"Children are a special case. You acknowledge this in your support of keeping toddlers from running out into traffic."

No.

I would prevent ANYONE from running into traffic heedlessly. And I wouldn't care to live in a society so unconcerned with harm that it believes that adults running into traffic heedlessly is a non-issue.

However, we don't use this as an excuse to prevent folks from going outside.

We treat it as a one-time occurrence.

And when we have good evidence to believe it is a semi-permanent state of things; only then do we place the person under conservatorship and restraints ( or supervision ) until such a state of incapacity has passed.

Because we already have the legal means to ensure that no person comes to harm in traffic either accidentally nor through incapacity to comprehend, we need not use the concern to support additional ageist restrictions.

A little un-ageist thinking would've revealed the absurdity of your belief that you MUST be allowed to walk into the path of a vehicle by others because you are an adult.

"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."

They aren't.

Much of what liberal parents do to supervise their children's "experiments" with drugs and alcohol is clearly criminal.

Your confession about your parents' liberalism in this regard is a confession that they facilitated crimes; and therefore was just as much a potential source of iatrogenic harm as is bathtime.

You are, of course, wrong when you talk about society as a singular thing. There are many societies. And the laws ultimately support those who agree with its harshest interpretation when there is an argument.

You might've said, "Naw, my folks are cool with me drinking in moderation so long as I ask them for a ride back if I had anything." But this confession to a friend, if overheard by a zero-tolerance type, could've put your parents in jail or even had you made a ward of the state.

OTOH, we are agreed that these risks are outweighed by the facts that youth who learn to drink moderately in other cultures where it is legal to do so, are less likely to drink recklessly. ( And a very good argument for another overhaul of treating underage drinking in an ageist manner. )

The state places limits. But rightly, those limits are not about the positives, only the negatives. You are restricted from beating people up, but not from watching a film with such imagery. Nor are any positives required of you. This is why the laws concerning adult sexuality rightly do not promote one taste over another; no matter how many nor how few enjoy something. They only address wrongdoing.

This leaves the "pursuit of happiness" to the individual; knowing full well that I can refuse to allow any accordion music in my personal collection without infringing upon another's right to enjoy it. Because other people are people, they can resist any unreasonable demand I might make that their tastes are wrong, or even claims ( without proof ) that they are harmful.

The law, though, treats children as the exception. And freedoms we take for granted are refused them on the premise that parental interference in matters of taste, or meritless claims of harm are "for their own good." The state places no limit on the "right" of a parent, should they choose to do so, to prevent any exposure to art, games, or even affection from others.

If doing this to another sounds like a "right" to you. Then we fundamentally differ.

"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?"

I don't say you have to. You just go ahead and do THAT on your own.

I merely ask that you be consistent in treating the request for fundamental changes from others like the one's you have. ( And what you claim you want is NOT possible without fundamental changes, not mere positional shifts. )

Just be consistent and don't ask others to recuse themselves where you don't, nor claim that others have suspect motives where you don't just for asking for fundamental change.

And cease using the "wisdom" of the status quo as an argument against dissent in the same breath where you challenge the status quo. Your constant refrain of "good luck getting THAT accepted" is a non-starter for someone asking for a change.

Cease relying on argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad baculum when your requests for change fly in the face of these fallacious excuses. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.

Of course it is convenient when you project a society which is fearful and suspicious of every change you disagree with and just champing at the bit to endorse every change you promote.

But the reality is that asking for any change in anti laws based upon sex-negativity and fear of the bogeyman will be treated the same. You said as much when I inserted "KP" changes you promoted into your spurious objections to AoC changes and proved that the BS argument can have ANY change substituted into it.

"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."

Yes, into factoring the severity of his crime against the State. She still has no active legal status. In the parlance of ethical philosophy, she is a patient, not an agent.

She has the same legal status as a kicked puppy.

Kicking a puppy can be a crime; against a statute or against the State acting as a respresentative of animal welfare; but never against the puppy itself.

Its really a matter of communications.

If you ask whether a rape happened and you are told, "No," that should carry legal weight. And if you're assessing whether the "No" was authentic or coerced, you should be able to come to either conclusion legally based on the merits of the evidence; not the genders or ages of the claimants.

"You can't really mean that," is your standing reply to any child who doesn't restrict themself to acting as you would predict they should. And conveniently it replicates the legal status of a dissenting youth.

The present laws make all these matters moot because children have no rights emanating from themselves. They are patients, and their rights emanate only from adults. Its that simple.

Any time you say, "her right," "her choice" or even "her rape," you are asking for the recognition of something in a child that the law doesn't grant her.

"I've already said that a young teen who does not feel wronged should mean no prosecution."

I agree.

But then I seek to make it possible by overturning the legal status which prevents it.

I don't badmouth you for asking for change. I don't proclaim selfish motives derived from your sexual orientation. Nor demand a special skepticism for you as a pedo. I don't claim that your desire to repeal ALL KP laws dealing with the virtual and imaginary are the absolutist unswavering spittle-flecked ravings of a madman ( Which Ethan can we expect next Jeckyll or Hyde? )

All I ask is that you behave towards others with the decency you recognize when you ask it of yourself.

Dante