Should the age of consent be raised to 20?

[Antonio the Sixth]

broke: half your age plus seven

woke: Okay so first you need to get your age and calculate the general 'tolerance margin' based on §3 c.1 of the Act. Then remember you have a range of not more than twelve calendar months in which you won't go to prison as a nonce, provided your age is 15.  16 is covered in c.2 (subsections 1-3). For older ages it gets a little more complicated: refer back to c.1. Take the 'tolerance margin' you calculated earlier and multiply by a number between 1.2 and 1.6 (but not exactly 1.4) and you will end up with an est

okay this is actually pretty funny

But again, I'm talking about general principles here and the stuff I outlined here wasn't meant to necessarily be how I'd write a f**king bill. If you want to legislate the half+7 rule for people under 25, you know what, why not. That does create a bit more leeway and I guess it would be simpler to remember. And I think not dating 20-year-olds when you're 27 is something people can live with.

[Donerail]

But it seems clear to me that people in their late teens and early 20s do often get emotionally or sexually exploited by older adults at the time when their brains aren't fully developed and they're almost always in a position of de facto social inferiority, and I don't think this is something the state should just shrug its shoulders about.

No one in this thread disagrees with you on the first part of this sentence! You don't need to justify the general principle or get involved with haggling over numbers — it's the conclusion that "therefore Jail is the solution" that people are objecting to. The State should not attempt to use the criminal justice system to solve every undesirable feature of society...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

broke: half your age plus seven

woke: Okay so first you need to get your age and calculate the general 'tolerance margin' based on §3 c.1 of the Act. Then remember you have a range of not more than twelve calendar months in which you won't go to prison as a nonce, provided your age is 15.  16 is covered in c.2 (subsections 1-3). For older ages it gets a little more complicated: refer back to c.1. Take the 'tolerance margin' you calculated earlier and multiply by a number between 1.2 and 1.6 (but not exactly 1.4) and you will end up with an est

okay this is actually pretty funny

But again, I'm talking about general principles here and the stuff I outlined here wasn't meant to necessarily be how I'd write a f**king bill. If you want to legislate the half+7 rule for people under 25, you know what, why not. That does create a bit more leeway and I guess it would be simpler to remember. And I think not dating 20-year-olds when you're 27 is something people can live with.

One of my church's pastors is 33, her husband is 39. According to her they met when she was just out of high school which surprised me and I assumed they were older. But they're a completely normal well adjusted couples, they have one kid and another on the way and she's adjusted and normal enough to serve as the youth program director before she was promoted to pastor... clearly deeply exploited early on. And of course if this was the law you'd be hearing tons of stories in the media about such adjusted and normal couples dealing with the older one being a felon and sex offender from early on. Do you think someone married to a sex offender would be able to get a job as a church's youth director?

And again how do you enforce this in cases where a 20-yesr old is living consensually with their 27-year old boyfriend/girlfriend? Arrest the older party, charge them with a felony and then tell the 20-year old how they need to date appropriately in their age bracket...oh and sorry we just arrested your roommate and who you're living with and relying on for part of your living expenses but hey maybe you can just move back in with your abusive parents who you specifically tried to flee by moving in here...oh and maybe your family isn't abusive but they live far away and thus you'll have to move away from and quit your job and/or current college admission and education, but hey that's all worth it to protect you from being exploited. Oh but your friend with the 26-year old partner in almost the exact same situation can stay because that's not that falls just under the acceptable limit. Anyway if you want to restart your relationship in a year with the completely non-abusive and supportive older partner who you approached first and they only replied because they thought you were older but had fallen for you when they found out your age you can...but they'll likely be in jail and will have a felony and be a registered sex offender when they get out. Yeah that's totally helpful to the supposedly victimized party.

