Debate Guide: Cognitive ability = consent - Revision history

The Admins: /* Ageism (social justice argument) */

2024-12-08T00:12:17Z

Ageism (social justice argument)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 8 December 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	==Ageism (social justice argument)==		==Ageism (social justice argument)==

	If you are to apply an extreme social justice model, it is also [[Ageism\|ageist]] to describe the cognitive abilities of prepubescent children as inferior, even if scores on problem solving tasks are lower. Social justice approaches take into account ethnological differences between people and cultures, positing ways of conceptualizing those differences that do not focus on ''inferiority'', emphasizing how the socially dominant group [[Debate Guide: Social constructionism\|constructs]] differences, loading them with meaning. Young people's abilities could perhaps be seen within a social-justice-informed [[Research: Evolutionary Perspectives on Intergenerational Sexuality\|evolutionary biology]] framework, as ''best adapted'' to their age, needs and level of knowledge. IQ tests were invented by western adults and ~~ten~~ to ~~classify~~ the ~~learnings~~ and ~~innate~~ abilities of successful white western elders as superior, while neglecting other virtues.		If you are to apply an extreme social justice model, it is also [[Ageism\|ageist]] to describe the cognitive abilities of prepubescent children as inferior, even if scores on problem solving tasks are lower. Social justice approaches take into account ethnological differences between people and cultures, positing ways of conceptualizing those differences that do not focus on ''inferiority'', emphasizing how the socially dominant group [[Debate Guide: Social constructionism\|constructs]] differences, loading them with meaning. Young people's abilities could perhaps be seen within a social-justice-informed [[Research: Evolutionary Perspectives on Intergenerational Sexuality\|evolutionary biology]] framework, as ''best adapted'' to their age, needs and level of knowledge. IQ tests were invented by western adults and tend to center the knowledge and abilities of successful white western elders as superior, while neglecting other virtues.

	==See also==		==See also==

The Admins: /* Ageism (social justice argument) */

2024-12-08T00:11:21Z

Ageism (social justice argument)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:11, 8 December 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	==Ageism (social justice argument)==		==Ageism (social justice argument)==

	If you are to apply an extreme social justice model, it is also [[Ageism\|ageist]] to describe the cognitive abilities of prepubescent children as inferior, even if scores on problem solving tasks are lower. Social ~~Justice~~ approaches take into account ethnological differences between people and cultures, positing ways of conceptualizing those differences that do not focus on ''inferiority'', emphasizing how the socially dominant group [[Debate Guide: Social constructionism\|constructs]] differences, loading them with meaning. Young people's abilities could perhaps be seen within a social-justice-informed [[Research: Evolutionary Perspectives on Intergenerational Sexuality\|evolutionary biology]] framework, as ''best adapted'' to their age, needs and level of knowledge. IQ tests were invented by western adults and ten to classify the learnings and innate abilities of successful white western elders as superior, while neglecting other virtues.		If you are to apply an extreme social justice model, it is also [[Ageism\|ageist]] to describe the cognitive abilities of prepubescent children as inferior, even if scores on problem solving tasks are lower. Social justice approaches take into account ethnological differences between people and cultures, positing ways of conceptualizing those differences that do not focus on ''inferiority'', emphasizing how the socially dominant group [[Debate Guide: Social constructionism\|constructs]] differences, loading them with meaning. Young people's abilities could perhaps be seen within a social-justice-informed [[Research: Evolutionary Perspectives on Intergenerational Sexuality\|evolutionary biology]] framework, as ''best adapted'' to their age, needs and level of knowledge. IQ tests were invented by western adults and ten to classify the learnings and innate abilities of successful white western elders as superior, while neglecting other virtues.

