Kiddledee, I only wish I had the power to "not allow" others to insert extra factors like INFORMED consent into the original question, but yes you are correct, I tried to keep it on track. But that supports my claim (that I was not arguing against informed consent [only against the fact that "simple consent" did not mitigate the initiated aggression]), not yours. I simply tried to stick to the original question. (But no matter; I estimate that 90% of this topic's bandwidth been spent on these kinds of off-topic / peripheral / irrelevant discussion, and only 10% on directly-relevant discussion. But we will continue.)
I don't believe I ever argued that "pre-adolescents" were incapable of giving informed consent - simply by virtue of their age. I challenge you to quote where I said anything even similar. (Take the challenge. I haven't gone back to look either.) I think I posted the ages of preadolescence as "1 to around 11" in response to other's requests to do so. I'm at a loss to see how that's advocating an arbitrary age limit. But prior to that and since, I repeatedly stuck to the "pre-adolescent" label in an attempt to stick to a biological condition rather than resort to an arbitrary age limit. You really should go back and realize that my original question did not include any of those things. -Mark +++++++++++++++ --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kiddledee, > > Then you were arguing against a position other than mine. > Seriously, you are only falsely characterizing my position so you > can easily knock it down. My position was not for government, was > not against informed consent, was not for an arbitrary age limit, > was not against race or religion, or for any collectivist notion. > Those are all straw men of your own or other's creation. (But > thanks for the brief clarification to get my teeth into. Gosh, > maybe Carol's insults were worth obtaining that!) > > -Mark _________________________________________________________________ ___ Mark, I actually entered the discussion late and I will not go back and double check my remarks here, but this is what I remember of the discussion. You never even allowed for the possibility of "informed" consent until late in the discussion; your position was consistently, in fact, that "pre-adolescents" were incapable of giving informed consent - simply by virtue of their age. You repeatedly assigned the "pre-adolescent" label to children under the age of 11yo - seems pretty arbitrary to me when you could have chosen 12yo or 15yo or 9yo instead. I did go back some ways in the postings and discovered that you were not, in fact, advocating government "criminalization" of your position, so I apologize for mis-speaking on that point.