Also with the 20-year old and 26-year old have a relationship, and then the older one has their birthday...so now the relationship has to be ceased until the younger one turns 21 and then they can start again? (Yes I suppose there could be some sort of grandfather clause in the law but forcing people to keep legally submittable documentation of when their relationship began or else they get a felony sex offense and possibly still forcing them to pay some legal fees even if they do isn't exactly a law I'd expect to be a great success.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

2 unread alert(s)" Gee, I wonder which thread they're from...

But it seems clear to me that people in their late teens and early 20s do often get emotionally or sexually exploited by older adults at the time when their brains aren't fully developed and they're almost always in a position of de facto social inferiority, and I don't think this is something the state should just shrug its shoulders about.

No one in this thread disagrees with you on the first part of this sentence! You don't need to justify the general principle or get involved with haggling over numbers — it's the conclusion that "therefore Jail is the solution" that people are objecting to. The State should not attempt to use the criminal justice system to solve every undesirable feature of society...

I'm certainly open to other solutions! Jail is how we currently deal with people who go after those who are clearly too young to consent, and in many cases that's probably the right call, it probably doesn't have to be the answer in every case. I didn't pretend to rewrite the whole legislation on consent in one Atlas Forum post. If you have other suggestions to protect late teens and early 20s from these kinds of relationships I'm all ears.

And to BRTD's point, yes, I'm sure that there's a myriad edge situations where the logic breaks down. I'd certainly agree those deserve consideration. Then again, I'm pretty sure these sorts of edge cases arise with current consent laws as well, and that's an issue. In fact, not considering age range at all leads to obvious absurdities like a 18-year-old being considered a sex predator for dating a 17-year-old, which we should all agree is ridiculous.

[Donerail]

2 unread alert(s)" Gee, I wonder which thread they're from...

But it seems clear to me that people in their late teens and early 20s do often get emotionally or sexually exploited by older adults at the time when their brains aren't fully developed and they're almost always in a position of de facto social inferiority, and I don't think this is something the state should just shrug its shoulders about.

No one in this thread disagrees with you on the first part of this sentence! You don't need to justify the general principle or get involved with haggling over numbers — it's the conclusion that "therefore Jail is the solution" that people are objecting to. The State should not attempt to use the criminal justice system to solve every undesirable feature of society...

I'm certainly open to other solutions! Jail is how we currently deal with people who go after those who are clearly too young to consent, and in many cases that's probably the right call, it probably doesn't have to be the answer in every case. I didn't pretend to rewrite the whole legislation on consent in one Atlas Forum post. If you have other suggestions to protect late teens and early 20s from these kinds of relationships I'm all ears.

I do not have a policy suggestion because I do not believe there should be any state policy addressing this problem. Again, no one is asking you to write or rewrite any sort of technical legislation. I'm asking you to defend your claim that this is an appropriate matter to address through the legal system at all. It seems utterly absurd for the state to regulate the romantic & sexual partners of any 25 y/o adult.

And, by the way, you were the one who advanced an absurd claim in this thread in the first place. Bitching about people responding to it is annoying. You can always delete your posts, you know.

[Ferguson97]

I do favor things such as abstinence only education though

This is an objectively terrible policy that results in an increased number of teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs.

Why on earth would you support abstinence only education?

[Antonio the Sixth]

2 unread alert(s)" Gee, I wonder which thread they're from...

But it seems clear to me that people in their late teens and early 20s do often get emotionally or sexually exploited by older adults at the time when their brains aren't fully developed and they're almost always in a position of de facto social inferiority, and I don't think this is something the state should just shrug its shoulders about.

No one in this thread disagrees with you on the first part of this sentence! You don't need to justify the general principle or get involved with haggling over numbers — it's the conclusion that "therefore Jail is the solution" that people are objecting to. The State should not attempt to use the criminal justice system to solve every undesirable feature of society...

I'm certainly open to other solutions! Jail is how we currently deal with people who go after those who are clearly too young to consent, and in many cases that's probably the right call, it probably doesn't have to be the answer in every case. I didn't pretend to rewrite the whole legislation on consent in one Atlas Forum post. If you have other suggestions to protect late teens and early 20s from these kinds of relationships I'm all ears.

