Out of all that foamy-mouthed diatribe I found just a few things worth replying to:

Human rights aren't about deciding what the majority should want for them

Children are a special case. You acknowledge this in your support of keeping toddlers from running out into traffic. With that basic acknowledgement, everything that is left is pragmatics and trade-offs. Parents are given broad latitude legally to make decisions, though in practice they negotiate with their kids in complicated ways. The state places some limits on what parents can do. The basic framework is sound, although we can always argue about specific policies.


The law is what it is not what you claim you want to support when it goes against you. And then you turn around and tell others that society has valid reasons for keeping it as it is.

You sometimes accuse me of favoring the status quo exactly as it is, me a sheep with no imagination. Then when I suggest changing laws and procedures, you say I have to defend the entire current structure just as it is?

An entirely reasonable position is to suggest modifying existing laws in specific ways to alleviate abuses. Anyone who peruses my blog
(celibatepedos.blogspot.com) will see I favor changing many laws and procedures.

I cannot see how anyone who thinks that rape is bad should seek to eliminate the notion that a child can be raped.

The legal system already takes into account the use of force or threats as an aggravating factor. I would favor changing laws to take greater account of consent. I've already said that a young teen who does not feel wronged should mean no prosecution.