Template:Debate Guide:Arguments about children and minors: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New page: '''Sex, children and minors are not incompatible...''' *Evolutionary logic - Why CSA makes no sense in evolutionary terms. *[[Debate Guide: Cyclical p... |
No edit summary |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*'''Against:''' [[Debate Guide: The kids do not want it|The kids do not want it]] - Disputes the claim that minors' general apathy in calling for reform counts as an argument against. | *'''Against:''' [[Debate Guide: The kids do not want it|The kids do not want it]] - Disputes the claim that minors' general apathy in calling for reform counts as an argument against. | ||
'''From the encyclopedia...''' | |||
*[[Criminalisation of youth|Youth are sexually persecuted through the legal system]] |
Revision as of 21:05, 16 December 2008
Sex, children and minors are not incompatible...
- Evolutionary logic - Why CSA makes no sense in evolutionary terms.
- Cyclical paternalism - Protecting children brings about the need to protect them more.
- Prior experience - There is only one true way of gaining sexual experience.
- The fallacy of "sexual maturity" - The concept, as used in child advocacy is fatally flawed.
- Against: Cognitive ability - Some argue that sexual intimacy requires a level that minors have not yet reached.
Sexually repressing children and minors does not benefit them...
- Sexual neglect - Neglect of a child's sexuality may be abusive.
- Reverse sexualisation - Popular acknowledgement of sexuality in nude photography is revealing.
- Liberty-empowerment - Empowering young people will benefit them.
- Turn of events - How the reporting and prosecution of sex can change the perspective of a youth.
- Against: Online dangers - The internet is generally not a dangerous place for minors.
Child advocacy is often illogical...
- Against: The kids do not want it - Disputes the claim that minors' general apathy in calling for reform counts as an argument against.
From the encyclopedia...