This is just another of your irrelevant arguments in your futile effort to come up with any logical rational to overturn age of consent laws. Regardless if child protective services has or is failing, this provides no justification. It's a perfect example of non-sequitur.
I have come to the conclusion further effort is fruitless. Your faith in bureaucrats being able to achieve what no other socialist system has accomplished is hardly something I share or understand.
I have never advocated any faith in any socialist system or in bureaucrats. This is simple minded obfuscation at best. You can go as far back as the code of Hammurabi and find laws against molesting children but despite everything you want to overturn these laws.
I simply will not respond to any further historically wrong whopper of yours such as the following from your post #202". Marriages occurred far earlier than your revanchist “history” claims.
Age of marriage is irrelevant to your desire to overturn age of consent laws, regardless, provide some evidence that the average age of marriage in western cultures has been much different then the middle 20's.
Credible post result from a researched premise, not what you want history to have been. True for marriage ages in ages past, and true of the parent’s ownership of the children. It has been interesting, but has become fruitless. Consider premise revision.
You sound drunk. You have provided no evidence that anything I said was incorrect. When all your premises are proven false and futile obfuscations revealed, why do you persist in your desire to overturn age of consent laws? Did you read "Bio of a Space Tyrant" as a teen and think "wow that's a great idea" without any critical thinking? This is irrational behavior. A rational person has to ask from whence your irrationality stems.
“You sound drunk.”
Sorry, I don’t drink. Try another of your ad hominum arguments. On second thought, spare all of us all of them.
“You have provided no evidence that anything I said was incorrect.”
Read what you posted, and what I replied to those posts. Denial won’t change history or hard data.
“When all your premises are proven false and futile obfuscations revealed,”
They have not, sorry.
” why do you persist in your desire to overturn age of consent laws?”
Nowhere did I call for “overturn” of age of consent laws. What I did was point out some of the many rather emotionally argued faulty premises and historic errors.
I did suggest an addition to such laws to return the balancing of rights to a more historically validated point than the present system.
” Did you read “Bio of a Space Tyrant” as a teen and think “wow that’s a great idea” without any critical thinking?’”
I never heard of it. That it sticks in your mind may be something of significance, though to whom I really can’t determine.
“This is irrational behavior.”
If history and hard data are, to you, irrational, get some help. Your endless attempts to paint me with things I didn’t post, and ignoring and/or denying anything you wish in your attempts to attack me, make me wonder.
Why do you feel such a need to attack me personally, rather than attempting to better dear with the facts and history I posted?
As I tried to politely say a day or so ago,I have neither the time, not the willingness to continue with this thread.
Why you are so driven to continue is not something I wish to either understand or deal with, as the subject was not of central importance to me given that I am not in a decision making position, legislatively.
As I also can not walk on water, arguably, I am also not in a position to amend Judeo-Christian theology.
Philoosophy is also not an area where I am able to actualize real change.
As I suspect you are likewise unable to effect any change in any of the areas I mentioned in the previous three sentences, and as you seem unable to drop the issues, you will have to continue without me from here on.
May your inquiries bring you pleasure, and further your understanding.
A rational person has to ask from whence your irrationality stems.”
Does someone from DU, or the Onion pay you to soldier on on this thread?