Amos Yee is what happens when you argue about laws without doing the legal reseach.

So I've broken down Amos Yee's advocacy of child molestation, but there was another point I touched on where he clearly had no grasp of the legal concept of consent and the foundation that the concept is based upon.

He goes on and one about "consent", well here's the thing with consent. Consent can be invalid. If the consent is given under duress, then the consent can be invalid. If the consent is not "informed" then it can be invalid. If the person giving the consent does not have capacity to consent, then the consent is invalid. You threaten someone to obtain consent? Invalid. You withhold critical, need to know information from someone to obtain their consent? Invalid. You get someone drunk and have them sign a contract? Invalid.You exert an undue influence on another to obtain consent? Invalid.

Which brings us to the main point that goes completely over Amos's head. The main thing that his argument completely fails to address. Capacity. He goes on to argue that children are able to give consent. He gives examples and says if a child gives consent to a sexual act, then it is ok. Well there are several reasons why he is wrong.

• Children lack capacity. Children lack the capacity to give consent to sexual activity. So even if consent was obtained from the child, the consent is invalid anyway. This is the biggest hole in his argument that he either ignored, or is simply ignorant of the concept. If it is indeed a case of ignorance, then this is one of the most glaring examples of what happens when a layperson tries to make an argument related to law. The miss key legal concepts like this and their argument completely disintegrates.  
• The pedophile may have exerted undue influence on the child to obtain consent. Ok let say that children do have capacity to give consent. The next sword that Amos's argument falls upon is the concept of undue influence. You know how we tell kids not to take candy from strangers? Well we tell them that because it isn't hard to influence a child to do something. So if a peodophile induces a child to consent to sexual acts with promises of candy or pizza, even without and acts of or threats of violence, that would be an undue influence exerted on the child and therefore the consent would be invalid. 
• Related to the above, is the lack of informed consent. Most if not all children do not understand what sexual activity is. The result of that is that because of that lack of understanding, a child cannot give informed consent, and therefore the consent would be invalid. 
• Then of course there's duress. There are multiple instances seen on The Steve Wilkos Show involving child predators, where the predator hasn't made an overt acts of violence (other than the actual act of molestation) but has obtained "consent" from the child in the form of verbal threats. Consent in this case? Yup, invalid.

Amos insists that his advocacy is non-violent. That is irrelevant and a non-factor because violence isn't the crux of the issue here, in-fact, consent isn't even the real issue here. The actual issue here is the ability to consent. 

Again Amos might just be trolling, but the fact of the matter is, he might not mean it, but someone out there might his argument and take it seriously. So even if this was entirely a massive troll by a 19 year old kid with a big mouth, writing this isn't an entire waste of time. He presents himself has having built a logical argument to advocate his points, while the structure of his argument is solid where he fails and fails hard is his complete lack of understanding of the legal terms and concepts. Knowing these terms and concepts is key because he's essentially arguing a change in the laws. He presents this advocacy with a complete lack of understanding of why the current laws are the way they are.

You might ask me, does it matter that Amos doesn't understand these concepts? Yes it does. It would be analogous to going into the design room of Boeing or Northrop-Grumman and telling the engineers that a particular modification should be made to a design, while having no knowledge of aeronautical engineering.


Now to start wrapping things up.

"America, land of the free?! Suck my oblong dick!"

Look sugar cookie, no one made you come here, and no one is making you stay here. This isn't some communist country, you're free to leave when ever you want if you don't like it here. There might be some other country in Europe that would be happy to host a child molestation advocate such as yourself. Don't expect to come to a country exposing views that run contrary to the prevailing social values and not expect backlash. Apparently you learned nothing from your troubles in your home country.

The reason you got support for your anti-government views was because you weren't harming anyone with your views, and yet the government cracked down on you anyway. The reason people don't have your back on decriminalizing child molestation because what you advocate harms children. Sure you provide a few isolated anecdotes and examples from non-western cultures, but you hardly prove that your examples are the norm.

The reason why I won't support Amos Yee on this is because the stance he advocates will cause harm to people. Even if he's just trolling, trolling is a fun and good when it stays on the internet, but what he's arguing for has real world implications.

Amos Pang Sang Yee is a Sick Bastard (A response to "Why Pedophilia is Alright")

Holy crap where do I even start with this one...

To get to the point, basically, Amos Yee thinks it's ok to have sex with kids.That's not hyperbole, that's not just me flinging poo like a monkey, he literally believes this.

Amos builds his... "argument"... on the concept of "consent", but the problem is he never really defines or quantifies "consent". He argues that it isn't rape if the child "consents" to the sexual act. Because he wants the laws to change, and given my background we will use the legal definition of consent.

1) n. a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations. 

Now in law, consent is based upon the concept of capacity. One who lacks capacity (like the mentally ill or disabled) is unable to give consent. The insane or mentally disabled cannot give consent, as they lack the capacity to understand the situation. Minors also do not have capacity. Capacity is essentially the foundation of consent. But before we move on, here is the legal definition of capacity.

Capacity is subject to different meanings, but in the legal sense,it refers to the ability to make a rational decision based upon all relevant facts and considerations. 

In other words, you can only give consent if you know what you are doing. If you do not know what you are doing (lack capacity) then under the law you have not given consent. And there is a reason why children lack capacity. So swinging back around to Amos's main point, children lack capacity therefore cannot give consent, therefore the sexual act with them is rape/sexual assault.

