pedophiles going public

Everyone except you believes sex is harmful to children, but some of us are capable of putting our emotions to one side to argue this logically. So let me repeat again, in the eyes of the law their is no difference between sex and a hug, because a child cannot give their consent to either.

 

EVERYONE is accountable to the Law of the Land including supreme court justices who can be impeached and removed from office.

 

No, there is nothing like this under my logic. You need skill and experience to drive a car, children do not have enough experience in their lives. Even if they learn how to drive a car they're still bumbling.

No and no.

 

Whether you put your penis in a child's mouth or candy, the child can not give consent to either. There is no moral judgement going on, no morals are needed. A child cannot give consent to candy or a blow job because a child cannot give consent.

 

Thank you for proving me correct.

 

You asking me question with two wrong premises. First: I'm against coercion. Second: Child doesn't need to understand it in order to give consent. I said it many times.

 

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are utterly clueless when it comes to this "debating thing".

 

I am guessing that this is fake news. The source of this news appears to be the Daily Caller who have already done something similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller#Political_stance

 

Ironic!

 

In my experience living in Texas for my entire life as a straight white male atheist, "Christian Conservatives" are the greatest threat to both US progress and US interest in general. They are truly the American Taliban.

Every single fervent US Christian will have to be "controlled" in the future and I say that with no sarcasm. They are extremely dangerous people, on the level of a Taliban member in Afghanistan.

 

There are still bumbling to drive a car because they do not understand the full ramifications of being in charge of a car, that is why a child is incapable of giving consent.

 

I don't redefine their meanings, I just found in Wiktionary that consent means "to express willingness" and use this definition.

No, for the same reason he can't drive a car, that what I explained in previous reply.

 

And I was masturbated a boy of 14, when I was this boy of 14.

 

I keep challenging you to name one thing a child can legally give consent to, you have ignored or failed to respond with one single thing a child can legally give consent to.

 

Since we are discussing the legal age of consent, look up consent in a legal dictionary, it is the only definition that is relevant.

 

I doubt not luck of understanding, I doubt necessity of understanding. And made it in utterly sensible way. That is how no one be able to solve the hug/sex problem that I described long ago.

 

There is no sex/hug problem, a child cannot give legal consent to either. Where is the problem?

 

Belief has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific facts!

Minor children can't give informed consent because they lack the ability to understand what they are consenting to.

Scientific studies have accrued indisputable factual data on the harm caused to children by being coerced/forced into sexual intercourse with adults.

You want to change the Law of the Land based not upon your beliefs but instead upon the desire of pedophile perverts to sexually molest children.

That is not going to happen and anyone who shares and acts on those "beliefs" of yours are going to have to answer to the Law of the Land.

 

I specified it many times: Child have to be able give consent on anything that is not harmful or dangerous for him. But may be here is my fault, I never specified that it must not be harmful for anybody else. So here is what I meant: child can be able to do anything he wants, unless it's dangerous or harmful for him or anyone else.

 

Name one thing a child can give legal consent to? Again I challenge you, but you will not respond.

 

So they cannot consent on that, right? Because it is aside from established boundaries. Where did you found nonsense here?

 

You just contradicted your own "beliefs".

If a 5 year old "doesn't have enough experience in their lives" for driving then they certainly don't have enough for sexual intercourse either.

Thank you for disqualifying and nullifying your own feckless "beliefs" in this thread.

 

No I didn't. I said they cannot give informed consent, not express their willingness. It seems like I already explained this to you long ago, no?

 

No, it's a rational Truth. Quite reasonable unlike your believes.

 

Yet another contradiction of your "beliefs".

Earlier you allegedly did not understand the meaning of the term coercion and yet now you are claiming to be opposed to it. Do you even understand what you are opposed to?

As has been explained multiple times already the child CANNOT give consent. Why can't YOU understand that concept?

Simply repeating the same fallacy over and over again does not alter the fact that it is still a fallacy.