Can you even read? I did explain that in the very first sentence, by mentioning that your scenario would not be legally possible.
And I was just wondering, because US Americans online are often extremely prudish and self-centered, which matches your attitude.
Do you even know what Romeo and Juliet laws are? Because with those, you're scenario is not legally possible.
Basically all countries in South America have their age of consent at 14, plus some in Africa and Asia, and Europe is also pretty evenly split between 14-15 and 16. This is not unpopular at all, but go ahead and scream at everyone with a differing opinion because yours is the only "correct" one.
Just out of curiosity: Are you US American by chance?
And that's why I was wondering if the question was asked verbatim. Stallman doesn't seem to know what the word means either.
I don't get what's supposed to be so controversial about the first part, though. Many countries already have their age of consent somewhere around 14, often including Romeo and Juliet laws (i.e. not indiscriminately), so not really an unpopular take, and I can't say I disagree with him there.
Precisely what I meant, thank you. People seem to have troubles differentiating between thoughts and actions when it comes to paraphilias.
You're going beyond the meaning of the word. Pedophilia is just the attraction itself, there can't be anything okay or not okay with it, it just is. That's like asking "Is psychopathy okay?". There's no answer for asking if the state of something is okay or not okay, because like I said, it just is.
To be fair, the question (if it was asked verbatim) doesn't even make sense. Pedophilia can't really be okay or not okay, it just is.
Aufklärung kann nebenbei natürlich nicht schaden, aber deren Wirkmacht ist eben auch begrenzt, insbesondere bei einem Thema mit solch weit verbreiteter kognitiver Dissonanz. Dass die Tierhaltung schlecht für die Umwelt ist, und vor allem natürlich auch schlecht für die Tiere, ist aber ja auch nicht erst seit gestern bekannt. Da jetzt nach all den Jahren klein anzufangen mit Werbeverboten, und das auch nur regional begrenzt, ist für mich kein Zeichen von vorschnellen Verboten.
Die Tiere interessieren sich halt herzlich wenig dafür, zu welchen Standards sie getötet werden, deswegen wäre ich persönlich für ein sofortiges Verbot, aber realistisch betrachtet hast du natürlich Recht, Standards verbessern wären eher mehrheitsfähig und dahingehend sinnvoller.
Wenn dein Kommentar sich auf Verbote im allgemeinen bezog dürften die Vergleiche eigentlich recht passend sein. Im Bezug auf das aktuelle Thema wären die Verbote von Mord und FCKW passender.
Weil Fleischkonsum objektiv scheiße ist, dafür zu werben dementsprechend ebenfalls.
Stellst du diese Frage auch beim Verbot von Asbest? Oder bei Tempolimits innerorts? Manche Dinge gehören halt einfach verboten. Wenn es nach mir ginge würde ich gleich die gesamte Fleischindustrie verbieten, sich jetzt also wegen so einem einfachen Werbeverbot so einzupissen ist schon echt lächerlich.
Not liking one choice = liking the other one is peak .world trolling. Where did anyone here simp for Trump?
And for the idiots downvoting: OP literally wrote "every sentence except the last one was entirely true", which means they don't think that Trump is responsible for peace and prosperity. You'd have to be really fucking stupid to think they're "simping for Trump".
I would imagine that LIMs becoming more popular could lead to further improvements in that regard, which might actually make more tailored solutions possible at some point. At least KDE already seems to be working on upstreaming this feature in this merge request, so I'm quite excited to see what might be possible in the future :)
According to your own comment, Stallman literally said "NOT INDISCRIMINATELY", which to me can only mean Romeo and Juliet laws and/or only after mandatory sex education. Do you fucking know what words mean? Your scenario is completely made up in your head and not something Stallman advocates for, at least not according to the quotes you yourself provided.
So this scenario is something that YOU made up. He also said 14 according to the quotes provided, not 12. Interesting how you're moving the goal posts.
And defending the age of consent to be 14 is not "pro-pedo", and there is no such thing, because as I just explained, pedophilia is a state of something that can't be okay or not okay, favoured or not favoured, it just is. Also it refers to children below that age, so you really need to upgrade your vocabulary and learn the definitions of words in it. Defending this age barrier is called having a fucking brain. So yes, attacking people for saying that 14 is a reasonable age of consent, especially when also mentioning Romeo and Juliet laws, is extremely prudish.