First, you're changing the subject and not addressing the point I made.

It was an extremely important point to make considering the point you< were trying to make.

Now if I accept the change in subject, I say not in the least. We listen carefully to what girls have to say.

Which is either an extremely delusional comment if you truly believe it (which you have recently accused me of!); or you're lying because again, you think we're just that stupid and lacking in simple powers of observation to see otherwise; or, most likely I think, you listen very selectively, as in only to girls who will say what you want to hear because you know quite well how heavily penalized they will be if they openly express desires that run contrary to what the public allows them express or engage in.

What they say isn't typically very profound.

Translation: They can't say anything in front of us that we really do not want to hear, or would shame, punish, or chastise them for, so we develop this feel-good, willfully naive attitude that all they feel safe saying around is all they do care about or want. After all, it's not like adults have the power to punish them in numerous ways, including denying them access to their computers, or grounding them so they cannot go outside, or tell them whom they can or cannot associate with. And it's not like the YouTube or Facebook administrations do not routinely take down channels and pages from girls who express their sexuality in ways that are more than arguably very subtle. And it's not like every TV and Internet service provider does not heavily and happily promote parental control tools so they only see what we mostly want them to see. And it's not like we deny them the right to engage in conversations deemed "adult" in public places. And it's not like we actually have ratings systems on movies, video games, albums, and even comic books that are explicitly age-based rather than generically focused on individual sensibility.

And it's certainly not like we as kids didn't have a past time of telling dirty jokes behind the backs of adults instead of right in front of them, or engaging in sexual banter with them directly if we happened to hear them doing it amongst each other.

You may bring out your notion of the perfectibility of human nature that given the right information (not sure quite what that is) they will suddenly see the light and seek votes, and fewer automobile trips, and perhaps become good members of the youth division of the communist party.

And you do not know that they won't, anymore than women continued to act exactly within the limits afforded them by the more patriarchal societies of the past in the West turned out to be their "natural" state. You simply make assumptions designed to rationalize denying them their rights.

By "right" information, I meant objective and scientifically accurate, You know exactly what I meant.

And become "good" members of the "youth communist party"? No, I would expect them to become good and productive members of society in general and to choose their own political affiliation in the process. It's not my camp that is intent on imposing a few standardized options on them. In fact, many underage youth liberationists are members of the Libertarian Party, which I do not support.

Some do, but I don't.

I give you sincere credit for that, as well as other things. But that stance is currently considered "controversial" among libruls, which is a bad enough indictment against readily centrists can use their frequent support for Nanny State imperatives to rationalize limiting the personal choices even of adults. As long as they are considered members of a designated "vulnerable" demographic.

Not at all. The man has one simple way of staying safe: never have sex with an underage girl.

BINGO!!!!! That is the very crux of your intentions, Ethan! Deter a man from making a choice to have a consensual relationship with a girl under a certain age by making him run the risk of getting accused of something he didn't do by a girl if she happens not to be a person of scruples or tripping on the power your proposed system of "justice" gives her to destroy innocent lives. Which isn't a problem to you as long as the man is the innocent party whose life gets destroyed.

So NOT slick, Ethan. Yet you claim it's unjust, arrogant, and rude to say it's difficult to figure out your actual motives? Even after the "slip" you must made here?

Human beings being who we are, some won't follow that rule, and then the other considerations come into play. The girl gets no free pass on saying sexual activity took place, only on whether she consented to it.

Yep, so if she did consent to it, then at least she is putting the man at huge risk of having his life destroyed if she should ever decide to make an incorrect accusation against him. That will serve him right for offending "polite" society like that. And it will serve her right as well for allowing him to put himself in that position. Perhaps we should find a reason to shame her as well?

Say he who believes in the perfectibility of human nature.

The more you misrepresent my views, the less seriously any objective reader of my individual posting history and our exchanges will take you, Ethan, but so I will make this clear for everyone willing to listen clearly (not you, of course): No, I do not think humanity is "perfectible". I think we are capable of greatly improving ourselves, and that our behavior is largely good or bad (never "perfect") depending on the type of environment in which were expected to live, along with the various roles and expectations imposed upon us by society.

I think we are to be trusted and given the benefit of the doubt as individuals unless there is good, empirical reason not to. I do not think we should be arbitrarily judged as being scoundrels simply because we're human, or potentially more inherently flawed based on our specific demographic (read: men; adults, etc.). And certainly not that laws and policies designed to flagrantly mistrust us without even taking our individual character or recorded conduct into account is ever justified in any system purporting to be progressive or democratic.

Power differences are everywhere and unavoidable, though we can reduce unnecessary ones.