	==See also==		==See also==

The Admins: /* Ageism (social justice argument) */

2024-12-08T00:10:45Z

Ageism (social justice argument)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 8 December 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	==Ageism (social justice argument)==		==Ageism (social justice argument)==

	If you are to apply an extreme social justice model, it is also [[Ageism\|ageist]] to describe the cognitive abilities of prepubescent children as inferior, even if scores on problem solving tasks are lower. ~~Why~~ not ~~embrace a SocJus conception of a young person~~'s abilities as ''best adapted'' to their age, needs and level of knowledge~~? Remember that~~ IQ tests were ~~set~~ by western adults and ~~tended~~ to classify the learnings and innate abilities of successful western ~~older people~~ as superior, ~~whilst~~ neglecting other virtues.		If you are to apply an extreme social justice model, it is also [[Ageism\|ageist]] to describe the cognitive abilities of prepubescent children as inferior, even if scores on problem solving tasks are lower. Social Justice approaches take into account ethnological differences between people and cultures, positing ways of conceptualizing those differences that do not focus on ''inferiority'', emphasizing how the socially dominant group [[Debate Guide: Social constructionism\|constructs]] differences, loading them with meaning. Young people's abilities could perhaps be seen within a social-justice-informed [[Research: Evolutionary Perspectives on Intergenerational Sexuality\|evolutionary biology]] framework, as ''best adapted'' to their age, needs and level of knowledge. IQ tests were invented by western adults and ten to classify the learnings and innate abilities of successful white western elders as superior, while neglecting other virtues.

	==See also==		==See also==

The Admins: /* Ableism (egalitarian argument) */

2024-12-08T00:03:00Z

Ableism (egalitarian argument)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:03, 8 December 2024
Line 27:		Line 27:
	==Ableism (egalitarian argument)==		==Ableism (egalitarian argument)==

	Using this argument's logic, one would be forced to question why some geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill/disabled should not be barred from experiencing sexual pleasure. Indeed, extending the cognitive argument yet further, [[Age of Consent]] laws would themselves be called into question, as the education system would provide us with a better arbiter of "consenting ability" than an arbitrary cut-off age.		Using this argument's logic, one would be forced to question why some geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill/disabled should not be barred from experiencing sexual pleasure. Indeed, extending the cognitive argument yet further, [[Age of Consent]] laws would themselves be called into question, as the education system, IQ, social/emotional intelligence tests, would provide us with a better arbiter of "consenting ability" than an arbitrary cut-off age.

	==Ageism (social justice argument)==		==Ageism (social justice argument)==

The Admins: /* Not compatible with sex-positive society */

2024-07-10T15:53:46Z

Not compatible with sex-positive society

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 10 July 2024
Line 13:		Line 13:
	*Why do Americans then claim children are able to shoot a gun, and adults with Down syndrome or other mental impairments can consent to sex?		*Why do Americans then claim children are able to shoot a gun, and adults with Down syndrome or other mental impairments can consent to sex?

	Are children ~~able~~ to ~~''consent''~~ to ~~this~~? ~~If so~~, ~~is their ''~~consent~~'' even respected~~?		Are children having their consent to physical abuse, or religious indoctrination respected, given they are "unable" to?

			Are the mentally impaired or senile giving their free, informed consent when they have sex or vote in an election?

	Why (if informed consent is so important) is it now almost a cliche for women in western society to joke about getting drunk enough to have sex, and not even being able to recall their experiences?		Why (if informed consent is so important) is it now almost a cliche for women in western society to joke about getting drunk enough to have sex, and not even being able to recall their experiences?

The Admins: /* Not compatible with sex-positive society */

2024-07-10T15:49:32Z

Not compatible with sex-positive society

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:49, 10 July 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:
	*Why do we freely physically abuse children "for their own good"?		*Why do we freely physically abuse children "for their own good"?
	*Why do families cart children and even teens off to "their" church for indoctrination as opposed to their neighbor's?		*Why do families cart children and even teens off to "their" church for indoctrination as opposed to their neighbor's?
	*Why do Americans then claim children are able to shoot a gun?		*Why do Americans then claim children are able to shoot a gun, and adults with Down syndrome or other mental impairments can consent to sex?

	Are children able to ''consent'' to this? If so, is their ''consent'' even respected?		Are children able to ''consent'' to this? If so, is their ''consent'' even respected?

The Admins at 15:47, 10 July 2024

2024-07-10T15:47:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 10 July 2024
Line 5:		Line 5:
	'''2.''' The arbitrary concept of "informed [[consent]]" is highly problematic for ethical discussions about policies, as [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes\|insisting on it renders CSA empirically invalid as a concept]]. If you want to quickly close down the debate on the basis of this dilemma - simply follow the [[CSA dilemma argument]] template.		'''2.''' The arbitrary concept of "informed [[consent]]" is highly problematic for ethical discussions about policies, as [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes\|insisting on it renders CSA empirically invalid as a concept]]. If you want to quickly close down the debate on the basis of this dilemma - simply follow the [[CSA dilemma argument]] template.

