Youth Rights: Yemen and Child Brides

[Asher]

You refuse to admit that since the substantive consequences of implementing a law in one country and implementing it in another are different, the correct course of action may be different two.

Whether a child has the mental capacity to make such a decision is not dependent on the country of origin.

If child marriages were legalized in Yemen and the USA, I'm certain there would be higher child marriage rates in Yemen due to cultural differences. But since the question is, should any child marriages be allowed...it's not a relevant point of discussion. The question is about whether children should be allowed to marry, not how many children will be married in different countries.

Asher, you aren't actually this stupid. Give it up.

Sorry, Kuci -- this statement actually applies to you here. I'm very certain you will find yourself in the minority.

[Kuciwalker]

Whether a child has the mental capacity to make such a decision is not dependent on the country of origin.

In any given specific case, yes. But the population of children that would actually get married at that age is certainly dependent on the country of origin. And relevant characteristics of those populations (such as maturity, or the likelihood of coercive/malign parental influence) may be different.

This should be obvious to you.

If child marriages were legalized in Yemen and the USA, I'm certain there would be higher child marriage rates in Yemen due to cultural differences. But since the question is, should any child marriages be allowed...it's not a relevant point of discussion. The question is about whether children should be allowed to marry, not how many children will be married in different countries.

More precisely, the question is whether children should marry. A child's freedom to marry does no harm if it is not exercised, and may not do harm even if it is.

[Asher]

In any given specific case, yes. But the population of children that would actually get married at that age is

...irrelevant.

More precisely, the question is whether children should marry. A child's freedom to marry does no harm if it is not exercised, and may not do harm even if it is.

This wins the title of most vacuous post of the day.

[Kuciwalker]

...irrelevant.

No.

[Asher]

So you think laws which govern fundamental rights should only be enacted when some random guy decides it'll affect a significant portion of the population?

This is a very interesting philosophical discussion that I'm sure you'd love to have with somebody who cares in another thread.

[Kuciwalker]

The structure of your argument only holds if a child marrying is bad in every case. Since it relies on a universal generalization about people, it is probably false. If you amend it to remove the requirement for a universal generalization, you must address the population argument, possibly quantitatively.

Your original thesis - that child marriage should not be legal in Yemen nor the United States - may well be correct, but is not supported by your logic.

So you think laws which govern fundamental rights should only be enacted when some random guy decides it'll affect a significant portion of the population?

No. This is a misrepresentation of my argument on multiple levels. First, the relevant question is how it affects that portion of the population. Second, and more important, I'm only describing a framework in which to evaluate policies, not a mechanism for performing that evaluation.

[SlowwHand]

I think it's likely better that a person masters tying of shoes before getting married.
Moves on from eating Flintstones vitamins. Stuff like that.

[Riesstiu IV]

I still eat Flintstones vitamins.

[SlowwHand]

Then you don't need to be married.

[MrFun]

Riess already is married, though.

[Asher]

The structure of your argument only holds if a child marrying is bad in every case.

Murder is not necessarily bad in every case (see the death penalty). Theft is not necessarily bad in every case (stealing someone's gun who is trying to shoot you). You generalize the rule then legislate exceptions as needed.

I'm very curious that you're even attempting to defend any plausible case of a 9 year old getting married. Are you this desperate for debate?

No. This is a misrepresentation of my argument on multiple levels. First, the relevant question is how it affects that portion of the population. Second, and more important, I'm only describing a framework in which to evaluate policies, not a mechanism for performing that evaluation.

You are wasting my time with pointless pedantry and I do not appreciate it. Sometimes you try too hard to be an intellectual instead of debating the plain facts of a situation.

[SlowwHand]

Riess already is married, though.

And that matters...how? How does that change my observation in any way?
Answer: It doesn't.

[MrFun]

Never thought my statement would change your observation.

[SlowwHand]

Whether he should be married or not isn't affected by your observation. It makes my comment, unfortunately, less timely, but that's about it.

[Asher]

To Kuci

Look. This is not some formal philosophy-class debate. Put away your beret and thesaurus.

Science has shown us the children have brains which are not fully developed. Their decision-making ability is inhibited. This is a scientific fact.

It is for this reason, among many other obvious ones, that children should not be married. A marriage is supposed to be a long-term (lifelong) commitment which requires careful thought to enter. A person needs to have enough life experience, in addition to having a fully developed brain, to make a reasonable decision here.

I am not at all interested in intellectual masturbation where we speculate on the overarching effects on such a law. It's a waste of everyone's time. I know you don't think children should be married, so I'm not even sure why you are bothering with this inanity.