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.