A prohibition on certain hard drugs is a case that's still up in the air. Although there are plenty of injustices in the system, prohibiting murder, theft, and rape on balance are a good thing.

Very dirty pool, Ethan, comparing the above--which all of us are against--to the notion of consensual activity. You do these types of dirty things all the time, yet you accuse everyone of not knowing you like a book, as if we're too stupid to see exactly what type of common political framing tactics you are using. We do not think you're stupid, Ethan; the problem is that you think we are. Calling you a liar is far less insulting to you than the degree of ignorance you think we have about common rhetorical tricks and political doublespeak. Or how ignorant you think girls and young people in general are.

Secondly, I exercise or urge no recusal about what it's like to be a pedophile, any more than what it's like to be gay or trans. But there is another party in this discussion, the girl, and I urge recusal on what it's like to be a girl and what is best for girls.

All while deliberately leaving the girl out of the discussion entirely, and supporting continued measures that keep their voices marginalized and under the control of insular adult agencies so their ignorance and indoctrination can most likely be maintained for at least the first 18 years of their lives. Much like many of your fellow libruls try to say what they think is best for adult women who may want to choose sex work as a vocation, all the while leaving them out of the discussion as a group, save for occasionally soliciting the words of those whom they know will say what they want to hear while ignoring all the rest and thus judging the entire matter on a case-by-case basis and affirming empowered choice rather than blanket, standardized prohibition. And what are the common denominators in both cases?

Hence, you aren't speaking for girls, you are speaking for other adults with a lot invested in a system of adult control and a specific type of sexual morality and hegemony. What is best for them as individuals takes a back seat to what is best for maintaining the system you support and their place within it. As well as our place within it, of course.

We say let the girls have full access to objective information all their lives, allow them to develop as they will as individuals rather than to a forced standardized coda, and then allow them to speak for themselves, not only as a group but as individuals. Doing anything less dehumanizes them and reduces them to the status of property and forcing them to live in forced compliance with a specific paradigm.

-- that requires the usual standard of proof. But if that fact is established, prohibition of adult-child sex means we believe the girl if she says she didn't consent.

With no evidence required? Which means a few things. A a girl can destroy a man's life not because she has just reason, but simply because she wants to. Maybe he wouldn't give her money if she demanded it. Maybe he ended the relationship because she was controlling and possessive. Maybe he didn't like the fact that she was calling and texting him non-stop and politely but firmly asked her to cease and desist. Maybe he found out she stole from someone, and she threatened to make the Accusation as a way to control him and force his silence. But who happens to be right or wrong in such a situation doesn't matter, right? All that matters is what the accuser may say because of an arbitrary demographic they happen to belong to that is automatically bequeathed more sentimental value than another demographic, particularly if that second demographic happens to be an adult who offends public sensibility enough to have a consensual relationship with a girl he is attracted to. Preferential justice depending on the roll of the dice, rather than actually doing the job requires to find evidence for such a strong accusation that will bear such huge consequences if one is found guilty. All the more so if the accusation alone is all it takes "just in case" the accused might be guilty.

It also does not do girls any favors, because it will bring out the dark side of many of them. Human beings in general do not handle power well, and girls of low scruples or with emotional problems will take full advantage of that. But again, it's not your concern if this encourages bad behavior from many girls, and it doesn't matter if actual innocent people are being hurt if the latter people happen to be adults. And especially not if they happen to be men, let alone MAPs. Which is why we believe dismantling due process for any group of people automatically creates many bad precedents that do not serve the greater good for anyone.

This sounds like an argument for anarchy. The law is full of prohibitions, as in prohibitions on murder, theft, rape, and (yes) tax evasion. It's something we evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

Very selectively so, considering you also argue that any time a certain member of a specific demographic makes an accusation against a member of another demographic who lacks the same type of sentimental favoritism, then the case-by-case consideration is thrown out the door. I can just imagine how much head-bashing and confusion would ensue under such a system if one girl accused another of a crime and you had to do the work required to produce actual evidence to support the claims of the accuser before just throwing the accused girl behind bars.

I may be right or wrong. Majority opinion does not make something wrong or right, but it is a bit galling that accuse me of being dishonest for believing what 95% of the world believes on that subject.

Considering the fact that 95% of the general public in eras past, and not too far in the past at that, used to believe things that were demonstrably untrue simply because it appealed to them on some deep emotional level means that you shouldn't find it so galling that we do not always give the benefit of the doubt to consensus opinion. This is especially when said opinion lacks logic, lacks any substantive evidence, and closely resembles similar types of beliefs that were popular in the past but since proven wrong. There is a lot of comfort in always going with the majority, and you think we should ignore that in our exchanges with you? If 95% of the world still believed that tomatoes were poisonous, that would not justify us giving you a free pass for also believing that just to fit in, especially if you strongly supported legal measures to ban the cultivation of tomatoes for human consumption.