pedophiles going public

No, that is why he can't drive a car.

 

Those laws are based upon established scientific FACTS that minor children lack the mental capacity to understand and therefore are incapable of giving informed consent.

You have not provided anything at all that refutes any of those FACTS nor have you provided any legal argument refuting those laws.

The ONLY thing that you have provided are your own personal perverted "beliefs" based upon your nefarious agenda to cause harm to minor children without having to face the consequences.

 

Your perverted "beliefs" are not popular and neither are they the "truth".

 

YOU want to change the laws regarding consent and yet you don't even understand the term.

 

Read the thread.

 

I think he is also trying to ease his own conscience, he is desperate to get someone to agree that a child can consent, that a child might like it. I did not do any harm and the child liked it, pitiful excuse but all he has got!

 

That makes no sense whatsoever!

 

A child cannot drive car legally because it does not understand the full ramifications.
A child cannot have sex because it does not understand the full ramifications.
No difference in the eyes of the law.

 

Yup!

His posts do reek of desperation because no one is buying his BS attempts to blame the victim.

 

legal dictionary is all about adult thing like contracts and agreements, it doesn't have to regulate personal feelings or give instructions how people have to express their affection. I'm arguing for repealing legal age of consent, so how can I claim that child can give consent on sex in current legal boundaries? He can give consent on a hug because it's not legally regulated.

 

As I said I'm against coercion and force.

 

Hug. I already answered buy you will not respond.

 

Completely wrong equivalence.

 

Coercion - compulsion, constraint, duress, forcing, enforcement, violence, force, assault, violation. Google dictionary is wrong?

I explained multiple times that there is no difference in this sense between sex and hug. Child can consent, that is "express willingness" on both. And if you can't why you're not imprisoned people for life for hugging their kids?

 

That is why have not to repeat "fallacies" but have to argue them, proving them wrong, that is what discussion is all about.

 

Their not aside from this boundaries, they ARE this boundaries.

 

Why you're not imprisoning people for life for hugging their kids then?

I don't have to provide evidences for what I was never claimed.

 

It's not a definition, it's a list of synonyms, and examples of use.

 

There is no problem with that. Law has to regulate sexual relationships in the same way it regulates hugging.

 

If state don't mind does that mean consenting adults consent on nothing? Explain the difference.

 

What you just wrote here has no meaning or value, you cannot give such statements without quotes and explanations. You need to explain where exactly I was debunked and what exactly did I not understand in order to disprove me. That is what discussion is all about.

 

No, it's not. There is no proofs that sex is more harmful than a hug. Correlation is not a proof.

 

That's it, and that is why I'm arguing for changing established boundaries, because currently my believes is not fit in them.

 

So, if you hug a child, it is a coercion, because he does not understand?

 

So, if a parent hugging his child - it is assault?