>>29140390
Where the fuck have I said that two people above 13 can consent with each other? I only refuted the implication that the age of consent being set at 16 was motivated by the desire to allow middle-aged men to pump everyone's 16-year-old daughters with their cum.
Then, in response, a bunch of triggered pedophiles tried to distract from my main point by being pedantic about the law and pretending that my explanation of reasons why the law was established was a statement about how the law was written, conflating other statements of mine as talking about the writing in legal documents to further their strawman.
And you are another case, acting like you are some guardian of people against sexual dangers, since it's the only way you can fight what I said without incriminating yourself.
You pedophiles are aware that there is an entire academic branch of philosophy of law that deals precisely with topics like we discuss? No, of course not. Trying to read anything about topics you speak so confidently about feels threatening to your belief, so you hope to force gaslight everyone into your wishful thinking. And when it fails, you act autistic, taking the most devoided of all the necessary context, the most literal approach to discussion, hyperfocusing on a single line of text, because your feelings got hurt by what I said, and you can't win unless you cherry-pick something irrelevant and pivot the discussion to it.
Not that I complain, a bunch of idiots incriminating themselves in 4k, leaving their digital footprint desperately trying to defend a self-admitted pedophile is quite funny. Saying "ya know, maybe having sex with kids isn't really all that good" is one easy way to get 4channers to behave like the most wokest morons on this planet.
TLDR: skip the bullshit and tighten the rope on your neck stronger, nobody wants you derailing this thread with your mental gymnastics
