that government is just goons with guns - systematized institutional aggressive violence imposed upon people "for your own good" - this bit about "organized groups of fighting men" stinks on ice.

Whatever it is, it sure as hell isn't "anarchic." 
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 05:58:33 pm
Sandy objected to my suggestion that the current standards were abnormal and strange, among them the standard for consent.

No I didn't. Citation please or retract that last statement. It is certainly an untruth and I suspect it was an intentional lie. You would not be the first liar on the Forum, but that does not excuse it.

What I did was call bullshit on the factual correctness of the quote you pulled from a NYT article. So far, "bullshit" still holds.

 

anything