Re: What age do you think children can consent?

I think it's better than tying them in duct tape, but hey, I am a kooky anarchist what do I know?

Oh yeah, there's sooooooo many people that do that, isn't there?

::rolls eyes::

They pretty much already do. It isn't easy to determine traffic by age, but I am certain they have a much higher traffic/user and traffic/total-pop. than any other age group. And in "late comers" to the internet (practically all middle income countries), they beat the rest by an even larger gap.

Well, if that's so, then they need to make themselves clear about the fact that they're underage and they want rights for kids. Otherwise how is anyone going to know? You can tell me there's a million kids online riht now clamoring for their rights, but unless there is some evidence to that effect I'm going to assume you're either making wild assumptions or being disingenuous. And before someone says it, I'm not moving the goalpost here; making people aware of who you are and what goals you have in mind in terms of youth liberation should've been assumed in the post above.

It is also a minority of adults that take an interest in politics. For the great majority of people (and I admit I am part of the minority) politics is, apart from corrupt, boring. People only take an interest in politics when they start thinking it affects them (notice it always does; but usually they don't realize). This is why issue orgs. have a passionate following, and more resources and political skill. It takes an issue to become personal for most people to start caring about politics. But this is naturally correlated to age: the more time goes on, the more likely some issue will become personal. This is also the most basic reason why (barring countries with compulsory voting) the proportion of people who vote steadily rises with age.

I don't think that's true either. Most people are interested in politics in my experience, at least where I live. That doesn't necessarily translate into voting though, so you can't go by that as a measuring stick. Even if this was true though, it would not contradict my point. This is essentially the 'two wrongs make a right' fallacy.

Neither war was ever about liberation from anything.

Afghanistan was revenge for 9/11. Iraq was to topple Saddam.

Puh-lease. It was one of the main justifications for going to war in both cases. While you are right that Afghanistan was ultimately about revenge, one of the primary selling points for the war was the turning back of the Taliban, who were oppressing the people--particularly the women--of the country. And now they are trying to nation-build there . . . and failing miserably. Toppling Saddam was part and parcel of the goal to liberate the Iraqi people, and they tried to nation-build there as well. Come on, this is basic shit. I know you know this and you're yanking my chain. Just stop already. I've heard you make the exact same points in a different context.

Because we know miscegenation rates exploded in 1865...

Oh my gawd, do you think everything can be compared in every way to the liberation of some other oppressed group? We're talking about sex here, something fundamental and important, and for which we possess a powerful drive. And we're talking about one particular group--us--being denied the people we are most attracted to for so long and then suddenly we can sleep with them. You cannot tell me that this isn't going to have a profound effect on a lot of people and turn what as initially a hopeless situation for them into a desperate scramble. You think jealous nons do some crazy shit, just what until there is one preteen for every one hundred MAPs desperate to get in her pants. There'd be some crazy shit goin' down, Papa Bear. Bet on it.