Most of that true, but also irrelevant...

First anything, read what I commented on:

one thing they always had in their marches and protests etc was: both partners were marching. Will many of us even *have* a LG to take along to a rally when the revolution begins? Will the LGs be allowed to come, lol? It kind of brought home to me that before we do anything of the kind, we've really got to focus on children's rights so that the girls (and boys, let's be inclusive here) who *might* be on our side will even be able to have an opinion on the matter that is heard.

Now... on to you...

Defending free speech and freedom from violence and stuff is really all the 'rights' anybody here should be fighting for for themself. There is no such thing as 'ped rights' as far as I know. This classes 'peds' like they're some kind of distinct class of people, which honestly, seems a bit presumptuous to me, people are too eager to feel all special about themselves these days.

a) How that relates to what I commented on I have no idea.

b) Have you noticed that it isn't us who act like we're special, but rather, those who have passed special laws and done special actions targetting paeds, both against our freedom of speech (kp laws; Verizon) and including violence (sanctioned hitlists; castration proposals)???

Basically, sex with people who aren't judged as informed enough to be given the right to legally consent, that should be illegal. It is. It should stay that way.

a) How that relates to what I commented on I have no idea.

b) How do you propose to deal with non-contacted peoples, say, Andamanians, having sex??

c) Why do you think (1) The State or (2) Society has any right to tell people what can and cannot happen in their bed??

You look at it as peds being punished, this really is NOT the case here. That's not it, because ANYBODY who breaks these laws in any way, is punished, as they should be.

a) How that relates to what I commented on I have no idea.

b) You look at it as minors being punished by being forced to get into therapy and testify against their lovers, this really is NOT the case here. That's not it, because ANYBODY who is legally defined as a victim in any way, is punished, as they should be.

c) Incest exemptions disprove that ANYBODY who breaks these laws in any way, is punished.

d) You can pretend a prohibition equally affects everybody but it never does. Try to buy bacon in Israel!!!! A teleio cannot care less if jailbait is jailbait, because their objects of attraction aren't prohibited; paeds uniquely have their objects of attraction as prohibited and no amount of shouting "equal text of the law" will change that.

That's all recklessly Robinhood romantic'n all but it's irresponsible, reckless and destabilizes society.

a) How that relates to what I commented on I have no idea.

b) "Socrates, you are accused of insulting the gods, contempt of the polis, and corrupting youth"

c) "Are you the King of the Jews, Nazarene??"

d) "Women suffrage will be the end of civilisation."

This won't happen so long as many people here mirror the trend of distinguishing people into a mere 2 discrete classes of human called 'minor' and 'adult'. There really are more intermediary steps here, so long as we base interpersonal evalutations purely on age there are going to be problems recogizing this though.

Finally something that has to do with my comment!!

I agree that the Wall must be torn down; yet, we talk on its terms because it exists as stated by law in every country so it would be simply stupid to pretend it doesn't. Of course it's wrong, but since it's the field we're at, we cannot talk like it wasn't there.

Basically, what you want here is to extend this social anti-isolationism to others who deserve this freedom because they are capable of autonomous self-protection due to possessing the intellectual capacity to process information, make decisions, and have been exposed to adequate information about the acts in question.

No, you got my motives wrong.

It pays to have a wider view, and realize that developmentally delayed people are worth protecting just as much as developmentally accelerated people are worth freeing.

a) How that relates to what I commented on I have no idea.

b) The purpose of lawmaking should never be protection. Period. IMHO. People should always be allowed to fail. Yes, even bankers.

I essentially agree with everything else.