Current Events > Libertarian professor endorses pedophilia sued to get job back

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why do you think theyre libertarians?

That's how he identifies politically

Back in college, I was able to engage a media literacy professor about the ethics of simulated child porn as an outlet to reduce demand for the real thing, for the sake of having a debate about something that most people would not entertain. (I have literally no personal interest in the topic, but I am eternally frustrated at how childishly single-minded people are towards this subject and other similarly uncomfortable ones, not even looking at the current system for failings.)

The article I found unfortunately does not include more than the preface of his argument, in which he says that he will argue why one cannot say it is always wrong for an adult and a 12-year-old girl to have sex to which the girl consents, and examine the morality around this judgment. I personally think this is a pretty extreme example, but I don't get to see his actual argument; it could be something like "This person hypothetically has an unusually developed brain and makes judgments as if she is 25 years old," (leading into "okay, if you don't accept this, at what age do you and why then?" or something like that), or "In this theoretical scenario, her development is not negatively affected, she enjoys the experience, and she goes on to live a happy life. Can we say this was still morally wrong?" or something really out there, for the sake of asking questions about the nature of morality.

If all this man is doing is making controversial arguments about morality as a philosophy professor, and he's facing punitive action for that, something is wrong. But I don't get to see his argument and if it was something really weird.

These are the things Kershnar said:

Imagine that an adult male wants to have sex with a 12-year-old girl. Imagine that shes a willing participant,
A very standard, very widely held view is that theres something deeply wrong about this and its wrong independent of it being criminalized,
Its not obvious to me that its in fact wrong. I think this is a mistake. And I think exploring that why its a mistake will tell us not only things about adult/sex and statutory rape and also fundamental principles of morality,

You want bizarre analogies? He's got 'em:

They might think that children cant be willing things in general. Its an odd view in that they seem to will things all the time. They will participation in kickball. They will showing up and participating in bar mitzvah lessons, bat mitzvah lessons,
You might think that, well, maybe theres something distinct about sex that they cant really understand it. Its not clear to me that what theyre not getting at is consent,
I suspect that what they want to say is that theyre willing participants, theyre voluntary participants. They have some understanding of what is going on. Not the understanding we do, but some understanding. But they havent consented. Perhaps thats so, but thats a different claim from them being unwilling,
Theres a lot of activities that children engage in that they dont understand all that well. For example, when you first show up to participate in a judo tournament or when you prepare for your bar mitzvah. You have a rough idea, but its not clear how much you fully understand it,

And just in case you wanted to hear any more of his opinions:

it is morally permissible and should be legally permissible for state and private professional schools to discriminate against women.
More specifically, I argue that such schools may discount womens [sic] applications to the degree that they are likely to produce less than male counterparts.

Tl;dr he is an apologist for paedophilia.

I kinds get was hes trying to do but he seems like a genuine idiot otherwise and this really isn't the time or era to even begin to be making these types of arguments. Itd go over better if he was talking about a 15 or 16 year old who is probably already sexually active by then.

Why are libertarians so enamored with age of consent laws?

It's weird.

A misogynist pedophile. What a mix.

That's not the case he's making though. He isn't trying to argue that the aoc should be lowered a bit, or that if a teen is sexually active, they can give consent.

He is outright saying that if a child of any age has some understanding of what sex involves, and is willing, then there is nothing morally wrong with having sex with them. This is a matter of principle to him.

Unfortunately makes sense, in a terrible way.

If someone is fine with having sex with a minor, they're probably fine with marrying and knocking up one as well. A 12 year old that's been groomed is probably easier to control than an adult woman who has a better idea of what a creep looks like. Part of the reason they want this shit to be legal is because women want nothing to do with them, where as a preteen may not know better.

In the end, it's a sociopathic mentality that requires one to view women as things instead of people.

He is outright saying that if a child of any age has some understanding of what sex involves, and is willing, then there is nothing morally wrong with having sex with them.

That's redundant, you could have just called him a libertarian.

lol I get the idea of a philosophy professor playing devils advocate, but 12 year olds having sex with adults is the way you choose to do it? Come on now dog.