The elderly need an Age of Consent for sexual activity
permission, approval, or agreement; compliance;
Coercion is defined as:
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
In the US, the Age of Consent for sexual activity ranges from 14-18. In Europe, it ranges from 13-16. This law protects minors from the consequences of the physiological and psychological power imbalance of having sexual relationships with adults.
However, such a power imbalance is not exclusive to minors, and applies equally to elderly people, who have a weak physical and mental capacity when compared to young and middle-aged adults. For example, a 70-year-old man would be intimidated about the prospect of denying a 50-year-old woman's advances. It is well-known that many young and middle-aged woman seek manipulative relationships with elderly men in order to receive an entitlement in their wills (such exploitative behavior is the only reason anyone would want to have sex with an old person, anyway).
Therefore, politicians must establish an Age of Consent for elderly people that everyone will one day qualify for. I suggest the Age of Consent should vary according to different states and countries to reflect local beliefs and standards in post-maturity. For example, the District of Columbia could have an Age of Consent at 75, whereas a more conservative place like Utah could have an Age of Consent at 65. After all, the Age of Consent is 18 in California, and 14 in the District of Columbia.
In the interests of the public good, arbitrary distinctions over capacities should be ignored in order to safeguard the majority of elderly people, who are vulnerable and post-mature. In addition, only politicians can objectively measure and safeguard their dignity for them. This is true in the case of the Age of Consent for minors. No study has ever investigated their capacity to give consent to being touched in a particular area of their body, nor would it need to, because politicians already know that minors are immediately traumatized by such consensual touching. Instead, the studies logically derive their conclusions by putting the victims of rape and statutory rape in the same category, based on the definition of statutory rape in their jurisdiction. This is not the case when such touching occurs accidentally in wrestling, however, or when parents aggressively beat their children on their bums. Likewise, there should be exemptions for the elderly when they visit the doctor, require the services of a TSA agent, or need to be beaten by their children - the only people who could know what is best for them, due to the genes they share (and the fact that they just love their parents!) If a 35-year-old woman dares to so much as touch a 70-year-old man on his genitalia without a license from the government, she should be locked up in prison where there's plenty of power-imbalanced touching for her to enjoy!
1-One bold assertion is as good as the next.
2-Since you make a positive claim the burden prove is upon you.
3-To speak of need is a suggest necessary condition
4-This puts you in a position to show entailment.
5-But you speak of moral principles
C-So it is an impossible claim
Principle of Charity:
-You must mean should instead of Need.
"In the US, the Age of Consent for sexual activity ranges from 14-18. In Europe, it ranges from 13-16. This law protects minors from the consequences of the physiological and psychological power imbalance of having sexual relationships with adults."
The Fool, Based on the information given you have given we should think that people who have physiological and psychological power imbalance should have age of consent.
And this is popular with children. But this application tends to pertain to younger people because we consider we consider them to have a undeveloped mind. But even that would not defendable without having to resort to dogmatism or faith principle (Faith principles need not be religious) in the sense that in the past, many young woman marry older men.
We may say something like we know better now. But there has been no demonstrated only in bold assertion, or agreement, how could this be more knowledge? If the moon was made of cheese and we all vote made that it is make of cookie and punish people for saying it is cheese. It is still made of cheese; we just call it a cookie. But what is is or A=A
A Declaration is exactly that declaration with a Capital D. The D doesn't add realness or truthfulness, we would be making Declaration any time we want.
Make sure to be clear that I am not arguing for pedophilia (Sophist like to build straw men)
Bad rather I am saying that something should not be done when it is morally wrong.
But sex in itself is not morally wrong by itself or for anybody; it is harm that is the morally wrong part.
The case of older persons is much different. As people get old they lose their freedom naturally, their licence, there vision, their hearing, family, friends, and spouse, taking the freedom to choose if they want do such things or not is to take away their last piece of humanity. There may be small risks, but as you say I don't think doctors with MD's are likely to want to do anything like that. So such a change is minimal to you have to lack to trust for people. But similarly we may drive and crash. That question is that is the freedom to drive worth the risk? Of course
Old age appears more gross when you are young but such grossness becomes conditioned more or less with familiarly. But that doesn't mean it's not a fair trade. We can't take our money with us. And If I am a 75yrs lonely man with a chance to have companionship with a young woman then that would be worth more than all the money in the world.
Even the belief in companionship is better than nothing. Therefore there should not be and age of consent for sex with the old.
The Fool on The Hill…..
To illustrate, many studies have documented child sexual abuse, and determined that it usually causes permanent damage to the brain. Study participants are typically selected irrespective of whether they were the victim of sexual assault or a defacto participant in sexual activity. This is logical, because the definition of child sexual abuse is a legal construction originating from the political paradigm. Such constructions are permitted to set a precedent for scientific studies, because lawmakers know what is best for society.
Consequently, the principle behind this precedent should be applied in equal regard to the elderly. It is likely that if future studies documented�'elderly sexual abuse', without differentiating between coercion and defacto consent, the resulting bottleneck effects would produce the conclusion that elderly sexual abuse usually caused permanent damage to the brain. Therefore, it is clear that an Age of Consent is necessary to protect the majority of elderly people from permanent brain damage.
No argument can attempt to distinguish the typical experience of either group, since experience is the product of individual subjectivity. For example, it is possible that the essential characteristics of an elderly person's perception is the same as a minor's perception, and vice versa. Scientific studies, on the other hand, objectively measure symptoms of harm derived from this experience.
-yeah many things are possible. Next;)
-identical,similar is synonymous with the ignorance of difference .. good luck with that.
Therefore, you cannot argue for the absence of an Age of Consent for one particular group.
I already did because I pointed out the difference loss of integrity in the dismissal of freedoms to make such decision. Were children have never had them to be taken away.
That is a big significant difference.
These studies blow:
Here is a riddle for you. If a 70 your old man has sex with a 14 year or less(I just don’t want to be murdered for thought experiments... We may think it wrong or gross or may illegal or unrighteous. But it still doesn’t follow that there is Harm. I don’t think it would get past undemonstratively metaphorical or spiritual harm. That no-one can know about. Obviously aside birth control and std’s etc.
The greatest harm would be society telling the girl that she has been harmed and act alarmed like some REAL existing evil has happened, or that she did something bad.
That is, is it the freak out of others that hurts her, family’s society, don’t think there is evidence to show some non-self-fulfilling prophecy of none forced sex.
My prediction is if something did happens I think the best way to not cause pain would be to ease in and help prevention in the future. But not treat is an evil and natural wrong and this would prevent the suffering. Because I don’t think a sexual act in itself has inherent evil, which doesn’t’ depend on some nonexistent entity. I don’t think animals that get jumped in the forest have permanent life traumas. That is without the social frame work from which we derive its wrongness. I have a hard time believing it would be recognized. Of course we would have to delete negative relation to such think when they grow up as well.
The fool; dude I don't even care about the vote., I know what and arguement is dead.. and this is dead. you were never able to refute the argument of the first section secondly to say we can't argue some thing is just like say that you can't be right.. lala .. that thats a great argument
anyways it and appeal to ingorance (to argue in favour for something by the ground that we dont' know what there experencing. its a hard sell to say that such an older person would get harmfull brain damage by being having a younger woman pleasure them
this is TKO>..
Jared_BL forfeited this round.
The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.