If you haven't seen part 1 of this series, you can go here (https://steemit.com/voluntaryism/@johnnyt1991/refuting-and-destroying-age-of-consent-arguments-part-1) and check it out (Highly recommended). This part shouldn't be as long as the last and will also be the final part of the refutation series. Anyway, let's finish off the remaining retardation.
APPEAL TO EMOTION/TELEPATHY ARGUMENT
''They aren't emotionally ready for sex so they can't consent.'' I would love to see someone actually provide some kind of evidence for this extraordinary claim. Yes, it is a VERY extraordinary claim considering there isn't any reliable or scientific method to measure someone's emotional ''readiness'', which means that there is no way to deductively prove something like. The reason why I named this the ''Telepathy'' argument, along with side with the ''Appeal to Emotion'' title, is because someone would literally have to be able to peer into, read, and verify the condition someone's mental processes in order to make such an extraordinary claim with such high confidence.
The only time this argument could possibly be valid is if we were talking about prepubescent children who have no natural biological desire for sex. You could legitimately claim that ''they are not emotionally ready'' since they obviously don't have any desire to be ''ready'' in the first place. If you have read the first part of this series, you will understand that we are not talking about prepubescent children but we are talking about teenagers/adolescents and people in their early twenties. Some people might turn the ''Emotionally Ready'' statement into an argument about emotional impulsivity (acting on emotion rather than reason) or how younger people don't have the ''Emotional Maturity'' to truly consent to sex.
As an absolutist claim, it is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence that those people are simply don't have the emotional capacity to consent to sex or that the lack of certain emotional capabilities renders them incapable of legitimate consent. This is of course, asinine due to the fact that people who are past the point of pre-pubescence, have the capacity to emotionally desire sex. It is also asinine because of the fact that the emotional requirements for sex are simply a desire to engage in it, obviously. Also, making an argument based on the notion that someone can't consent or isn't legitimately consenting because they are acting impulsively or emotionally rather than rationally, is based on a misconception that someone isn't consenting to something just because they are consent or agree to something with little rational thought.
If someone has already learned about sex or anything else and has successfully comprehended information or knowledge about that particular activity in the past, they can still legitimately consent to that same scenario in the future, even if they do so irrationally or impulsively. I've already gone over this in the last part of this series but the logical consequences of this argument lead to absurdity in the form of the removal of freedom for many other people in many other contexts and also makes it where we can't hold people responsible ( like we can with someone who isn't clinically insane) for their actions like murder if they perform that action impulsively and irrationally. Obviously, teenagers and younger people aren't the only ones who make choices irrationally or impulsively; this extends to pretty much all age groups, especially the people who grow up in bad environments. Just so I don't have to address it in the future, NO, you can't say that this argument only applies to those younger people and not the older ones since the older ones are more of a minority and most of the people in the former group possess that characteristic.
This is a special pleading fallacy because applying a rule or standard to one group of people and saying that another group is exempt from that rule just because they are in a minority, is not an adequate justification for exemption and also leads to absurdity logically speaking ( Murder laws or rules apply to non-psychopaths but not to psychopaths because they are in a minority). If you are going to apply the rule that states someone can't consent to sex or anything else because they make choices or are likely to make choices without much rational thought or impulsively, you are going to have to apply it to everyone and to all ages that fit into that criteria in order to be logically consistent, but that position obviously leads to absurdity, especially for Voluntaryists.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY/ PARENTAL ARGUMENTS TRIGGER WARNING
I'm going to try not to go off on a long tirade about how much I truly despise Illogical, overly emotional, and authoritarian parents, especially those who claim to be libertarians or voluntaryists, because that is a fight for another day (AND YOU CAN BE DAMN FUCKING SURE IT WILL HAPPEN). Anyway, the first argument is just a basic appeal to authority or appeal to unqualified authority to be a little more specific and just states that ''Parents decide whether they can or cannot consent because they are the parents''. This is blatantly and obviously fallacious for anyone who isn't an over emotional retard who has been made into a little punk ass bitch by their parents, simply because of the fact that parents or anyone else outside of the would-be consenting individual are not the determining factor in that individual's ability or capacity to consent.