I do not have a policy suggestion because I do not believe there should be any state policy addressing this problem. Again, no one is asking you to write or rewrite any sort of technical legislation. I'm asking you to defend your claim that this is an appropriate matter to address through the legal system at all. It seems utterly absurd for the state to regulate the romantic & sexual partners of any 25 y/o adult.

And, by the way, you were the one who advanced an absurd claim in this thread in the first place. Bitching about people responding to it is annoying. You can always delete your posts, you know.

People have every right to disagree with my takes. I just find it interesting which kinds of takes get engagement and which don't.

Anyway, if you were saying you agree that these relationships are a problem but you don't think the state can or should do anything about them, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do believe there are some cases where the states has a right to intervene to protect the wellbeing even of adults. The whens and hows of it are complicated and if your only point is that this is messy and involves difficult tradeoffs, that's all fair. If you disagree on the principle, I don't see what's left to discuss.

[Donerail]

People have every right to disagree with my takes. I just find it interesting which kinds of takes get engagement and which don't.

Anyway, if you were saying you agree that these relationships are a problem but you don't think the state can or should do anything about them, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do believe there are some cases where the states has a right to intervene to protect the wellbeing even of adults. The whens and hows of it are complicated and if your only point is that this is messy and involves difficult tradeoffs, that's all fair. If you disagree on the principle, I don't see what's left to discuss.

I disapprove of your posts. What is the appropriate prison sentence to impose for your posts?

You see the gap there? I am asking you to fill it. The vague and general argument that the state has the right to intervene to protect the wellbeing of adults (tobacco regulation, for instance) is insufficient, in my view and I think many ITT, to justify a draconian intrusion into the most personal aspect of our lives. Many people make decisions that are detrimental to their own well-being every day. How does this one differ?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

2 unread alert(s)" Gee, I wonder which thread they're from...

But it seems clear to me that people in their late teens and early 20s do often get emotionally or sexually exploited by older adults at the time when their brains aren't fully developed and they're almost always in a position of de facto social inferiority, and I don't think this is something the state should just shrug its shoulders about.

No one in this thread disagrees with you on the first part of this sentence! You don't need to justify the general principle or get involved with haggling over numbers — it's the conclusion that "therefore Jail is the solution" that people are objecting to. The State should not attempt to use the criminal justice system to solve every undesirable feature of society...

I'm certainly open to other solutions! Jail is how we currently deal with people who go after those who are clearly too young to consent, and in many cases that's probably the right call, it probably doesn't have to be the answer in every case. I didn't pretend to rewrite the whole legislation on consent in one Atlas Forum post. If you have other suggestions to protect late teens and early 20s from these kinds of relationships I'm all ears.

I do not have a policy suggestion because I do not believe there should be any state policy addressing this problem. Again, no one is asking you to write or rewrite any sort of technical legislation. I'm asking you to defend your claim that this is an appropriate matter to address through the legal system at all. It seems utterly absurd for the state to regulate the romantic & sexual partners of any 25 y/o adult.

And, by the way, you were the one who advanced an absurd claim in this thread in the first place. Bitching about people responding to it is annoying. You can always delete your posts, you know.

People have every right to disagree with my takes. I just find it interesting which kinds of takes get engagement and which don't.

Anyway, if you were saying you agree that these relationships are a problem but you don't think the state can or should do anything about them, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do believe there are some cases where the states has a right to intervene to protect the wellbeing even of adults. The whens and hows of it are complicated and if your only point is that this is messy and involves difficult tradeoffs, that's all fair. If you disagree on the principle, I don't see what's left to discuss.

As I've pointed out and given numerous examples of, this sort of law would cause harm to the well-being of adults at least as often as protecting it. You even kind of acknowledged this but didn't propose a solution.

