Debate Guide: State hypocrisy: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
Rez (talk | contribs)
1,674 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
*Claims that age of consent and anti child - porn laws' function is to 'protect children' are rendered doubtful by the fact that the very same governments will allow foreign children to be abused in waged slavery for their own economies' benefit, and will punish children in much the same way as an adult, when they see fit (compare the treatment of a teenage boy caught in possession of a) a knife and b) a penis). In many countries a child is potentially responsible for his decision to commit crime from the age of ten or even earlier; if capable of choosing to commit burglary or murder crime at 10, why not sexual relationships?
We have noticed a number of "tells" re. this policy outlook being a '''moral scheme''' completely unrelated to '''safeguarding'''.


*Established thought hypocritically suggests that we should "instinctively" protect and care for the "innocence" of "our own" children, but not that of others. Is such a double standard (based on irrational self-interest) to be trusted as an adequate structure upon which policy can be based?
*Common wisdom would tell us that a ''sexual offense'' has a victim and a perpetrator. [[Criminalisation of youth]] details examples where both minors were treated as perpetrators and victims at the same time. If this were not a moral scheme to appease prejudice, wouldn't our reaction to such events be fundamentally different?


*If governments were genuinely concerned about "protecting children", they would be concerned with ensuring that minors grew up with better knowledge of sexuality, and the valid, age-indiscriminate pleasures that can be derived from it. Instead they repress minors, not only denying their sexuality but keeping them in ignorance regarding sexual matters. The best way to 'protect' minors is not to deny them education and the freedom to choose, but to empower them with control over their own bodies; the power to say 'yes' as well as the often encouraged power to say 'no'.
*The very same governments who "protect" and "safeguard" minors by denying them a variety of civil liberties will allow foreign children to be abused in waged slavery for their own economies' benefit, and will punish children in much the same way as an adult when they see fit. All it requires is for a "child" to behave in an offensive, adult like manner, and we categorize them as delinquent at an early age - often an inescapable circle of criminality. In many western developed countries, a child is potentially responsible for his decision to commit crime from the age of ten or even earlier. If capable of choosing to commit burglary or murder at 10, why not a sexual relationship?
 
*Politicians and officials repeatedly talk up "evidence based" policies, but then go on to make ludicrous appeals to the "protective instincts" of parents. They can't have it both ways; either the measures are a reactionary moral scheme or have some grounding in an evidence based approach to child welfare.
 
*If governments were genuinely concerned about "protecting children", they would also be concerned about the results of [[Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism|cyclical paternalism]] and the associated phenomana. Only, these are adverse consequences of interventionism, so naturally they avoid addressing it.


[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]

Revision as of 08:10, 14 October 2021

We have noticed a number of "tells" re. this policy outlook being a moral scheme completely unrelated to safeguarding.

  • Common wisdom would tell us that a sexual offense has a victim and a perpetrator. Criminalisation of youth details examples where both minors were treated as perpetrators and victims at the same time. If this were not a moral scheme to appease prejudice, wouldn't our reaction to such events be fundamentally different?
  • The very same governments who "protect" and "safeguard" minors by denying them a variety of civil liberties will allow foreign children to be abused in waged slavery for their own economies' benefit, and will punish children in much the same way as an adult when they see fit. All it requires is for a "child" to behave in an offensive, adult like manner, and we categorize them as delinquent at an early age - often an inescapable circle of criminality. In many western developed countries, a child is potentially responsible for his decision to commit crime from the age of ten or even earlier. If capable of choosing to commit burglary or murder at 10, why not a sexual relationship?
  • Politicians and officials repeatedly talk up "evidence based" policies, but then go on to make ludicrous appeals to the "protective instincts" of parents. They can't have it both ways; either the measures are a reactionary moral scheme or have some grounding in an evidence based approach to child welfare.
  • If governments were genuinely concerned about "protecting children", they would also be concerned about the results of cyclical paternalism and the associated phenomana. Only, these are adverse consequences of interventionism, so naturally they avoid addressing it.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/index.php?title=Debate_Guide:_State_hypocrisy&oldid=8229"