>each of your counterpoints, and my responses.
>how would you get around to prove that an adult is on par with a child emotionally and thus, consummation is acceptable?
I pointed out that such proofs aren't realistic in practice, and reminded you that I never suggested regulation of it is even remotely feasible. This point of yours in no way
implies that such adult-child relationships are themselves ridiculous, nor (thus) my original post.
>An 35yo man can easily fucking destroy a 7yo. ... Just think about the way children can - and often are - complete animistic towards each other.
I pointed out that a 35yo with weight and muscle and basic intellectual development - like a mother with a powerful car - can be reasonably expected to be gentle and not do anything that would harm a small person. The risk is legitimate, of course, but the benefit of a healthy relationship (or a car) can
outweigh a risk.
Your comeback that that would be like "giving a gun to small child" is not
a valid analogy, because a small child typically cannot be reasonable expected
to be careful with it.
>it just skips past that thing we have as a culture, as to why we think kids/teens shouldn't be fucking around, because y'know, of the possible long lasting consequences of sex and promiscuity i.e. stds, pregnancy, societal decay.
I pointed out that marriage is actually the enemy of promiscuity, not an encouragement to it. I'm the old-fashioned sort who doesn't believe anyone
should be screwing around outside of marriage.
>Additionally, keep in mind that pretty much all countries have defined views on intellectually deficient individuals, with accompanying legislation to protect/embellish them.
I pointed out that that doesn't seem to be a relevant counterpoint to my OP, and offered you the chance to elaborate, which you didn't take.
>Another example: adults with intellectual deficiencies are still, most of the time, granted a few more liberties than children are; what you propose ultimately seems to bring about complete parity, so following that logic, should we let children drive? Have bank accounts?
I pointed out two things in response.
(1) I said yes, this is a valid concern, and is one of the difficulties of any kind of regulatory proposal (though I never brought one up
, I was just entertaining your statement here).
(2) Some children (especially young teenagers) can through breadth of experience develop practical knowledge of the world (how to drive a tractor/car, how to judiciously manage money/bank account) - even moreso than an isolated 30-year-old (who, say, grew up in a steel box) who nonetheless
is given FULL ADULT STATUS in society. Like you said, "adults with intellectual deficiencies are still...granted liberties." I was mostly just elaborating on what you pointed out.
>And what about the rest of us which are still eager, good willing, but have no impairments?
I pointed out that I wasn't covering this, and my original little post didn't need to. I just said I'll let Camille Paglia, Keith Raniere, and Amos Yee argue that.
Those were the 6 counterpoints you gave in >>17870
I pointed out that none of these suggested that my original post >>17840
was at all ridiculous.
I'm not emotional, and don't mean to annoy you / drive you crazy.
Just defending myself as holding a valid position, which I imagine is your motivation here, too.
Thanks again for your time