On a world without zero risk...

[BLueRibbon]

Decriminalizing AMSC should not require zero risk of harm.

https://www.brianribbon.com/short-takes ... -zero-risk

[FairBlueLove]

Great article, Brian.

Risk-taking might seem bad on the surface, but it's actually super important for growth. These days, we're basically coddling kids in 'developed' countries by shielding them from all risks. It's not helping them learn to handle even small problems as adults: resilience is dying out fast. My parents had way more resilience than me; I'm a little better than my kids, but still... It's a sad trend that's gonna make a whole generation of crybaby adults. Meanwhile, kids in developing countries might be growing up tougher and are probably destined to take over the world.

Logic won't easily get around that, but by dealing with these issues logically, and still failing to persuade, at least we can shine a light on what the prohibition of AMSC really is.

Crucially, it is revealing that logic fails to persuade even those who act rationally in any other respect.

[Kierkegaard]

When people say minors can't consent because sex with adults entails too great a risk of harm, I like to ask them if they think minors can consent to playing high-school football. Unlike sex, being a football player is guaranteed to result in lasting physical harm no matter what precautions are taken. It's like smoking cigarettes. There's no safe amount. Less time spent playing football will result in less damage overall, but even a single season of football is harmful to some degree. There is not a single person who played football for 4 years in high-school who came out of it without any brain damage whatsoever.

The intrinsic risk of harm entailed by playing highschool football is greater than the extrinsic, potential risk of harm involved in willingly having sex with someone, but nobody ever questions if minors are capable of consenting to play football, because it's a culturally acceptable pastime which people place positive value on.

[Bookshelf]

Around about 3-4 children die every day in America due to car accidents. At least 500 are injured on a daily basis. Today, 3-4 died and 500 were injured; tomorrow another 3-4 will die and another 500 will be injured. No one is even thinking about banning minors from getting into a car.

That fact alone means there is what people consider acceptable risk. They'd have a difficult time explaining why this particular risk is acceptable and legal (among others; e.g, feeding kids certain foods carries the risk of food poisoning, some of it fatal) while whatever risk they want to apply to sex is not.

Even if they were to argue necessity, it's still legal for children to get into cars in places with good public transport and walk-able cities. There are no laws banning short range or verifiably unnecessary car journeys for kids or anything. The fact is that it's perfectly legal to toss your kid who has zero concept of the risks involved into a car, and drive around on your country's most dangerous road(s) for hours aimlessly, during peak collision hours. It wouldn't be legal for him to get sucked off though because... risk? Or something?

I can't have sex with your son because there's all this risk involved, potential issues, possible trauma. Instead we'll just drive 70mph down the highway, seconds away from death, injury or worse at all times, to go to a McDonalds to feed him near-hazardous foods with a good chance of that meal contributing to a lifelong condition like diabetes or a developing heart condition. Much better.