Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Of course not. We protect children because they're inherently vulnerable. Though it is worth asking if we're treating other groups like children when we use the same justification to treat them differently from everyone else.
|
I've made it clear multiple times my issues with your overall point, so I won't repeat them, but this stuck out to me.
It brings the question to mind: If you agree that children must be protected under exceptional circumstances because of their inherent vulnerability, why do you take issue with the exceptional treatment of groups that have been made more vulnerable by historical power structures? You're not wrong that we should all just be treated equally regardless of anything, but how can you be "for" the exceptional treatment of one objectively vulnerable group and against another? How do you measure where your moral cutoff for vulnerability falls? Is there a major difference between how you treat vulnerability caused by the stage of development vs vulnerability caused by societal structure? Both are as concrete and objective as the other.
Im also curious (a little less on topic) about your view on certain laws regarding children, and why those exceptional laws are valid. For instance, does it make sense to deem a person 17 years and 364 days old vulnerable, but not someone 18 years old? To what age of stage of development (12, 15, 18, 21, etc) do you think people lose their "inherent" vulnerability?
I think it's great to say people should be treated as individuals with exceptions granted for the vulnerable, but you have to define what that is, and explain why a 17 year old white male is more vulnerable than an 18 year old female (when, in reality, the opposite is likely true).