| BMaker11 said: So, in essence, what he said was ok, because we aren't discussing the right terminology? Ok, He's not defending pedophilia then. He's still saying it's ok to fuck a child as long as they've hit puberty. Forget putting a "term" on it, and then parsing words over that term so that he's "technically right". He's saying it's ok to fuck a child as long as they've hit puberty. That. Is. Wrong. And not only that, it's disgusting. |
If you actually watched the videos, he didn't say that. He said that the age of consent laws are right how they are, but the situation is more complicated. Some fourteen year olds, which he believed he was one, can consent to sex because they are sexually, emotionally, and socially developed enough. And you'll notice, that the legal age of consent in various developed countries reflects this diversity in thought on the issue.
Like I said, up until recently Spain had 13 years old as their age of consent, and Germany as well as other central European countries have age of consent of 14 years old. This was the age Milo was talking about his interactions with the priest whom he was defending, albeit he lived in the U.K which has an age of consent of 16 years old.
There is an obvious and clear distinction between whether or not a pre-pubscent child can consent to sex and a post-pubescent teenager can. While it is questionable whether or not we should allow post-pubescent teens to consent, and the power the older person has over the teen is immense, it is not the same thing as sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children whom don't even know what sex is.