	However, entertaining mental inferiority, this argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is especially complicated and hard to master; something requiring a higher level of cognition. Why do we so freely and unconsensually, physically abuse our children "for their own good", or cart them off to "our" church for indoctrination as opposed to our neighbor's? Are children able to consent to all of this? If not, why not just allow them to decide not to go to church or religious school? What about being allowed to shoot a gun - ~~plenty of people seem just fine with that? Why (if it really is about informed consent) is it now almost a cliche for women in western~~ society ~~to joke about getting drunk enough to have sex, and not even being able to recall their experiences?~~		==Not compatible with sex-positive society==

	A better approach would be the [[Debate_Guide: Cyclical paternalism\|deprogramming of sexual taboos]] ~~and unnecessary~~ [[Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment\|infantilization/oppression of young people and children]]. This is something ~~your~~ [[Debate Guide: Profound and lifelong scarring\|nativist argument]] fails to identify or consider.		This argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is especially complicated and hard to master; something requiring a higher level of cognition. Consider:

			*Why do we freely physically abuse children "for their own good"?
			*Why do families cart children and even teens off to "their" church for indoctrination as opposed to their neighbor's?
			*Why do Americans then claim children are able to shoot a gun?

			Are children able to ''consent'' to this? If so, is their ''consent'' even respected?

			Why (if informed consent is so important) is it now almost a cliche for women in western society to joke about getting drunk enough to have sex, and not even being able to recall their experiences?

			The answer is that western society is slowly becoming more "sex positive". And in a "sex-positive" society, if we argue that minors' are not adequately developed to agree to sex, we must then also claim they do not have the cognitive ability to ''refuse'' it, a violation that can not be allowed.

			A better approach would be to continue the [[Debate_Guide: Cyclical paternalism\|deprogramming of sexual taboos]] at the same time as opposing the [[Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment\|infantilization/oppression of young people and children]].

			This is something the [[Debate Guide: Profound and lifelong scarring\|nativist argument]] fails to identify or consider.

	==Ableism (egalitarian argument)==		==Ableism (egalitarian argument)==

The Admins at 19:10, 11 April 2024

2024-04-11T19:10:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 11 April 2024
Line 5:		Line 5:
	'''2.''' The arbitrary concept of "informed [[consent]]" is highly problematic for ethical discussions about policies, as [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes\|insisting on it renders CSA empirically invalid as a concept]]. If you want to quickly close down the debate on the basis of this dilemma - simply follow the [[CSA dilemma argument]] template.		'''2.''' The arbitrary concept of "informed [[consent]]" is highly problematic for ethical discussions about policies, as [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes\|insisting on it renders CSA empirically invalid as a concept]]. If you want to quickly close down the debate on the basis of this dilemma - simply follow the [[CSA dilemma argument]] template.

	However, entertaining mental inferiority, this argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is especially complicated and hard to master; something requiring a higher level of cognition. Why do we so freely and unconsensually, physically abuse our children "for their own good", or cart them off to "our" church for indoctrination as opposed to our neighbor's? Are children able to consent to all of this? If not, why not just allow them to decide not to go to church or religious school? What about being allowed to shoot a gun - plenty of people seem just fine with that?		However, entertaining mental inferiority, this argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is especially complicated and hard to master; something requiring a higher level of cognition. Why do we so freely and unconsensually, physically abuse our children "for their own good", or cart them off to "our" church for indoctrination as opposed to our neighbor's? Are children able to consent to all of this? If not, why not just allow them to decide not to go to church or religious school? What about being allowed to shoot a gun - plenty of people seem just fine with that? Why (if it really is about informed consent) is it now almost a cliche for women in western society to joke about getting drunk enough to have sex, and not even being able to recall their experiences?

	A better approach would be the [[Debate_Guide: Cyclical paternalism\|deprogramming of sexual taboos]] and unnecessary [[Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment\|infantilization/oppression of young people and children]]. This is something your [[Debate Guide: Profound and lifelong scarring\|nativist argument]] fails to identify or consider.		A better approach would be the [[Debate_Guide: Cyclical paternalism\|deprogramming of sexual taboos]] and unnecessary [[Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment\|infantilization/oppression of young people and children]]. This is something your [[Debate Guide: Profound and lifelong scarring\|nativist argument]] fails to identify or consider.

