I must have missed the memo where group sex got added to the list. When did that happen? I thought it was on the to-do list after gay marriage but just before polygamy.

the cal thomas article wilfully misconstrues the really very simple logic of the liberal argument. in nobody's logic does it follow that because some taboos have been rendered obsolete, all taboos eventually will.

divorce, same-sex marriage etc all depend for their legitimacy on agreement between consenting adults mature enough to make their own decisions. minors are not considered to have this power of consent so paedophilia is placed in the same category as rape or physical abuse.

so just no rational person, liberal or conservative, argues for the legalisation of rape, nor will they argue for the legalisation of paedophilia.

this is not at all difficult to grasp, surely.

Brit

It's not that simple, even though most liberals are as repulsed by pedophilia as anyone.

Libertarian/progressive thinking got itself into a bit of a pickle on this one by gradually denying that any form of consensual sex between adults could be condemned as wrong in itself. It all became a matter of personal choice and, provided the adults consented, nobody's business. Along with this went the belief that, again provided it was consensual, no harm could be said to occur. Every objection was met with objectivist/rationalist taunts--Where is the harm and where is the causal connection to it? Who are you to say what is good for me?

Now, there are a lot of things we believe children can't handle, but the basis of this belief is that we recognize how adults can misuse them and are prepared to make collective judgments on them. We don't let kids drink, but we don't tell adults that putting down a fifth of scotch a day is a personal choice and no one's business. We don't let kids drive, but we don't tell adults that if their self-expression demands they drive across Nevada at 120 mph, go for it. In other words, we restrict a lot of things to kids BECAUSE we recognize there are right and wrong ways to use them and they don't know enough to understand the implications.

So, why is something that is perfectly normal, healthy and benign for consenting adults an unspeakable abomination for kids. You can play around with what "consent" is, but you are still left with the problem that, if the kid believes he or she is consenting, just what damage results? It's pretty hard to sustain the myth that all sexual experiences for consenting adults are free, independant and harmless, but that they scar kids for life.

Peter -

I understand your point - but that point depends upon the assumption that homosexuality, divorce, etc (and all the other standard issues that divide people) are themselves intrinsically wrong, and will ultimately harm the individual/condemn him to hellfire etc.

in which case we come back to the standard argument: eg. conservatives/traditional christians think homosexuality is inherently wrong/sinful; progressives and modernisers don't. and since never the twain shall meet, i won't bother going over that ground.

no, my point was simply to observe that the article quoted is attacking a straw man. it is not true to say that because progressives have attacked things that were previously taboos, that paedophilia will inevitably be the future target of future progressives, since a paedophilic act is seen by all rational liberals not to sit in the same category as a homosexual act, but in the same category as a rape.

Brit:

Homosexuality was a straw man a few years ago. Once the standards start sliding they tend to keep going. One of the arguments in favor of homosexuality is that it's biologically determined, so too then will desire for children be and will similarly be accepted--in fact it largely is in the academy. The whole consent deal is nothing but a social construct which most of the props for are quickly being kicked away. If you can kill children, you can certainly have sex with them.

So why isn't heterosexual congress between consenting adults the slippery slope to heterosexual sex with consenting children?

After all, heterosexuality is biologically determined, isn't it?

Goose, gander.

OJ -

Again, you miss the fine point that i am making.

Yes, many people on the opposite side of the political fence to you will believe that paedophilia, like homosexuality is influenced by biology. And they're probably right.

This will in no way affect their view that it should remain illegal, since the element of consent is absent. if this belief has any effect, it will only be on the view taken of offenders, ie. trying to introduce a level of treatment into the punishment.

Brit:

Here's a pretty good indicator of how easily we accept paedophilia nowadays: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/25/entertainment/main585441.shtml

Jeff:

I don't believe in allowing biology to determine behavior--even if it can be argued that it does, which I'd deny too. But having determined that gays have to be allowed to follow their natuires, there's no coherent basis for denying other depravities.

Brit:

A kiddie-porn merchant was arrested here a couple of years ago. Argued free-speech, freedom of expression,"where's the harm?" blah, blah in his constututional challenge. Won his case, although appeals are pending. Everyone was shocked and enraged, but I had some sympathy for the Court. As the law has deconstructed and negated every moral prohibition on those grounds for two generations, how can it come roaring back in a fit of disgust over this.?