There's even other examples of where this would be immensely harmful that I've thought of, for example the older party would be unwilling to seek aid if they were the one being abused in the relationship (yes it is possible for people to physically abuse someone a bit older than them) and also cases where the older one is actually being exploited more. I've heard one example of a woman who when she was 28 and in hard times moved in with a 20-year old trust fund baby who basically used her as his personal f[inks] toy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I do favor things such as abstinence only education though

This is an objectively terrible policy that results in an increased number of teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs.

Why on earth would you support abstinence only education?

And yet this whole thread is because you proposed an objectively terrible policy that would cause immense harm including to the people it's allegedly protecting. You think my pastor would be better off today if her husband was a felon and sex offender?

[Horus]

Antonio - comes up with crazy, invasive policy that would turn millions of decent Americans into pederasts overnight.
Atlas - hey, that's crazy and invasive.
Antonio - iT wAs jUsT a sUgGeStIoN, I hAtE tHiS fOrUm wAaAaAh!!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Antonio - comes up with crazy, invasive policy that would turn millions of decent Americans into pederasts overnight.
Atlas - hey, that's crazy and invasive.
Antonio - iT wAs jUsT a sUgGeStIoN, I hAtE tHiS fOrUm wAaAaAh!!

The fact that this is being opposed by people from all points on the political spectrum, including someone so prudish they support abstinence-only sex education should also be a bit of a wake-up call.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I'm 29 and my partner is 24. I guess I'm a pedophile now.

Antonio is right that age plays a big part in power dynamics and abusive relationships, but this proposal is an absurdly radical position to impose on society, especially coming from someone who likes to accuse others' positions on other social issues of being absurdly radical, but that's neither here nor there. To play Devil's advocate and try coming up with a hypothetical law that accounts for the age-based correlation with abuse Antonio warns about, I'd keep the age of consent at 18 for everyone with Romeo & Juliet laws, and then add that sex between two people with more than X (it should be a double digit number, between 10 and 15) is illegal until the younger party is at least Y years old (Y being some number in the early 30s, or at the earliest, late 20s). Let's say X is 12 and Y is 11. Throw in a Romeo & Juliet law for border cases. An 18 year-old can sleep with anyone between 18-29, a 31 year old cannot sleep with an 18 year old but they can sleep with 20 year olds and older with no exceptions.

I don't even support that hypothetical law, but that's one way to do it if you absolutely have to. Age does play a role in abuse, but the solution to abuse is not going to be found in putting blanket penalties on numbers. We have to reform the whole system of reporting and prosecuting abusers to make it easier for survivors to report and for abusers to be charged. Many survivors suffer with PTSD symptoms of various severity that can seriously mess with their memory of specific events, so investigators and courts throw out a lot of their accusations — we need to stop doing that. We need to beef up restraining orders and no-contact orders as the burden to get one is often too high and they're usually temporary. Abusers should be registered as sex offenders or to a similar registry, and we have to keep weapons out of their hands. Cops and courts have to take abuse more seriously and abusers should have stricter penalties for probation violations. There should be a way to prosecute severe emotional abuse, not just physical abuse.

This one of the most common forms of violence in our society. I support being tough on abuse in relationships. Age of consent laws aren't going to change much.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

People have every right to disagree with my takes. I just find it interesting which kinds of takes get engagement and which don't.

Anyway, if you were saying you agree that these relationships are a problem but you don't think the state can or should do anything about them, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do believe there are some cases where the states has a right to intervene to protect the wellbeing even of adults. The whens and hows of it are complicated and if your only point is that this is messy and involves difficult tradeoffs, that's all fair. If you disagree on the principle, I don't see what's left to discuss.

I disapprove of your posts. What is the appropriate prison sentence to impose for your posts?

You see the gap there? I am asking you to fill it. The vague and general argument that the state has the right to intervene to protect the wellbeing of adults (tobacco regulation, for instance) is insufficient, in my view and I think many ITT, to justify a draconian intrusion into the most personal aspect of our lives. Many people make decisions that are detrimental to their own well-being every day. How does this one differ?

