Legally sanctioned age discrimination

ANYTHING legal must be viewed with suspect.

 

Wrong. You are in denial. Abolishing the age of sexual consent will be picked up by the left as another "human rights" victim cause. Using the same argument you use today to push for gay-friendly changes to existing laws. You will claim that people are being prevented from being with who they love and that everyone else is a bigot for denying them such happiness. As usual, you people aren't looking far enough up the road. One of the biggest flaws with leftism is its perpetuatal near-sightedness. You never look beyond today. I encourage you to pause and take a step back, step outside of your ideology for a moment and observe it objectively from a distance and see if you don't notice a pattern. You people have never retired a single cause you've ever begun. No matter how much you accomplish, you always look for more reasons to keep pushing it and adding newer, ever more extreme ideas under the umbrella. Within the next century, the left will be the pro-pedophile party.

Again, just wait.

 

Children and teenagers shouldn't have alcohol because of its affect on brain development, it's for their own good.
Age "descrimination" is not something intended to harm.

Hypothetically it would be better if we could classify everyone according to actual physical/mental development, but th logistics of that probably mean it won't be possible for a long time. Age works as a decent stand-in.

 

You know, when you assert to be able to speak for the entirety of a political spectrum that you have shown yourself to be violently opposed to in virtually every regards, you don't make a very believable case.

And this case is not made more believable by missing the fundamental difference between homosexuality and age-of-consent laws: consent.

You want to believe this, because it makes you feel correct in your position. It does not make your bizarre beliefs any more real.

 

I suspect your depth perception is better than you think. Note that you would NOT pass a DOT physical to drive a truck, however. (Must be 20/40 or better in both eyes.)

I recall you CAN register at 17, but do not have to until 18.

 

You can choose to take it or leave it. That's up to you. But it's called foresight. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Everything I've said here can be objectively observed by anybody else who is honest enough to look at the track record of the left.

But this is what you don't get. You're still stuck in modern day cultural attitudes. Your attitude today will be seen as a prejudiced and outmoded sign of the times by future leftists who will make the argument, "How can we paint all children with the same broad brush? People mature at different rates. So age of consent laws punish those who are mature enough to consent as well as the people who love them."

Sweetheart, I thoroughly hope I'm wrong about this. But it's so predictable that I would actually put money on it. If you look at the outer fringe of the left today, you can already see where these attitudes are beginning. Give it time. And you'll see it gain momentum.

 

I've heard many people say that he (and The Who, for that matter) should have retired long ago. I also recall much of the criticism directed at Madonna is because she still tries to dress & act like she's 20.

 

Sadly, Unifier is probably right here. Progressives are never satisfied - they always have to keep pushing for the next thing. Otherwise how would we "progress"? So they can never leave anything alone. I can easily see the "right to consent" as being the new cause after all the gay crap has been achieved. Don't think that we've forgotten about how NAMBLA used to march in the gay parades before it was decided that they were dragging down the rest of the decadence agenda. Now they're just laying low, waiting for the way to be paved. And the promoters of the gay agenda are building a superhighway.

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*). NAMBLA aint liberal, they are narcissistic libertarians. Liberals are about protecting people from exploitation and abuse. Allowing libertarians to diddle 12 year olds does not advance public safety. Allowing kiddy diddlers to have at it encourages the use of force or intimidation to secure consent. We also recognize that the chance of injury to a child in sex acts is unacceptable.

You people need to grow up and stop thinking that liberals are everything you think is bad.

 

Then I'll leave it. You have no understanding of the fundamental difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, you have no understanding of liberal political positions, and it is in your best interest to pretend that liberals hold (or, better yet, will hold) a position which is abhorrent, even if you are talking completely out of your ass. Which you are. There is no comparison between past behavior of liberals and the end of consent laws in sexuality.

 

I understand the difference just fine. The fact that you are trying to use the straw man that I'm equating the two shows that you do not understand what I'm talking about. I'm talking about cultural attitudes and changes therein. Studying past behavior and using it to predict likely future behavior. What you are doing here is projecting. You want to write my point off as empty partisanship when, in truth, it is actually in your own best interest to ignore what I am saying in order to preserve the sanctity of your belief system. You don't want to entertain the idea of possibly being aligned with something foul in the future. And understandably so. But instead of considering it from a logical angle, you are simply shutting it out, sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying, "la la la la la!!!!" because it's unpleasant to hear.

If that's the way you want to address it, that's fine. But don't act surprised when this stuff starts creeping its way into the mainstream. You knew it was coming.

 

You've provided no evidence that this is the case, and your "studying" hasn't included much actual evidence. And of course, what you've said ("
Using the same argument you use today to push for gay-friendly changes to existing laws") makes me pretty much certain that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, because "the same argument" does not work for age of consent laws.

 

Oh, they're not liberals, they're libertarians? Sure. I would say nice try, Lefty, but this attempt at misdirection doesn't qualify. Even if they are libertarians (which I won't even bother challenging at this point because it's irrelevant) doesn't mean that they aren't liberals. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, libertarians are mostly socially liberal (relevant here) and economically conservative (irrelevant to the discussion). So all your red herring really says is that NAMBLA members aren't statist liberals. It comes as little surprise that someone who IS a statist liberal would try to demonize liberty while attempting to exonerate liberalism.

 

Right. Narcissists who want the government to keep its hands off their money and to stop interfering with their pursuit of their own pleasure. They overlook the more essential element of liberalism in that they will throw the rest of himanity under the bus to get what they want, whereas liberalism is more about ecconomic cooperation and respect for the indivudality of others. Kiddy-fiddling does not reflect respect for another person's identity.

It seems that the only people demonizing liberty are those who try to lump liberals with kiddy-fiddlers

 

And, for some odd reason, you have failed to observe any of it objectively.

It was liberals who got child labor laws enacted so that children would be able to get an education, at public expense (another liberal idea) rather than to leave them at the mercy of the oligarchs who wanted them kept hungry, dumb and compliant. How would leaving them at the mercy of vile, disgusting, sexually incompetent and domineering freaks by any different from turning them over to the capitalists?





[QOUTE]But this is what you don't get. You're still stuck in modern day cultural attitudes. Your attitude today will be seen as a prejudiced and outmoded sign of the times by future leftists who will make the argument, "How can we paint all children with the same broad brush? People mature at different rates.[/QUOTE]

That's the same argument I have seen some people make for abolishing child labor laws. Just another excuse to work the poor to death and keep them ignorant. You want to take us backward to less civilized and enlightened times.