Jeff, you had better find another peg than consent to hang this one on. Science and rationalism will defeat you in many cases. To say twelve-year olds are incapable of consenting by definition just won't hold. If it is harmless for adults, the visceral fear and disgust about children makes no sense. We are not talking about rape and violence.

"So why isn't heterosexual congress between consenting adults the slippery slope to heterosexual sex with consenting children?"

It is. That is why there are rights and wrongs.

Brit --

One of the problems with your argument is that you are using "consent" in an artificial way. Not all pedofilia involves forcible rape, much of it is consented to by the minor. Rather, what we have is the legal fiction that minors are not capable of consent, which exists only to prohibit adolescent sex.

Consider, for example, the average 16 year old boy. Should he be prohibited from consenting to sex with the hot 22 year old student teacher? Do we really believe that he would be scarred for life? How 'bout if the student teacher is male? How 'bout 15 years old? How 'bout the 35 year old music teacher? Can we draw the line any differently for homosexual teens v. hetero teens? (I would think the answer is obviously not.)

So, is it really such a long slide down to 12 year old boys who really want to have sex with Michael Jackson? That child may be inately homosexual or he may just be star struck. As I understand the situation, the children invited to Neverland have had lousy lives with, in many cases, abusive pasts. Michael shows them affection, gives them candy and cookies, let's them ride his carnival rides and pet his monkey and then he (allegedly) offers them the chance to ride his ride and pet his monkey. I have no trouble believing that the child genuinely wants the warmth and love and comfort offered, and may even enjoy the acts. In any meaningful sense of the word, he consents.

Now, are you absolutely confident that the legal fiction that he is incapable of consent is viable? I'm not.

Further, the consent argument had to be discarded where homosexuality was concerned too, and that was done easily. Homosexuality was previously considered a mental illness. Presumably that would have precluded even the possibility of reasoned consent.

Peter:

The US Suprteme Court essentially legalized child pornography when it ruled it impossible to judge what was real and what digitally altered.

OJ and David

the arguments you make are not arguments against the very simple point i am making.

the cal thomas article tries to make the case that progressives/lefties (whatever) who are pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-divorce etc are inevitably going to be soft on paedophilia...because if one taboo can go, they all can.

i'm simply pointing out that this is not the case. its a classic straw man argument. and there is a very clear, cast-iron legal reason why not: the age of consent.

granted, lefties are going to be 'softer' in terms of the punishment they'd like to dish out to paedophiles than your typical right-wing hanger and flogger...but all rational people, left or right, can agree that paedophilia is to remain outlawed.

of course, i'm only talking about rational people here. anyone who thinks a 10 year old child can really consent to sex with an adult of either sex, is a loony.

Brit:

We take your point, it's just wrong. Conmsent matters not a whit to such folk. Not on taxes, not on regulation, not on abortion, not on euthanasia, not on homosexuality, etc., etc., it just gets defined away.

OJ

to the extreme laissez-faire loony perhaps.

but it is perfectly possible to accept gay rights, be pro-choice, and just as stringent on paedophilia as those who are anti-gay and pro-life. indeed, that's exactly what the majority of people are.

to pretend otherwise, as the original article does, is fuzzy thinking and also disrespectful to reasonable liberals who know exactly what their position is and how to construct an argument

Brit:

Age of consent is not clear and cast iron. Children have acquired lots of rights and legal remedies over the past decade through judicial challenges. Sorry to be graphic, but if courts think a child can decide what clothes to wear to school, as they have, why can't they decide to strip for a chocolate bar? You are letting your admirable rage accord more import than hard analysis can sustain to the simple question of whether someone is saying yes or no. I suggest something darker and more atavistic may be bubbling inside you than the issue of legal consent.

Peter:

Peter Singer, the leading moral philosopher in the West, proposes a one year period during which you decide whether to keep or kill a baby. Why couldn't you have sex with a child if you can kill it?