I think what Tony is missing (not just on this to be honest) is that it's not really possible to craft a law that bans all "bad things" while at the same time not criminalizing any "not bad things" as well. For example the DUI threshold in the US is quite high and used to be even higher but it's also high enough that basically no one should be driving at that point and isn't easy to reach by "accident", it would require an actual near binge drinking like level. Since people are different and their threshold where it's unsafe varies person to person no number would be perfect for everyone. But in such cases it's best to err on the side of leniency for the same reason that criminal trial standards are heavily skewed toward the defendant. So yes we do have cases of people driving with say a 0.05 and that's not great, but criminalizing everyone driving with that BAC and suspending licenses in every such case would cause even more harm. A 30-year old dating an 18-year old kind of falls into the same sort of category, it may not be ideal and might result in some skeevy things, but trying to restrict it would result in some pretty bad things too (which this thread has even highlighted and he acknowledges but doesn't really address.)

And yes there are many examples where the US does not err on the side of leniency, three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, overzealous enforcement of minor public order crimes, etc. but considering the disastrous consequences of those things that we're well aware of now that's not much of an argument for adding even more such things (especially if we're acknowledging it could cause harm but insisting we'll find some way to not make it harmful considering the many status quo examples that already exist.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

You see the gap there? I am asking you to fill it. The vague and general argument that the state has the right to intervene to protect the wellbeing of adults (tobacco regulation, for instance) is insufficient, in my view and I think many ITT, to justify a draconian intrusion into the most personal aspect of our lives. Many people make decisions that are detrimental to their own well-being every day. How does this one differ?

I simply think the potential harm that could be done to people by exploiting them at an age when they're still emotionally vulnerable is enough to warrant some type of state intervention to protect them. It's that friggin' simple. If you disagree, good for you, but another paean about personal freedom won't change my mind.

Anyway, this discussion is getting stale and I have better things to do with my time. I made a short off-the-cuff post thinking out loud an extension of the consent system that took into account the fact that people don't suddenly achieve emotional maturity at 18, and while I'm happy to recognize (and already have) that the details weren't exactly well thought out, that doesn't say anything about the underlying principle. I've already said I'm not necessarily advocating jail as a be-all-end-all solution or enforcing some kind of hyper-Byzantine age of consent system if it would cause the sorts of issues BRTD is bringing up. If you want to say I came in too hot with my original take, fine, I'll own up to it. It's not like most Atlas posts are fully-formed policy documents. But discussing the minutiae of policy with people who don't even want to acknowledge the validity of the purpose behind that policy is an exercise in pointlessness and I'm done engaging with it.

[Donerail]

You see the gap there? I am asking you to fill it. The vague and general argument that the state has the right to intervene to protect the wellbeing of adults (tobacco regulation, for instance) is insufficient, in my view and I think many ITT, to justify a draconian intrusion into the most personal aspect of our lives. Many people make decisions that are detrimental to their own well-being every day. How does this one differ?

I simply think the potential harm that could be done to people by exploiting them at an age when they're still emotionally vulnerable is enough to warrant some type of state intervention to protect them. It's that friggin' simple. If you disagree, good for you, but another paean about personal freedom won't change my mind.

I am trying to understand why you think people who are under the age of 25 are something less than full human beings capable of making choices for themselves. If you continue to refuse to elaborate, fine. But I will not let you get away with this sort of vile, dehumanizing line of argument without objection.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You see the gap there? I am asking you to fill it. The vague and general argument that the state has the right to intervene to protect the wellbeing of adults (tobacco regulation, for instance) is insufficient, in my view and I think many ITT, to justify a draconian intrusion into the most personal aspect of our lives. Many people make decisions that are detrimental to their own well-being every day. How does this one differ?

