I cant stand people who are so partisan that they cant accept athing the other side did.


If Reagan did not help end the cold war then Obama did not bring the economy back to prosperity.


Unlike most ideological hacks that exists from the left and right these days, I can accept both things to be true.

Once the individual reaches puberty, you can perform the tests. The age for this varies from person to person, so i obviously don't have a precise number for you, as who knows what kind of overdeveloped freaks there might be. I would hope 12-13 +, and only on special investigations, as i still agree with the 18+ in general. It's a good guideline to go by.

I can't give a yes or no answer because of what i just said. The answer is: I don't know.

Well, I refuse to accept either of those as true.

O_o... Yeah, and this is why I'm asking questions I already "know" the answer to.  Because the insane things you are saying keep on surpriging me.

You don't know that we don't have to test for consent at every age?  So we might need to test people at age two?  You don't think we can categorically conclude that five year olds aren't able to consent (even if they have hit puberty as some do)?

Wow.  Just wow.  

I'm the one has to say "Wow"... and why i was reluctant to answer your questions. You are still unabe to grasp that we aren't talking about children. You just love to bring the 5 and 2 year olds into this. Soon you are gonna talk about them still in the womb. Get real dude, you have way too many preconceptions that impede you from thinking critically.

The world is not back and white. I think this conversation has gone on long enough.

Yes we are talking about children.  12 year olds are children. According to 192 nations in the world.

I brought up younger children, as I mentioned several times, to establish the point that at a certain age, we can conclude that a person is always unable to consent.  I assumed that would be a point we would easily agree on, and we could move on to figure out where that mark should be, and whether 12 years old was past it.  It did not occur to me that you would argue against this point.  But, you proved me wrong by repeatedly insisting that there is no age where we can always conclude consent is impossible.  And when I point out how insane that is, you act offended that I even brought it up, when you're the one suggesting that maybe a five year old can consent.  Maybe that's just because you have no coherent response to the point, and are trying to deflect it by acting faux offended.

Cause some things are black and white.  I thought the fact that certain ages cannot consent to sexual activity would be something so black and white that we could agree, and then build on that... but I guess not.  So, point blank, can we conclude that five year olds are never able to consent?  If you can't answer that with a simple no, then don't act like I'm the one saying crazy shit.

I'm talking about puberty from the time it starts. I even gave you an estimate of not sooner than 12, but i admit that crazy exceptions may occur. Why am i repeating all this?

You want to put a hard age like say 12 and up, but that goes against the exception cases i'm bringing up. It's because they are exceptions that it is difficult to categorise them with hard lines of age and why i used the term puberty. As in sexually developed and with a developed body size.

You just can't fathom these exception for some reason. Everything must go on group 1 or group 2.No deviations allowed. I am NOT sugesting Children. I have never brought up children. You diluted the conversation in your head by deciding that a consenting 12 or 14 year old presumibly developed is a Child. He isn't a child, he is a teenager. Puberty is what makes one not be a child anymore. It's not an age. 

Most of that is just wrong.

Children are defined as persons under 18 by the UN, and that resolution was ratified by 192 different countries.  In almost all cases it is used as a binary distinction between children and adult.

Teenager has nothing to do with puberty.  It is a term that is explicitly linked to age.  An 11 year old who has undergone puberty is not a teenager.  A 13 year old who has not undergone puberty is a teenager.  Teen-ager.  As in, the age ends with teen.  ThirTEEN, FourTEEN etc.  13-19 year olds are teenagers.  No exceptions.  That's just a definition.  Teenager and children are not mutually exclusive terms.  A 13 year old is a child and a teenager.  A twelve year old is only a child. Maybe adolescent is the word you are looking for.  

You're also wrong on the age of the onset of puberty.  Not sooner than 12 is completely wrong.  For girls it is actually more common for puberty to occur before 12.  11 is about average.  9 or 10 is fairly common, and 7 or 8 is common enough to consider.  Boys generally start at 12, but starting at 9 isn't a freakish thing.  It's fairly typical.  In a given fifth grade class of 30 kids, you could expect 3 or 4 girls and 1 or 2 boys to show clear signs of puberty.  And I can tell you from personal experience, that they do not tend to be any more or less emotionally or intellectually developed than their peers.

Puberty has no very limited correlation with intellectual development or decision making abilities.  They tend to coincide simply because they both typically occur with age.   Puberty means you can physically have reproductive sex, not that you can intellectual consent.  And, puberty occuring at age 12 is a mostly modern phenomena.  Our diets have changed the onset of puberty from about 15 to 12 over the past century, so kids being sexually developed at this stage of brain development is a new and problematic phenomena.

Defining puberty as the age of consent is no less arbitrary than an age.  Age is actually a far better predictor of brain development and intellectual capabilities than puberty is, so puberty is more arbitrary in determining consent than age.  

I can absolutely fathom exceptions, but at a certain point there are none.  That's why I bring up five.  Because it's an age where I hoped we'd both agree that there is no exception because it is so far out of the normal range that it is easy to see that it is impossible to give consent.  

If we have hopefully finally agreed that there are certain ages where there is no gray area, I again come back to how you've determined that 12 is not a part of that zone.  I've already given you plenty of evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and sociology as to why it is generally agreed on that 12 is not an appropriate age of consent ESPECIALLY when the age difference is more than 10 years, and ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY when the adult in the situation is an authority figure.

What research have you done?  What special knowledge have you done that has led you to defy the concensus of neuroscience and psychology?  Why have you determined that there is a reasonable possibility that this relationship was healthy and consentual, when you don't seem to know much about these topics?

Siiigh... i give up.