Brit:

You can draw those lines based on emotion, not on reason. At the point where you're killing powerless people and condoning behaviors that have been recognized as immoral and even illnesses for millennia, you've left any coherence impartial standards way behind.

Brit --

The SJC held that the word marriage means the union of one man and one woman, and thus the marriage law using that word is unconstitutional.

The age of consent is no more "cast-iron" than the definition of marriage -- somewhat less so, as it is purely a statutory matter. In the western world, the age of consent was 12 throughout much of the 19th century. It still is 12 in parts of the world. The supposed relatively recent enactment of anti-abortion laws in the 19th century, by the way, were used by the Roe court to buttress its holding. There is no reason that the Court's can't now find a constitutional right for children to engage in sex, other than that its icky. If the 20th century teaches us anything, it's that icky fades.

Brit:

I fear that we may be ganging up on you here, but let me add that your opponents are not evading your arguments. They are specifically pressing you on the question of consent -- the question on which your entire position hinges. It is no good to simply reassert your position when its foundations have been called into question.

The question for you, then, is this: Upon what evidence, or by what line of reasoning, do you believe that the legal construct of consent will endure when so many other constructs, most of them rooted in deeper things that arbitrary psychology assessments, have been obliterated by the innovations of modernity?

Does anyone else find Jeff's repeated use of the term "Goose, gander" to be a bit ironic when used in the context he uses it? Just wondering.

Timothy:

Good catch.

Brit is making a serious point you are failing to acknowledge.

There are lots of things adults do that don't even come close to the widespread opprobrium that pedophilia earns. Yet they are prohibited to children.

Being a party in a contract, for instance. Getting a credit card, for another.

Yet no one seems to be making slippery slope arguments regarding those things.

Why not?

Kids have far too easy a time getting credit these days, and making purchases oin-line.

Jeff:

No, you are missing the point. Your refusal to state that any consensual sexual act between adults can be condemned by society, or can even be judged harmful by outsiders, means that such acts with children can only be opposed on the basis of a lack of consent, not that they are wrong per se. This means you have to take an evolving legal doctrine (which is not based upon instinctive common sense--trust me) and craft a whole tenuous theory about why children cannot really consent to anything in this line, when experience tells us otherwise. As a lawyer, I can assure you that you can expect to meet a bevy of trendy psychologists who will swear that, on the best scientific evidence, children can consent and there is no quantifiable harm.

You and Brit are making the same mistake we traditionalists have been making for years--assuming that our instinct to protect children and "common sense" will prevail. But, as David pointed out above, all such arguments eventually fail in the name of science and rationalism.

Sorry, Jeff, the clock is ticking. Answer directly, please. Why does sex with kids so trouble you?

Peter:

Why does lying trouble me? Or incest? Or shame?

I don't know, but they do nonetheless.

You can put sex with kids in that same pile.

And I don't have the least problem with distinguishing acts between consenting adults from acts where one of the participants is a child.

Just like I don't have the tiniest problem distinguishing a contract between adults, and a contract involving an adult and a child.

The former has at least the possibility of being between peers, the latter never so.

What is so hard about that?

Jeff:

That would be great if you were the dictator of humankind and your gut feelings bound everyone. You aren't and they don't.

sorry i haven't replied here. in GMT it was bedtime after my last post!

but i can only try to restate my original point: the slippery slope argument is not a logcical one, since it makes a category mistake about the reasons why anti-paedophile laws exist.

they exist for the same reasons that anti-rape laws exist, not for the same reasons that anti-gay laws USED to exist.

furthermore, if you think i'm just making the same point over and over again, well i am...

...because OJ, Peter etc are simply restating the slippery slope argument over and over again.

let me just expose the slippery slope argument for what it is. it is actually an emotive and very disingenuous piece of reasoning aimed squarely at discrediting those who take a liberal view of gay rights and (probably) any sex outside of a christian marriage.

It is also lazy thinking and specious reasoning.

the reasoning behind it is as follows:

1) everyone knows paedophilia is society’s worst taboo and everybody loathes it
2) liberals have approved certain items which used to be taboo, eg. gay rights
3) therefore liberals will eventually want to legitimise all taboos
4) therefore liberals will eventually want to legitimise paedophilia
5) and since paedophilia is society’s worst taboo and everybody loathes it, liberals are discredited and should be thrashed to within an inch of their lives etc.

