Thank you for engaging in the discussion without a bunch of false allegations and bullshit. It is appreciated.
You can't really expect anything else other than false dichotomy/trolling from the likes of buckypoo / similar imbeciles
i can see the angle you are running with, to acutely define "consent" etc
i personally see it as something that ties in with the blame game / responsibility / choice / victims / perps
if you look at the Nuremberg type defense ( i was only following orders, or committing a crime while acting under duress/ fear for own life)
this type of defense attempts to take away the freedom of choice/responsibility of actions from an adult for the purpose of defending them against a criminal charge
again with diminished capacity on mental health grounds
other than these types ^^ of situations all adults are considered responsible for their own actions and fully accountable to the law
any contract they "consent to" is their responsibility to read the small print etc, adults are fully accountable for their actions
children are said to be "innocent" under the law and can't be held fully liable for any contract/consent they give etc
although in the case of children this changes with criminal law (even though they are children the adult world still feels the need to attach "blame" to the child)
it is not the child's responsibility to read the small print , therefore a child can't give consent the same way an adult can give consent
i see the point you are making about "force" a pedophile may not require the use of physical force against their victim
still this does not change the fact that a child is not required to fully "comprehend"/ consent like an adult would be
so any consent a child would give could be classified as "null and void" simply because they are a child and are not legally required to understand sexual consent
although a child is required to know the "difference between right and wrong" at the age of 10 , hence a child of 10 can be held fully accountable for their own criminal actions
as i said before i find this contradictory, it would appear the law is saying children are not 100% innocent , they are innocent in certain circumstances but not others
for example a 10 year old would have the mental capacity and understanding to commit premeditated murder
but a 10 year old does not have the mental capacity and understanding to consent to sex
so i would ask, how does the mental capacity of a 10 year old child change depending on weather the child is the victim or the perp of a crime ?
surely it should be the same, children should be "protected from adults" and adult responsibility weather they are victims or perps under the law
