You want a link? Yes, I guess that someone who misreads a post enough to call me a demagogue is also not discriminating enough to follow the archives to the next page and find "Does the dawn approach for us?" but find it yourself; I am not in the mood.


1) Bumper sticker? The quote by Abraham Lincoln is carved into one wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

2) The Jefferson quote to Dickinson: Sometimes the individual gets his way and sometimes he does not; it must be mutual.
However, the quote is a non-sequitur and inapplicable to Lincoln's observation "The needs of the PEOPLE".
Can you honestly claim that the current sexual ethos foisted upon the citizenry by the rulers (government and its "educational" system, the churches, and the business interests that they both serve) meets the needs of the people? No? I didn't think so.

3) The Jefferson quote to Duane you pulled out of context; thus it deserves no reply.

4) The quote to Breckenridge: Submit your ideas to the majority and wait until they catch up to you? That may have been practical in 1800; they were not indoctrinated by the public school system nor manipulated from infancy by the media back then.

5) Why did you omit this by Jefferson?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that TO SECURE THESE ENDS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.........."

Jefferson and the other revolutionaries WERE a minority that forced its will upon the majority in one of the slickest sleights of hand in recorded history.
You can quote out of context all you want but you can never convince any student of history that Jefferson was one to quietly fall into lockstep with a crowd. You chose the wrong spokesman for your cause.

6) "Fringey wingnuts" advocate the abolition of ages of consent? Really? Are true child lovers wingnuts?
Go to the top of this page, look into YANI, find their archives, and read the article under the byline "Seamus" for a historical perspective on age of consent laws; it is part of an essay on intergenerational relationships.
In a nutshell, all through history women and children were the chattels of the father; his property.
AOC laws were instituted to protect the property rights of the father, since a virgin brought a higher dowry, or a better price on the marriage market. Taking a girl's virginity was an affront to the father, not the daughter.

7) These are the times that try men's souls"
Neither false nor a dichotomy. The "strategically minded among us" (and you obviously flatter yourself that you deserve to be numbered among them) seem to suffer from a paralysis of will, the "jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today" syndrome. Ah, yes, let us wait, even if tomorrow conveniently never comes.

8) "Majority of researchers?" As I reminded 28, research can be slanted to reach any target. There is no such thing as reaching the antis who "research" not to form an opinion but to buttress one. They know which side of the research-grant-funding bread has the jam.

9) The difference between advocating sexual self-determination for kids and advocating adult-child sex?
In truth, none. In the cultural context, plenty.
Almost all adults played "house" when they were kids; this is a much easier pill to swallow for them. You need not go out of your way to extend the concept.

10) I do not feel smug, since I did NOT reduce ALL dissenting girl lovers to cowrds, pessimists, and victims of propaganda. Read the paragraph again.
If you still do not understand it, I will attempt to explain it.

Hint: look closely and see to whom it is really addressed.