Now look over this line of reasoning again. Anyone with an ounce of logic will spot the glaring false step: that between points 2 and 3.

Not only is it illogical, it wilfully misunderstands the REASONS why certain items, eg. gay rights, which used to be taboo are no longer so. They were not legitimised simply because they were taboo, or just because people have stopped being christian, but because they were considered to involve the choices of consenting adults who are not harming anybody else. Items which do not involve consent will NOT be sought to be legitimised by anyone, whether liberal or conservative.

So here’s some ‘taboo’ things you CAN use a kind of ‘slippery slope’ argument with to bash the liberal: incest between consenting adults, S&M between consenting adults, personal drug use…different degrees of liberal might be willing to decriminalise all these taboos.

Here’s some taboos you CAN’T use to bash the liberal with: rape, GBH, paedophilia.

Arguments on the ‘artificality’ or fragility of an age of consent are not relevant, since the rational liberal will no more seek to remove it than the rational conservative.

Brit:

Let's go back to your syllogism for a second and insert a 2(a) and 2 (b):

2(a): In order the legitimize the approval of former taboos, liberals developed a philosophy which called into question the whole notion of taboos and said, in effect, that these issues must be considered on strict rational, scientific grounds and restricted, individualistic notions of harm. Most modern people came to agree with them;

2 (b): some radicals are proposing that we dispense with other taboos like paedophilia and are using the exact same arguments, thus leaving liberals confused and unable to find a philosophical basis to oppose them.

Brit, what is a taboo and how do we make collective judgments about them? (Also, what is GBH? Is it as much fun as the others? Just asking.)

GBH = Grevious Bodily Harm. ie. an act of severe violence on an innocent party. Can't think at the mo what the legal term is in the States (though it happens enough in your movies, so I should know!) Assault?

Look, the position I'm defending is that of the rational liberal, against the conservative who wants to use the slippery slope argument to lump him with this loony, taboo-busting radical (if such a radical exists...have you ever met one?)

the issue of what constitutes a taboo is a separate but interesting one.

But let's remember that liberal thinking has created plenty of its own very strict taboos.

eg. slavery, racism, sexism, animal cruelty, anti-semitism and probably much to OJ's chagrin, homophobia.

OJ:

You are right. I am not, and I don't

But I am pretty bloody typical. I speak English. It appears I don't have to force others to do so.

Brit:
You hit the nail squarely on the head.

Peter:
I believe Brit's point is that insisting on the leap in logic is pure fallacy. Further, it could (heck, probably was) used against people who favored eliminating misceganation laws, for instance. Further, you completely neglect analagous situations. Misceganation (I hope I'm spelling that right...) was once taboo. It no longer is. Did we then plummet down that slippery slope to legalized sex with minor girls?

Uhh, no.

Why? Because peer-peer sexual relationships are distinctly different than adult-child ones. In the same way that boss-subordinate sexual relationships earn disfavor absent from the same relationship absent that circumstance.

That last sentence is a mess. Let me try again:

In the same way that boss-subordinate sexual relationships earn disfavor--and legal sanction-- otherwise identical relationships, absent that circumstance, do not.

Society disfavors sex except within marriage.

Society disfavors sex except within marriage or between an unrelated man and woman in a committed relationship.

Society disfavors sex except between a consenting man and a consenting woman who are not related.

Society disfavors sex except between two consenting adults who are not related.

Society disfavors sex except between two consenting adults.

Society disfavors sex except between consenting partners who are age 16 or older.

And you think that there is some magic line that can be drawn at 16?

Brit -- Never apologize for not responding. Someone has to not respond at some point.

Jeff/Brit:

Yes, I agree that the mere fact that one wants to legitimize a former taboo doesn't by necessity mean they will think that way on all taboos. It depends on the reason. If, for instance, if you opposed anti-miscegenation laws in the context position that rascism is wrong and contrary to divine law, you won't necessarily slip down any slope. (BTW, Jeff, that is a very weak example you delight in throwing up daily. Such laws are comparatively recent, were not biblically inspired, were a result of pseudo-science and only existed in limited places. They certainly weren't part of any package called traditional morality.)

