People are too harsh on paedophiles

Do you agree that paedophiles cannot help that they are sexually attracted to children, i.e. they cannot just decide not to be attracted to children?

Do you agree that someone sexually attracted to children could live his entire not acting on that attraction and, therefore, not committing any criminal (/civil) offence?

In that case, in what sense is it justified to be "harsh" to someone who cannot help his attraction and doesn't act on it, harming no-one?

Paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation like heterosexuality or homosexuality, where people can engage in sexual activities without harming anyone. Essentially if you are attracted to children it isn't possible to engage is such activities without harming someone (a child).

Yes they can refrain from such

...okay but why though? what happens, specifically, at 16, biologically, for girls that causes them to suddenly have the "mental capacity" to consent to sex? I mean, the biological processes that are about sex and sexual development begin as early as 13 generally (usually earlier but I'm being conservative here so at not to say that all 12 year old girls can consent). so why 16? most girls, for instance, get their final breast size, and height, earlier than 16, and the *vast* (can't stress that word enough) majority of girls around 13 have started their periods, so why 16 of all ages?

Because they're cognitive development does not perfectly align with their biological development. They may have breasts which make them look like women, but cognitively, emotionally, simply psychologically, they aren't women. Our brain is still developing into our early 20s. There are so many reasons as to why a 14 year old hasn't the decision making capacity that a 20 year old does.

Some girls start their period at 10, do you think that because they started their period, that they are psychologically more mature than their peers who've yet to? It doesn't work like that.

If we're going by cognitive maturity, the age of consent should be something like 25.

They should all be killed or tortured to death human rights be damned

most people cognitively mature, or at least do the vast majority of their maturing, before they're 25 though. like, something like a full decade before that...

I'd argue most adults aren't able to fully comprehend all the consequences of their actions.

It's a compromise to say 18 or 16, where the line is drawn is fairly arbitrary, and based on public opinion. But that doesn't negate the need for the line to be drawn.
So why is the current age of consent not satisfactory? And where do you think it should be drawn?

who cares? how is that a thershold for responsibility? surely it's not the necessary reality of each and every situation but rather the principle that an individual has the *means* to be responsible?



so if it's based on nothing but public opinion, as opposed to science or even logical philosophy, why is that even an argument from you? public opinion if it's not based on anything has absolutely no technical merit. if an argument in a debate was "because most people agree with me" then if we were talking about the shape of the earth in 1400 then that might win a debate of proving that the earth is flat.

and I think everything from the government should be as good as it can possibly be, in the sense that each tax payer shouldn't be subject to unjust laws just because somebody can't be bothered to change them. and it should be based on science. and science says that most girls and boys are in puberty by the age of about 13.

Couldn't it make them more sexually frustrated tho?

You seem to think I'm attacking your opinion or 'debating' with you. You're mistaken, I'm just having a friendly discussion, pointing certain things out.
Why do you think that I'd care, whether or not if anyone else cares? What's the point in telling me, 'who cares?'?

I'd say being responsible is having a good awareness of consequence, among other things. If some adults, with fully, biologically developed minds have a poor awareness of consequence, how is a child going to have equal capabilities?

I said it's a compromise, the 'scientific merit' is the age of cognitive maturity.
Public opinion -meaning that the public will not agree with an age of consent that high. Public opinion is important to those responsible for the public.

The start of puberty doesn't really have much relevance on the *means* to consent.

you're venturing pretty far to justify yourself here with that one...if it's still developing iinto our 20s, why isn't the age of consent in our 20s?



I mean, it's technically possible if you want to go that far :|

...okay then...?



why are you setting the bar so high for sexual intercourse? because of pregnancy? the risk of pregnancy doesn't actually affect an individual's ability to consent to sex, though. it could be the case that an individual has the consent for sex but doesn't appreciate the risks of pregnancy. that doesn't make that consent invalid though. if they feel that they desire sex with a particular individual, that's all that matters. what you'd be considering wouldn't be a correct age of consent but a prohibition on consensual sex for those that don't know enough about sex, which obviously could be remedied by early ("earlier) sex education in schools like in nordic countries with lower ages of teen pregnancies



again, this doesn't change anything here - truth is a matter of reason, not government or democracy. if one person has the truth, it doesn't matter how many people don't have the truth, for the sake of this discussion.



yes it does - what do you mean? I'm not merely talking about the body, I'm talking as well about the mind. puberty and the hormones involved affect both.

Reason is subjective, no one can be truly objective. What if the truth is that there is no definitive year to make a 'threshold'?

Puberty is a progression.

So although the body might have matured by then, it would still be nearer the start of cognitive maturity.