You've failed to prove this.
Your statement itself is proof enough of its irrelevance.
Your want is completely relevant to this because we legally mandate what
is consider "consent" through what we want,
I'm fairly aware of how you and those of your ilk operate; but within the moral framework that is present within every argument I submit with respect to subjects like these, my "want" is irrelevant.
and yes I'm arguing that we
should legally mandate the notion of consent in regardless to sexual
intercourse.
Don't know what this means.
When society doesn't want 9 year olds having sex, that's because
there are grave implications that result from it (children, costs, power
imbalances etc.) You failing to not want that is completely relevant to
the grave implications that result from that.
Implications you've yet to define, and consequences of "power imbalances" you have yet to mention and/or substantiate. Furthermore, you've imputed a non sequitur. Once again, my "want" is irrelevant.
Also, the fact that you think 9 year olds should be having sex makes you a pedophile.
No. What would make one a pedophile is one's attraction and/or one's engagement in sexual contact with a minor 10 years old and younger. Suffices to state, that I do not meet this description; hence, I'm no pedophile. But your characterization isn't based on any evidentiary rigor or logical extension of the arguments' premises. That would actually require you to stop emoting.
You are incorrect because you write words which reflect what registers in your brain. Therefore, I do have an idea.
No, you don't. You have impressions which reflect what's in your brain, not mine.
Power imbalances in consent are the problem, pedophile.
Power imbalances you have yet to substantiate.
For
example, if a custodial guardian says to his 10 year old child 'have
sex with me or you don't get fed', that is clearly an exploitation of
the power imbalance rendering the child unable to give true consent.
And if a 25 year-old tells a 23 year-old vagrant to "have sex with me or you don't get fed," would that not be consistent with the very rationale your argument exhibits above? What if I went into a poor district in my city and offered sandwiches to the homeless and starving in exchange for fellatio, would that not be exploiting their dependence? Your rationale is ridiculously inconsistent.
But there is *always* a problem in regards to
underaged sex because the children involved are unable to comprehend
the implications, are at serious risk of being exploited, and are unable
to deal with the real world implications of sex. That's the point.
All this mention of "real world" implications and little substantiation. It's all just fluff.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't have this result in the first place, so
I'm not going to open this can of worms because society should be
looking to avoid this at a lot of cost.
But this result is not in your control.
Having general intelligence/being famous is different to having the emotional understanding of the implications involving sex.
The criterion for which you've neither explained nor substantiated. More fluff.
Even with your extreme examples, children aren't emotionally equipped to deal with the blow out involved with having sex.
The blow out involved with having sex? Such as...
Zygotes and fetuses can't have sex, you stupid pedophile.
Oh, so you do know that? It's a relief to see your arbitrary divisions stop somewhere.
You're treating 3 year olds as if they're adults with the "individual's
bodily autonomy". I've got no problem if you want to talk about adults
like that, but you think there is no difference between 3 year olds and
adults having sex.
Who cares about that with which"you" have a problem? We're not discussing your emotions. I view minors as individuals because that's what they are. And as such, they are afforded the same discretion as any other individual.
Three year olds don't understand the implications of sex, let
alone anything in the adult world. All they know is that they want to
play and learn about things they see in their lives.
More fluff.
I haven't argued any of this.
You didn't have to; your line of reasoning did. You see: arguments have premises which are extended either to a logical or illogical conclusion. Arguments also operate on a line of reasoning, or rationale. So while you did not state any of the aforementioned, your line of reasoning when sustained would extend the aforementioned premises to the same conclusions. And I made mention of homosexuality, tattoos, drug-use, and alcoholism to "analogize" the extension of this reasoning, and demonstrate how asinine it is.
I have argued that you are a pedophile
With asinine reasoning...
and your illogical reasoning is harmful to society
Why would I take cues on "logic" from someone whose arguments have yet to demonstrate any?
and when you say things like "The age of consent should be eliminated entirely"
Yes...
and that you're okay with 3 year olds having sex,
I've never stated this. Quote me verbatim.
you do a better job at proving both those things than I do.
None of this is proof. Just the projection of asinine reasoning.
I don't think you realize how unacceptable what you are saying is.
Obviously, I don't.
You are fully advocating pedophilia.
No, I'm not.
There are strict, unforgiving laws against it all throughout the world
that should be enough to prevent you from engaging in pedophilia, not to
mention the extremely damaging abuse children suffer at the hands of
pedophiles.
Except laws don't prevent anyone from engaging in pedophilia; child sex rings in some part are perpetrated by the very members of government who you claim attempt to prevent this. The Clinton Foundation in Haiti would be one glaring example.
This is nothing to be owning or embracing
I agree because I neither embraced nor owned it.
you are as bad for society as terrorists and serial killers.
Naturally.
You need to be rectified before you cause serious harm to a child, if you haven't already.
But of course. I mean, what have I argued if not in favor of my alleged attraction to minors?
No.
I never called you a convicted pedophile.
I called you a pedophile.
Operating on asinine reasoning...
I hope that if you ever get convicted of pedophilia, you are killed for your inhuman crime.
Yay?
Everything you write points in this direction.
That is your impression; that's not an observation.
The most damning quote is this: "The age of consent should be eliminated entirely".
You are a pedophile, Athias.
No, I'm an anarchist, but I can see how easy it is to get us confused.
That isn't how I came to the conclusion that you're a pedophile.
That's exactly how you came to the conclusion.
I've argued that because you don't see anything wrong with 3 year olds or 9 year olds having sex
Quote me verbatim.
To you, there is no difference between an adult and a 3 year old
having sex. That is an essential belief of a pedophile, one of which you
hold.
There's no difference in discretion between a man having sex with a man, or a woman having sex with a woman, and a man having sex with a woman, which is a belief I hold. I must be gay. (Once again, your reasoning is asinine.)
===================================================================================================================================
Provide a more substantial argument in your response, or have a nice day. I won't indulge regress any further.