The problem comes when you fight a taboo by saying that the very concept of taboo is irrational and ignorant and should be replaced by an enlightened, objectivist, rational approach based upon man's inherent goodness and natural ability to make wise choices. Then, when another taboo more to your liking is challenged, you are left with weak, controversial arguments like "consent" or Jeff's feeble efforts to liken paedophilia to consumer contracts with children. C'mon guys, if threats of hellfire and damnation aren't going to work, do you really think those arguments will prevail. No taboos, no protection. Of course many solid liberals will fight it, but they will lose.

Brit, the radicals are all over the place. You will find them over-represented in universities, Labour party working groups and on government commissions into family law. The legal profession is replete with them. Many of them dress expensively and live in nice neighbourhoods. They talk a lot about freedom and human rights, but always come down for sex and death.

Jeff

Precisely.

The most atheistic liberal is in no more danger of being philosophically forced to legalise paedophilia than is the the most god-fearing conservative.

Liberal thinking has outlawed child labour and corporal punishment in schools. There is no reason why it should suddenly fail to protect children when it comes to sex.

If anything, the 'politically correct' brigade get lambasted, at least here in the UK, for being absurdly OVER-protective of children, eg. in the campaigns to ban parents smacking their children.

Brit:

and legalized abortion.

David:

You can call it a magic line if you like. I'll call it the age of consent.

Liberals, just like conservatives, acknowledge the existence of children and adults. Hence child labour laws, obligatory schooling and a voting age.

Conservatives tend to get very hung up on sex.

But be realistic: liberals are in no hurry to allow children to leave school and start working in sweatshops at the age of 10, even if they really really want to, and the nice man promised them lots of pocket money.

Get it? Come on, this isn't rocket science...

rational people realise that gays and paedophiles do NOT belong to the same class when it comes to the law, whatever your slippery slope pyramid says.

no, here's the crux: rational people, liberal or not, realise that it is rapists and paedophiles belong to the same class when it comes to the law.

Brit:

Child labor laws and mandatory scholling weren't pro-child, but pro-labor. It got cheap workers out of the market. It's an example of how we treat the politically powerless when they get in our way.

OJ

say it's not so!
We have child labour laws in the UK too. We forced the poor things to have an expensive, state-funded education to give them an opportunity in life...and we still do it to this day! How could we be so barbaric?

1) I don't believe that to even half-true.
2) Even if it is, so what? Like I said, we prevent adults from forcing children to work. We also prevent them from having sex with children.

What's the problem?

Brit:

No, we prevent children from working because it serves adult interests to do so.

If we want to be able to have sex with them we'll make it legal.

We're already well on our way there with legalization of child porn, gay adoptions, social acceptance for the Michael Jacksons and Pim Fortuyns of the world, etc.

OJ

Sorry, I was under the impression that this was supposed to be an intelligent discussion.

I'm not sure which tree you're barking up now, but it's not mine.

Ygdrasil

:-)

Nidhug?

Quite! It's creeping Nidhugism that we worry about. :)

Brit-

Rational people are fully aware that it is wrong to imprison and execute people because of their race, religion or econpomic "class". Rational people are aware of the fact that the perfect society cannot be constructed no matter how much effort is used to engineer it. Science is a rational project and scientists are devoted to rational inquiry. Psychiatrists are practical, rational scientists and the American Psyciatric Association is one of their representaive organizations. Peter Singer is a materialist and a rationalist.

Your faith in "rational" people, whether liberal or conservative is touching.

hey, I'm not here to defend Peter Singer.

He may call himself a Rationalist but for 'rational' in my posts read moderate, reasonable, sensible, non-extremist, non-loony, non-Singer!

Brit:

The rational are driven by the Rational. Singer is your future.

heh heh, its your future too, you know.

but that's your problem: you worry too much about the future.

you always think ygdrasil is going to nidhug in a handbasket...

Peter:

The last of the miscegenation laws left the books only several years ago. They were even enshrined in some state constitutions. All of them, by the way, in the heart of the Bible Belt. And in the Bible Belt, supporters used precisely the same argument used here.

