Can someone explain to me how it went from "All 
s are libertarians! Secret child eating libertarians run the shadow government!!" to this?:
We need to talk about the accusation "Matt Gaetz is a libertarian."
β Eric S. Raymond (@esrtweet) November 14, 2024
I know little about Matt Gaetz, and don't have an opinion about whether he is a qualified nominee to be Attorney General. I'm also not here to make a pro-Trump or anti-Trump political point; I want to address anβ¦
Also these are literally the Republicans current top guys:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because you're a dumb kid that doesn't know anything about anything? Do you understand why laws protect children in general? Do you even agree that they need these protections?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You know enough to handle most parts of adulthood by that age--- at least, people have always been able to until we decided nobody ever really grows up. Again, why is it this one specific thing that gets this response? Nobody is traumatized at that age unless something terrible is forced on them, or they have some sort of intellectual deficit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because most people think that this specific thing carries a particular risk for exploitation and that this specific thing deserves special protection.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Women think that. Get a group of men together, and they'll be honest about it.
In what way could somebody that age be exploited that wouldn't be considered exploitation at any older age?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand why child protection laws exist in the first place.
Yes, things that would be perfectly fine between adults can be problematic when you switch one of those adults with a minor.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're not answering my question honestly. We don't consider them children-- the fact we treat them like adult-lites irl proves that, no matter what people say to the contrary.
How would having s*x with a person who is adult-lite be exploitative by default in a way that wouldn't be for someone even a few months older?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because the assumption is that the "adult-lite" is a clueless idiot and thus prone to be tricked, coerced, manipulated and generally exploited by an adult.
If you want to argue about the "b-b-b-but just a few month later it wouldn't matter" part, please refer to my very first post that already commented on the inherent silliness of hard AoC lines (and why they're good anyway).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"Hey, let's frick."
Ohmigosh, I've been tricked! What sort of coercion or manipulation would be unique to them that wouldn't be exploitation for anyone even slightly older? I mainly hear arguments like, "But the older person will know the right things to say! They might have more money! They might be more interesting than guys her own age!" when a man who's broke, boring, and socially inept isn't getting much of anybody at any age. The arguments always hinge on either an idea that a person old enough for relationships is an absolute toddler, or that the older person has some sort of appeal.
I get what you're saying about hard AOC lines--but your argument makes no sense here, since those hard lines are usually under 18 for a reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Maybe you should touch some grass so you learn what flirting is and how it involves all sorts of things that an immature child might have trouble understanding or handling.
What is appropriate? What is inappropriate? When am I allowed to say no? What is regular flirting and what is coercion? Do I owe someone for dinner or a nice date? Am I a tease or a wimp if I don't put out?
There is a general assumption that a child and even an immature teen would have trouble answering questions like these and many others in the heat of the moment and that, given more life experience, more maturity, they could more reasonably be expected to do so.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Don't you feel r-slurred referring to 17 year olds as ''children''?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not at all.
When I work with young colleagues I want to raise the AoC.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context