"When the government no longer serves the needs of the people, they can exercise their constitutional right to alter it or their revolutionary right to abolish that government."
Abraham Lincoln

One bumper sticker argument deserves another (or three):

"Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at other times. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society." (Thomas Jefferson to J. Dickinson, 1801.)

and

"If the measures which have been pursued are approved by the majority, it is the duty of the minority to acquiesce and conform." (Thomas Jefferson to W. Duane 1811.)

and especially

"We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong." (Thomas Jefferson to J. Breckenridge, 1800.)

"Under what circumstances can the government rightfully enter your bedroom and regulate love between consenting individuals? As I see it, there are no such circumstances."

There remains no small controversy about the ability of some minors to meaningfully consent. In fact, I dare say this controversy is entirely unrepresented in academia. It's only fringey wingnuts like Califia and Paglia who seem to be serious about complete abolition of AOC (and sometimes not even then). There is altogether too little reliable knowledge about adult-minor sexual contact to warrant anything so rash as revolution. If you believe you have been wronged by the state, you can redress it in the courts, which is what they're for.


"There was a post here earlier on the question of "Does the dawn approach for us" or something like that; it seems that the opening wedge has been driven into the wall, and by no less an entity than the Supreme Court of the United States. Despite the best efforts of Porcelain to undermine it, the post was unassailable."

I must have missed this. Can you provide a link?


"These are the times that try men's souls. The Summer Child Lover and the Sunshine Pedophile will desert us now in our hour of need; that is to be expected."

False dichotomy. There are the strategically minded among us who are neither demagogues like yourself nor fair weather friends.


"This is not the time for the faint of heart. The revolution is upon us. Can we be any less courageous than the gays who suffered for their rights? Shall we be cowardly, as the drug advocates who were arrested for their beliefs were not? Shall we hide out, as the other oppressed minorities did not?"

There are some serious differences between adult-adult sex and adult-child sex--namely the absence of the consent controversy. If that probem can be resolved to the relatively invariant satisfaction of a majority of researchers, then we might have something to go on, but until then it's little more than conjecture.

(At least, as Karl Popper would have it, the conjecture is bold!)


"This battle is not being fought for us; it is being fought for the kids and their right to decide. Approach it from that angle, instead of the selfish "Give me the right to screw whomever I want" approach and you have righteousness on your side; you have the moral high ground and you can, and should, take the offensive."

How do you propose surmounting the public's outrage when they discover your advocacy of sexual self-determination for kids?


"Those of you who are too cowardly or too pessimistic or too brainwashed to live your beliefs, please get out of the way of those who are not."

No doubt you feel smug when you reduce all dissenting girllovers to cowards, pessimists and victims of propaganda. This is just plain dumb.