Children, depending on age, do not understand what they are doing, that is why they do not have capacity. Yes 18 is arbitrary, why not 17? Why not 16? From a practical standpoint the bar has to be set somewhere for age of majority. More on that later. The concept of "undue influence" comes into play here. In regular-speak, undue influence is basically manipulation, but, here's the legal explanation.

The use of undue influence by one party over another puts the free will of one of the parties entering the contract into question, and therefore leads to the contract being unenforceable and voidable by the victim party. To prove undue influence, a party must show that one party to the contract is a person with weaknesses which make him likely to be affected by such persuasion, and that the party exercising the persuasion is someone in a special relationship with the victim that makes the victim especially susceptible to such persuasion. 

In other words, children lack the cognitive development and the real world experience, essentially making them a person with weaknesses which makes them likely to be affected by "such persuasion". So with these points we just shot down the claim that Amos makes that children can give consent. Where things get really nasty is that Amos presents the premise that children can benefit from a sexual relation with adults. That in and of itself runs contrary to what contemporary medicine has to say about it.

Amos's arguments pretty much fall on their faces right there. He's delving into the realm of law, without learning the legal definitions (and reasoning behind) of the terms he's using and as a result his arguments fail. However the creeperfest doesn't just stop here, it continues on. Earlier I touched on the age of 18 being somewhat arbitrary. But Amos isn't talking about teenagers, he's not talking about a 16 or a 17 year old. He's taking about sexual activities involving 10 year olds and younger. Where things get really monstrous is when Amos argues that it should be ok to create and to possess child pornography.

And that's just the mental/emotional aspect of it. There is the whole physical aspect, I feel weird citing The Steve Wilkos Show here, but he does a lot of episodes going after child molesters. More often than not, the party making the accusation has a child that has suffered injury from the abuse. Injuries like tearing and lacerations in the affected body parts. 

So like I mentioned earlier, Amos advocates for the decriminalization of creations and possession of child porn. He isn't talking about teenagers, who don't know any better, sexting each other. He's talking about full blown child pornography. Again he builds his advocacy of this on his flawed understanding of consent. If children cannot give consent, then they cannot consent to making a pornographic video. Amos may try to argue that peripheral crimes like kidnapping and human trafficking might be reduced if creation and possession of child porn was decriminalized, comparing it to drugs, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. Even without the laws in place, sexual activity with children is seen as completely reprehensible. Given that, professional studios like Vivid or Hustler aren't going to want to have anything to do with it, leaving creation to be done in shady "garage" studios. That's not even getting into the inevitable undue influence from unscrupulous sickos looking to make a buck off another sicko.

Then there's the whole thing about uploading it to the internet. Ever heard the phrase "the internet is forever"? Going back to what we talked about earlier, about children lacking capacity,is a child really going to understand the implications of uploading suck a video (assuming someone even bother to tell them). It's not uncommon for something sexual that an adult did getting on the internet and coming back to haunt them later. With bullies using the internet as yet another tool for them, this could come back ten fold on a child later on. Especially in a culture like those in East Asia where shame and embarrassment are a major thing.


Now to be fair, maybe this is all just Amos's understanding of the situation based upon his non-existent grasp of the legal definition of consent. Namely that he doesn't understand the concept of capacity that consent is based upon, and therefore doesn't understand that children can't give consent due to lack of capacity. Or if this is a case where Amos didn't reach a conclusion but rather already had a conclusion that he's trying to justify. The latter would mean that Amos believes that pedophiles should be allowed to act upon their urges.

Alternately he might be just trolling/trying to be an "edgelord" and doing this just to piss people off, but the thing is, some sicko out there might see his materials, buy his argument, and think "hey this guy is right, there really is nothing wrong with wanting to sleep with kids!" It's like Chuck McGill's comment to Jimmy about someone as irresponsible as him wielding that much influence being like giving a monkey a machine gun. Some people might compare this to famous YouTube'ers who have rabid followers who'll send death threats to an opposition party, but the difference is, those YouTube'ers generally tell their viewers not to engage in bad act. In contrast Amos actively encourages the bad act. Also, sending death threats and online harassment is a huge gulf of distance from acts of child molestation.

Now I'm not advocating acts of violence against Amos Yee, don't go grabbing a Zippo and a can of gasoline and burning him alive, don't do that. Nor do I want him getting de-platformed or having his videos taken down. If his views are genuine, then I fully support revoking his asylum and deporting him back to his native Singapore (Singapore wants to do bad things to him? Not my problem.). I don't want him hurt, I don't want him silenced, I just don't want him in my country. He can say what he wants back in his native Singapore or what ever other country is ok with hosting a child molestation advocate. The whole point of letting people into our country is to further enrich the country in some form or another. Sex with children run completely contrary to our modern western social values. As a result Amos Pang Sang Yee, does not add anything to our society. He does not enrich our country in some form. Therefore he does not belong here and should be sent back to his native Singapore. If he's just trolling then he's treading some dangerous waters here, this isn't a game, real people could get hurt over this, and it doesn't make Amos any less disgusting. Either way Amos is a disgusting and monstrous individual who has no place living in the United States of America.



P.S.
I also find it funny that Amos says he doesn't want to live in a society where pedophiles are discriminated against. Like "Hey asshole, you came here of your own volition. No one's making you stay here." If Amos doesn't like it here then he's free to somewhere else, or to go back home.

P.S.S.
And it's also pretty twisted that Amos compares pedophiles to the LGBT community. Apples and oranges jackass, apples and oranges.