Further, you highlight the problem with the taboo against homosexuality. If it is a moral choice, then the presence of the corrupted could in turn corrupt others. But if it isn't--my position--then ostracism or encouragement makes no difference. Those who are are, and those who aren't will never be. This is not the same as saying all taboos are irrational and ignorant. But conversely, your position appears to be that none of them are.

There used to be a taboo regarding left handed people. So much so that, until not so awfully long ago, left handed children were subjected to all kinds of efforts to make them right handed. Rational or irrational taboo? Is arguing against that particular one tantamount to saying all are irrational?

Not all taboos are rational. And the opposition to some tabboos as irrational does not mean holding the concept itself as irrational.

I most emphatically did not equate contract law with paedophilia. Rather, your slippery slope argument could apply just as well to forcing the legal system to recognize contracts between adults and children, no matter how much both parties consent. That the latter hasn't happened rather undermines the likelihood of the former.

OJ:
Minimum wage laws make workers of any age cost at least the same amount. So why haven't child labor laws disappeared?

And how is it that any of the things you mentioned will give people the heretofore absent desire to have sex with children?

David:

Society disfavors sex except within marriage.

Society disfavors sex except within marriage or between an unrelated man and woman in a committed relationship.

Society disfavors sex except between a consenting man and a consenting woman who are not related.

Society disfavors sex except between consenting males and females who are age 16 or older.

And you think that there is some magic line that can be drawn at 16?
I took out two steps, and altered the wording on a third. The argument still flows the way you posed it. Does the problem still remain? If so, then homosexual relationships are irrelevant. If not, why not?

Jeff:

You don't know what the word taboo means. It has nothing to do with left-handed people. Jeff, I swear you are on the verge of telling me that, while we might be a little too casual about paedophilia, we have restricted smoking extensively and therefore it is all a wash.

Brit:

"Conservatives tend to get very hung up on sex."

Yup. On killing too. We're really not much fun, are we.

Yes, homosexual relationships are irrelevant to the slippery slope, except that they confirm of the validity of the argument. Whether we agree that the theory is rational, it certainly has had predictive power over the last fifty years.

Brit --

The consent issue is red herring. No one is arguing that the slope we're sliding down ends at legalized rape. Actual lack of consent is a bright line and one I think will hold.

The argument is over constructive lack of consent imposed by law where the minor actually consents. I think that there is, under current law, a strong constitutional argument that a person engaged in a sex act with another who actually consents is not subject to punishment.

Peter -

actually i think proper traditionalist conservatives are great fun...

no seriously, please re-read that quote in its context.

And please don't get the idea that I'm some kind of lefty, lib-dem voting, soft-on-crime anti-war protestor.

I'm not, not by a long shot. I have never expressed what my political views are here and have no interest in any kind of grand conservative vs liberal debate, least of all on this website. God knows the boundaries blur enough anyway.

I just don't like illogical arguments and specious reasoning. I find it ugly. The 'slippery slope' argument is such a blot on the intellectual landscape. It is pure disingenuous nonsense, which is why I'm bashing it.

When I find nonsense arguments used by lefties against conservatives I heartily bash those too. In fact, you won't be surprised if i tell you it's ususally that way round.

Brit:

I have no doubt you are everything you say. You know, I actually think Jeff is a very solid, responsible guy too, and much to be admired. He is just horribly confused and needs firm, daily guidance.

Now, hold on a bit about the slippery slope. David demonstrated very well above that there has been a lot of philosophical slipping over the years. Just because the argument is a little rote and tired doesn't mean there isn't something to it, especially respecting sexual morality. Besides, we are not the worst offenders. If you track Jeff and Harry, you will see they fight off every traditionalist argument on the basis that if it is given any credence at all, we will all slip right back to the Inquisition.

Peter

As I've said...You can coherently use a slippery slope argument against the liberal if the taboo you're using as your 'hell in a handbasket' scenario is something like incest between consenting adults.

But you can't use a slippery-slope-to-paedophilia argument against someone who uses consent to justify gay rights.

It is a category mistake about the liberal's reasons for justification.

That's all there is to it really, everything else is red herring and I'm bored of this one now...!

What's wrong with floggings?