The Admins at 14:33, 15 March 2023

2023-03-15T14:33:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 15 March 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Children/Minors have not yet reached an adequate level of cognitive development to engage in sexual activity. They cannot consent because of this.'''''</font></blockquote>		__NOTOC__<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Children/Minors have not yet reached an adequate level of cognitive development to engage in sexual activity. They cannot [[consent]] because of this.'''''</font></blockquote>
	[[File:Cognitiveargument.jpg\|thumb\|Example of the counter argument]]		[[File:Cognitiveargument.jpg\|thumb\|Example of the counter argument]]
	'''1.''' The underlying assertion about cognitive ability in ''all minors'' is problematic ''per se'', as [[Research: Cognitive ability\|it seems that the human brain is adapted to its full evolutionary potential]] in early puberty.		'''1.''' The underlying assertion about cognitive ability in ''all minors'' is problematic ''per se'', as [[Research: Cognitive ability\|it seems that the human brain is adapted to its full evolutionary potential]] in early puberty.

	'''2.''' The arbitrary concept of "informed consent" is highly problematic for ethical discussions about policies, as [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes\|insisting on it renders CSA empirically invalid as a concept]]. If you want to quickly close down the debate on the basis of this dilemma - simply follow the [[CSA dilemma argument]] template.		'''2.''' The arbitrary concept of "informed [[consent]]" is highly problematic for ethical discussions about policies, as [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes\|insisting on it renders CSA empirically invalid as a concept]]. If you want to quickly close down the debate on the basis of this dilemma - simply follow the [[CSA dilemma argument]] template.

	However, entertaining mental inferiority, this argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is especially complicated and hard to master; something requiring a higher level of cognition. Why do we so freely and unconsensually, physically abuse our children "for their own good", or cart them off to "our" church for indoctrination as opposed to our neighbor's? Are children able to consent to all of this? If not, why not just allow them to decide not to go to church or religious school? What about being allowed to shoot a gun - plenty of people seem just fine with that?		However, entertaining mental inferiority, this argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is especially complicated and hard to master; something requiring a higher level of cognition. Why do we so freely and unconsensually, physically abuse our children "for their own good", or cart them off to "our" church for indoctrination as opposed to our neighbor's? Are children able to consent to all of this? If not, why not just allow them to decide not to go to church or religious school? What about being allowed to shoot a gun - plenty of people seem just fine with that?
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==Ableism (egalitarian argument)==		==Ableism (egalitarian argument)==

	Using this argument's logic, one would be forced to question why some geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill/disabled should not be barred from experiencing sexual pleasure. Indeed, extending the cognitive argument yet further, ~~age~~ of ~~consent~~ laws would themselves be called into question, as the education system would provide us with a better arbiter of "consenting ability" than an arbitrary cut-off age.		Using this argument's logic, one would be forced to question why some geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill/disabled should not be barred from experiencing sexual pleasure. Indeed, extending the cognitive argument yet further, [[Age of Consent]] laws would themselves be called into question, as the education system would provide us with a better arbiter of "consenting ability" than an arbitrary cut-off age.

	==Ageism (social justice argument)==		==Ageism (social justice argument)==

The Admins: /* Ableism (egalitarian argument) */

2022-08-01T16:10:27Z

Ableism (egalitarian argument)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 1 August 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==Ableism (egalitarian argument)==		==Ableism (egalitarian argument)==

	Using ~~your~~ logic, one would be forced to question why some geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill/disabled should not be barred from experiencing sexual pleasure. Indeed, extending the cognitive argument yet further, age of consent laws would themselves be called into question, as the education system would provide us with a better arbiter of "consenting ability" than an arbitrary cut-off age.		Using this argument's logic, one would be forced to question why some geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill/disabled should not be barred from experiencing sexual pleasure. Indeed, extending the cognitive argument yet further, age of consent laws would themselves be called into question, as the education system would provide us with a better arbiter of "consenting ability" than an arbitrary cut-off age.

	==Ageism (social justice argument)==		==Ageism (social justice argument)==