As I have already stated numerous times, the determining factor is an individual's attainment or state of sufficient physical and cognitive development or maturity. People outside of that individual are irrelevant to this, including their parents. Setting yourself up as an authority over this and making such arguments such as ''I am this or that person with this title and I say you can't consent so you can't consent'' is obviously fallacious reasoning and a blatant appeal to authority/ appeal to unqualified authority.
The second parental argument is pretty much just an extension of the last one but this one is based on a different logical fallacy. This is the argument that usually goes along the lines of '' You are not financially independent and are dependent on me for such things so you can't consent to sex''. There actually isn't a whole lot to into here, especially since it should be clear how absurd this is to anyone who has read up until this point. This argument is just a non-sequitur because of the fact that the nature of consent and whether or not someone actually has the ability to consent, HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SOMEONE'S FINANCIAL SITUATION OR LIVING CONDITION. There is a logical disconnection between the two things and as an argument, the conclusion (the person can't consent to sex) doesn't follow from the premises ( the person isn't financially independent and is dependent on their parents for such matters). There is not much more to go over with this, it's just a horrible yet common argument.
The third and final one is also another extension, of the first and second argument, and is also one that seems to be commonly used by fraudulent and piece of shit libertarians and voluntaryists. '' My house My rules''. First,a lot of the people who say this usually don't even mean it and you will find that out when you take that line of logic and show them the consequences of it, which is basically having their son or daughter as a slave and having the right to make them do anything they want (or stopping them from doing anything they want). They also show they don't even follow that logic when they say they can dictate what their son or daughter does outside of their house, which is obviously more than just '' My House My Rules'' it is a soft form of slavery. By the way, the person they do this sickening nonsense to doesn't consent to it, it is obviously forced on them from birth (kind of like what the government does with it's nonsense rules) the vast majority of the time.
If those people actually did follow the ''My house My rules'' principle, they would only set rules that have to do with their children not performing certain actions inside their house that pertain to the safety and well-being of their property, which is justifiable. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not their children can consent to sex or anything else outside of their house or not. Logically speaking, this is another non-sequitur since the rules parents set for activity within their own household has nothing to do with consent outside of their house in any way. The former argument I went over is just a pathetic appeal to authority fallacy and says a lot about the character of the person making it. The only time where parents could legitimately and logically tell their children they can't consent to sex is if it pertains to that activity in their own house or if their child has not reached sufficient cognitive and physical maturity, anything else will result in some type of logical fallacy and a violation of Voluntaryist principles.
On a side note, you are only truly responsible for your children and their actions if they can't make choices and perform actions with sufficient cognitive and physical development backing them up. If they can make decisions while truly understanding what they are doing mentally and with physical competence, you are not responsible for that, despite what the government's ''laws'' say. No, asserting or using someone else's baseless or ad baculum-based assertion that you are responsible doesn't result in a valid and sound argument and it doesn't mean other individuals can't consent. That wasn't worth writing a separate section for.
PROTECT THE CHILDREN/KIDS ARGUMENT
This is probably the most common argument brought up when it comes to this subject, but it is usually presented in a very poor and fallacious manner that amounts to an appeal to emotion fallacy. Before I go on from here, I should state that this is more about banning people from taking actions than it is about claiming that they can't consent, but if someone does claim that, it is a red herring and completely irrelevant to consent and off topic. Digressing now, I actually haven't seen anyone present a coherent and complete argument for this and the farthest I've seen someone get is saying ''Kids or children are vulnerable and need protection''. Going by this logic at face value, I could say everyone needs to be protected since everyone is technically vulnerable to some degree. I'll be very generous and take it to mean something a lot more narrow and specific though, such as being more vulnerable than the average adult.
Before I get into that, I want to go over one of the main issues present here, which is most people's idea of ''protecting'' people in this context. The part they like to leave out is the fact that the freedom of two groups of people has to be taken away in order for their idea of ''protection'' to work. Those two people would be teenagers/non-adults who are post-pubescent and older people who may want to be in relationships with them. They have an incessant urge to protect the younger ones from the possible (usually assumed to be inevitable, which is an appeal to possibility/probability fallacy) coercive and harmful action of the older party.