Including laws that give more power to one demographic over another. In either age direction, for instance. There are many others, of course, power differentials of which you and your fellow libruls completely approve of, but that will be getting a bit off-topic to fully delve into.

For ages, men have been able to demand sexual favors from women to get what they want regarding the workplace.

Because men were always expected to be in charge of the workplace and family decisions, etc., which is no wonder so many of them became corrupted.

Now, #MeToo is fighting back at that, and it includes some women misusing power and making false accusations.

Bingo. That is what happens when you reverse power imbalances instead of eliminating or minimizing them across the board. But that, too, hints at a much wider discussion. Including the more relevant topic of whether it's less of a problem for one demographic to be abusing power than another demographic.

Girls are just a special case of the general problem. Wherever you draw the line, people on both sides will abuse that power. I think the far greater problem in the world you would like to see is the man who has sex with the 13-year-old against her will and says she consented.

In other words, by "special case" you again argue that one group should be granted a sentimentally based advantage over another, thus again arguing that it's less of a problem for one demographic to abuse power than another instead of taking measures to minimize it across the board. Which displays contempt for one group over strictly moralistic reasons, with their main crime being they offended you with their choices. You want to increase the chance that all men who may make that choice under any possible circumstances gets heavily punished, not simply increase the chance of the truly guilty men to be punished. If it was actual justice you were concerned about, then you would be willing to do the work to uncover evidence on a case-by-case basis regardless of how difficult and non-expedient it may be; and you would likewise be concerned about how many girls of low scruples, or even those who may experience an atypical fit of anger, would be encouraged to hurt innocent men via extortion, revenge, simple regret, etc.

Why not simply penalize men who are proven guilty, and penalize girls in a similar fashion of the accused man could actually prove they were lying and involved in extortion, etc? Would that be too fair for your consideration?

You're trying to change the subject.

No, I am using a very relevant example from history to make it clear that you should not be given the free pass or special consideration you requested simply because what you happen to believe is what the majority currently happens to believe.

The question was whether I could justifiably be called DISHONEST for believing tomatoes were poisonous.

If you knew better, and/or ignored evidence to the contrary--then yes.

As long as 95% of other people also thought that, it's extremely unlikely and requires specific evidence.

Such evidence having historically been ignored, suppressed, and marginalized over time by the current powers that be, which includes but is not limited to the consensus majority. One way to do that in the modern world is the wondrous invention of the "flag" button on social media. You know, the one designed to censor ideas or statements in accordance with "community standards."

You can call me wrong and try to convince me -- I understand that, but it's a different question.

It's a very relevant example that underscores my point: The consensus opinion and set of beliefs has often been wrong, and oftentimes in epic fashion. But whether it was or not never mattered to many who simply wanted to go along with the crowd and be accepted. After all, if there is no perceived value in allowing people the right to grow and eat tomatoes, then what harm are we doing by criminalizing the cultivation and consumption of that fruit, right?

I don't know what you're smoking,

It's a herbal weed called Objectivity and Freedom of Information. You may be allergic to it, though, so you should perhaps avoiding trying to smoke it yourself. As long as you don't inhale it, you should be fine, though.

but this has virtually no relationship to reality that I can detect. Libraries have tons of stuff,

You mean, with their required installation of filtering software in their computer networks, the often age-based sectioning of their books, and parental approval requirements for certain books being taken out? That's the reality you ignore, Ethan.

and girls can go to libraries.

They're not supposed to get past that filtering software if they access the Internet off the computers there. Or take out books their parents may not approve. Or which the adult librarians themselves do not approve.

The web has no end of viewpoints,

And no end to censoring them with those wondrous flag buttons and age requirements. Let's not forget the 13 or older age requirements for much social media fora. However, I will concede it's becoming more and more difficult to keep information from the two most recent generations of kids, who are very tech-savvy. Which is why we are gradually seeing more younger people expressing their views and getting their voices known, even though currently they have to be subtle about some of the more volatile forms of expression lest they get "flagged" and lose their channels or blogs. And that is also why the youth liberation movement picked up steam again once the Internet came into full bloom.

and the girls can read those viewpoints and decide for themselves.

When they can slip past the filtering tools and age requirements--as increasing numbers of them are doing--yes. But they have still not yet reached the point where they have enough political rights and freedom that they can readily and brazenly express their agreement with all of it, especially if it's going against rules or values their parents may have, or the administration of any given social media fora, etc. It's going to take them for them to reach that point, but they are approaching it. They are just not yet free enough to literally say or do anything near what adults are allowed to more or less freely say or do, and you know it.