"Since when? And this is the justification stated by whom?"
I thought it would be a logical minimum but also a no-brainer, do you have an alternative?
"Some bad interactions that have been blocked by AOC - I'd like to see some hard evidence of that. And you haven't even defined "good" or "bad," but ignoring that, e.g. if we define rape as "bad," I doubt that type of person would be much deterred by AOC legislation."
I assumed that I wouldn't have to prove that no more than 0 (i.e., at least one or more) bad interactions have been blocked due to the improbability of the alternative (exactly zero have been blocked). There can of course be no hard evidence of it, how would you know if an interaction was blocked given that it didn't occur? It's not something that can be empirically shown, for which reason I took the logical minimum of at least 1 bad interaction (in the world, over 140 years) having been blocked. That is just numerically so much more probable then it having blocked 0 bad interactions, that if challenged the burden of proof falls on the one who suggests that 0 bad interactions have been blocked. As you may have noticed I also said "some bad interactions which occurred despite AOC" which captures your rape example.
I did define good and bad interactions by way of both individuals evaluating an interaction as good or bad. If you want a definition of "good" and "bad" then these are the words humans use to label things they like or not. There is an easy mistake to make in the sense that "good" and "bad" are not "objective" (there is no good/bad measuring device) and so there is a tendency to attempt to dismantle an argument by pointing out their subjectivity, but if two people do something together and they both enjoy it and call it "good" then why wouldn't we just trust their own evaluations and so we end up with a redefinition of "good" and "bad" in terms of interactions.
"Yeah, data would be good. Though in reading the entire post I still see no justification for an AOC. Bad things happen sometimes, so make everything illegal? Why not just define what "bad" is and then make legislation that criminalizes the "bad.""
I didn't try to justify AOC. The only reason I would keep AOC is because I think AOC going down to ~12 is more likely to happen sooner as an in-between step before society doesn't need AOC anymore and does away with it completely.