If you are going to deploy the already refuted argument that states that the younger party needs protection because of the power differential and the power dynamics between them and the older party, then you are also going to have to apply that logic to parent-child relationships and at the very least ''protect'' unneeded and would-be children and young people in that context as well, which means banning people from having children who don't need to reproduce in order to sustain the species.
From this point, the only possible arguments someone could have for ''protecting'' the younger people are ones that have to do with them possessing or not possessing certain traits or qualities, such as inexperience, naivety, easily influenced/manipulated, or proneness to making bad choices due to effects from an underdeveloped brain or hormones from puberty (those same effects can be present in older people even though they come from different sources). However, if you think critically about it and have a rudimentary understanding and awareness of the condition of most of humanity and society you live in, you will know that those traits or the lack thereof can be found in any age group and the aforesaid logic and ''protection'' must also be applied to the people.
No, they are not exempt from it just because they have the label or noun ''Adult'' attached to them. I've already been over that in part 1 and it's not a valid argument. A lack or possession of a certain title, label, or noun is irrelevant when judging whether or not someone can consent or when it comes to not allowing someone to engage in certain actions or activities. Going back to what I said before, those aforementioned traits can be found in all age groups and contexts.
One example is a 30-year-old woman who comes from a very abusive home environment, has struggled with depression and other mental issues all her life, has a low IQ, makes choices based on impulse and emotion rather than reason due to the aforementioned mental issues and from being naturally emotionally driven as well, has very little social skills or knowledge, has very little to no money, and has low self-esteem and can be easily manipulated, but may want to get into a relationship with a man who is the extreme opposite of all of that. Well, according to the original line of logic above, this type of person should be ''protected''. Yes, I know that there are probably very few people in such a horrible condition that have all of those issues, but if anyone possessed even one or two of them, you could argue, based on the argument being refuted, that someone like that needs ''protection'' from people who are in a stronger and more powerful position. Like I said people of all ages can possess or not possess certain traits that leave them more vulnerable than the average adult.
In summary, you could be logically consistent and everyone who is more vulnerable to harm than the average adult should be ''protected'' and have their freedom of association taken away, but that is an absurd position to hold, especially for Voluntaryists.
APPEAL TO SOCIAL/CULTURAL NORMS
This is a pretty obvious logical fallacy right off the bat for the logically initiated, which is the appeal to normality/ the majority, or an ad populum fallacy. The main thing I want to go over is the fact that social or cultural norms are just the opinions or preferences of the majority of the people in a certain area, which are obviously completely irrelevant when it comes to actual consent or someone's ability or inability to do so. It's pathetic that people still use arguments like this when they are so blatantly fallacious, but a lot of the time these types fallacies is hidden behind language and words like ''Society'' or ''Culture''.
When people say things like '' Society says this is wrong and this is okay'' they try to obfuscate physical reality with the word society and attempt to hide the fact that ''Society'' is the majority of people in a certain geographic area, so they don't expose the obvious fallacy. The same thing happens with the term ''Culture'' as well, but if someone tries to say that they are talking about something else (inevitably an inanimate object or abstraction) after they say something like ''Society or culture agrees or says' it is pretty much guaranteed to be a reification fallacy, which is when someone tries to apply a concrete or human-like characteristic to an abstraction or inanimate object.
Again, what most people in a certain area ( ''society or culture'') think or say about someone's ability to consent to sex doesn't have anything to do with whether that person can or cannot legitimately consent in objective reality; It's a basic logical fallacy.
''KIDS" THO
This is going to be the last one and it is kind of a joke post just to take up more space. This is the ''argument'' over emotional people use when they are confronted with this issue. They just say something along the lines of ''They are just kids'' or ''He/she wants to fuck kids''. Obviously, these aren't actually valid arguments, they are just the appeal to labels/nouns fallacy I went over in the first part of this series, and an appeal to emotion fallacy (ad hominem too probably). Putting the label ''kid'' (another word for child) on someone doesn't magically make them unable to consent to sex or anything else and it doesn't make it wrong on any level (aside from your emotions telling you that it is). It's just emotional nonsense that only works on retards. You obviously have to address the person's actual cognitive and physical capabilities and provide evidence that those things aren't up to par if you want to make an actual argument against them being able to consent.