deleted by creator

Teenagers cannot consent to sex with adults.

according to what proof?

I don’t fully understand this extreme desire to redefine “child” as “anyone under 18” but it doesn’t really seem like the goal is protecting children.

the goal is to take away self-determination laws from teenagers so their parents/church/wannabe representative can control them better.

it actually starts to make a whole lot of sense once you realize these laws are literally targeted to control people. if you can’t meet people because you can’t go out alone because you need a fucking car to drive anywhere, and if you can’t be in romantic relationships with other people who might show you other ways of seeing the world, you’re essentially making sure that your child grows up in a controlled, christian, or whatever, neighborhood. it’s to keep the “dangerous” ideologies (such as anarchism) away from teenagers, because otherwise they could learn to see the world differently and might start questioning the authorities who always told them what to think, do and want.

And you can not legally consent if you’re under 18 in almost all developed countries.

It’s odd how you’re not old enough to consent to sex (which is, you know, lending your body to somebody else) but you’re old enough to work for a company (which is, you know, lending your body to somebody else).

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/youthlabor/agerequirements

Age Requirements

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets wage, hours worked, and safety requirements for minors (individuals under age 18) working in jobs covered by the statute. The rules vary depending upon the particular age of the minor and the particular job involved. As a general rule, the FLSA sets 14 years old as the minimum age for employment, and limits the number of hours worked by minors under the age of 16.

The same age should apply to both, don’t you think?

It sometimes feels like one of the few good constants is how child abuse is considered a grave crime in pretty much every society,

with the exception of every major society in human history

in medieval and early modern-age europe, it was considered normal for wealthy landlords’ children to marry young, for example

• Isabella I of Castile, married at 18
• Ferdinand II of Aragon, married at 17

this might not sound like a lot, but the age of puberty has decreased by about 2 years since 1900 and probably more since the medieval age (i couldn’t find enough data to support this claim). Sources for example here and here

This means what was 16-18 back then would be 14-16 today, if you consider the age of marriage in relation to the age of puberty.

As a general rule, the wealthier the person (or their parents), the sooner they married. Median age of marriage for peasants was around 21-22 years, but for nobles it was more like 16-18. This would correspond to 14-16 today.

And don’t get me started on whatever they have going on in the islamic world.

also known as the broken window fallacy

2-3, sometimes 17-18

The US could indeed become the next italy, politically

a once great empire that crumbled

OP is the femboy in the picture

as a debian user, i can confirm :)

insert femboys can be exchanged for goods and services meme

I have come up with the idea to classify people’s position on work. Who wants to work and thinks that work is a good thing for humans, is politically right, and who doesn’t want to work is politically left. This is more natural than the definition involving the french revolution because for one, it refers to more natural concepts (work instead of Ancien Régime) and also because the liver organ (who does lots of work - metabolism) is on the right-hand side of the human body.

You can’t say bad things about the government in China.

This might sound like an absurd restriction of free speech, but consider that it’s also considered highly illegal in germany to ask for the abolishment of democracy. Many far-right groups do this, and the Verfassungsschutz (basically a kind of special police force) keeps a close eye on them because of that, calls them “verfassungsgefährdend” (going against the constitution). Monarchies like england had similar laws around 1900, where you could say everything except talk badly about the monarchy in power. That was known as the “english liberalism” because in many other countries, you could say even less. China does the same today, just that instead of the german constitution or the english monarchy it’s the Communist Party.

to phase them out any day now

tbf lots of progress has already been made:

Source

And i’m definitely a fan of not every small country having them. imagine how much harm they could do.

resource curse

classical elements refers to mechanical properties (solid, liquid, gaseous), it does not refer to chemical elements.

“everyone i don’t agree with is a bot”

slightly more equal

all animals are equal but some are more equal than others (/s)

with the revenues to be used to fight the impact of climate change and help Switzerland meet its ambitions to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Maybe the people wanted to have actual social services provided to them instead of climate action.