pedophiles going public

I failed only to provide anything coinciding with your believes. But notice how I'm talking and how you're talking. Don't you find that I'm always cold and always using logic, while your replies are nothing but emotions? Didn't you noticed that? For example this reply is nothing but emotions, you don't criticize me, you don't ask me difficult questions, you don't try to debunk me, you just crying that I was debunked.

 

The law is based on the ability of a child to understand what it is doing, if you wish to change the law you need to provide evidence. You cannot avoid it. You have claimed that a child should be given the right of consent, you will therefor have to prove the law which gives a child no right of consent to anything should be changed.

 

I'm arguing for repealing age of consent, then how it's relevant?

 

Only adults deemed to have sufficient mental capacity are deemed able to give consent, no child is allowed to give consent because no child is deemed capable. There is no difference.

 

How many times I need to repeat that I didn't claim that child needed understanding an that he can give informed consent. How many times I need to repeat it so you will got my point?

 

Because the age of consent is a legal one. If you wish to repeal age of legal consent, only refer to consent in the legal definition.

 

I'm arguing to repeal age of consent laws, and make sex legally not different from a hug. What term i need to understand for that?

 

Exactly what my reply proofs it. It's your claim, you need to present a proof.

 

My replies involve no emotion, you cannot run away from it. the only thing at issue is why people are not able to give legal consent. Legal consent is based on mental capacity, not beliefs, taboos or anything else. If you have cause to challenge the current law for consent please show what they are.

 

Making legal conclusions based on personal believes makes no sense.

 

Because that is not logical assertion it is a emotional one. Give a logical reason a child should be able to consent to anything.

 

Correct, which is why consent is based on mental capacity, nothing more.

 

A child cannot be hugged because it does not understand the full ramifications. What's the difference?

 

You blaming victims, not me.

 

Again sex is not legally different from a hug, a child cannot give legal consent to either.

 

Why you're not imprisoning people for life for hugging their kids? Where is your answer? Child not be able to understand what it is doing when he was hugged.

 

A child cannot give legal consent to be hugged, there is no difference.

 

People are imprisoned for hugging their kids, in fact they can be imprisoned for just attempting to see their kids. Got that.

 

Here you are, an example of an adult sent to jail for hugging her grand daughter, please note the granddaughter is above the age of consent. But because of mental impairment she is not deemed able to give legal consent to her grandmother to hug her.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16127...o-defy-court-orders-tearing-her-family-apart/

 

Pedophiles are not victims.

 

No, claiming that sex and hug must be regulated differently is an emotional assertion.

 

Yes it is.

 

The law claims no such thing, the law states a child or a mentally impaired adult cannot give consent to either. No difference in the regulation.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16127...o-defy-court-orders-tearing-her-family-apart/

 

How is sex legally different from a hug, please show.

 

So, hugging a child or having sex with a child are both serious crimes and treated equally?