I simply think the potential harm that could be done to people by exploiting them at an age when they're still emotionally vulnerable is enough to warrant some type of state intervention to protect them. It's that friggin' simple. If you disagree, good for you, but another paean about personal freedom won't change my mind.

I am trying to understand why you think people who are under the age of 25 are something less than full human beings capable of making choices for themselves. If you continue to refuse to elaborate, fine. But I will not let you get away with this sort of vile, dehumanizing line of argument without objection.

It was mentioned in a reply critical to my original post (in retrospect, far more thoughtful and willing to engage than most of the replies that followed) that the human brain isn't done developing until around 25. It's pretty shocking if you're not aware of that yet want to call me out for not having a ready-made answer to every possible question relevant to the issue. In addition to all the neurological evidence, just not having had a lot of life experience puts younger people at a clear disadvantage when it comes to forming emotional relationship, a disadvantage that people with longer life experiences can very easily abuse. If you don't think that's a real problem, or that it's not worth addressing because MUH FREEDUM and whatnot, fine. But at least spare me the ridiculous wokespeak nonsense about "dehumanizing".

[Donerail]

I am trying to understand why you think people who are under the age of 25 are something less than full human beings capable of making choices for themselves. If you continue to refuse to elaborate, fine. But I will not let you get away with this sort of vile, dehumanizing line of argument without objection.

It was mentioned in a reply critical to my original post (in retrospect, far more thoughtful and willing to engage than most of the replies that followed) that the human brain isn't done developing until around 25. It's pretty shocking if you're not aware of that yet want to call me out for not having a ready-made answer to every possible question relevant to the issue. In addition to all the neurological evidence, just not having had a lot of life experience puts younger people at a clear disadvantage when it comes to forming emotional relationship, a disadvantage that people with longer life experiences can very easily abuse. If you don't think that's a real problem, or that it's not worth addressing because MUH FREEDUM and whatnot, fine. But at least spare me the ridiculous wokespeak nonsense about "dehumanizing".

I am 24. You believe I am incapable of making fundamental decisions about my life. Your argument is that, because of some fuzzy science around the pre-frontal cortex and lack of "life experience," the state should step in and imprison a 30 year-old in a relationship with me. How is that not dehumanizing? Seems like a clear-cut denial of the idea that I have any agency in that choice.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I am trying to understand why you think people who are under the age of 25 are something less than full human beings capable of making choices for themselves. If you continue to refuse to elaborate, fine. But I will not let you get away with this sort of vile, dehumanizing line of argument without objection.

It was mentioned in a reply critical to my original post (in retrospect, far more thoughtful and willing to engage than most of the replies that followed) that the human brain isn't done developing until around 25. It's pretty shocking if you're not aware of that yet want to call me out for not having a ready-made answer to every possible question relevant to the issue. In addition to all the neurological evidence, just not having had a lot of life experience puts younger people at a clear disadvantage when it comes to forming emotional relationship, a disadvantage that people with longer life experiences can very easily abuse. If you don't think that's a real problem, or that it's not worth addressing because MUH FREEDUM and whatnot, fine. But at least spare me the ridiculous wokespeak nonsense about "dehumanizing".

I am 24. You believe I am incapable of making fundamental decisions about my life. Your argument is that, because of some fuzzy science around the pre-frontal cortex and lack of "life experience," the state should step in and imprison a 30 year-old in a relationship with me. How is that not dehumanizing? Seems like a clear-cut denial of the idea that I have any agency in that choice.

Just so we're clear that the word you want here actually is "dehumanizing" and not, for example, "infantilizing" or "condescending", you're aware that other animals besides humans have sex, right?

Antonio's original take was extremely poorly considered but it still deserves better than this kind of response.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Worth noting that grad students are often 22-25 themselves and tus would be restricted by this...the notion that people who are entrusted to take LSATs, go into medical school or do studies overseas pursuing a PhD and likely taking out six figures of loans in order to do so are still too much like children to make their own decisions here and need to protected from exploitation is beyond laughable. Even the US' absurdly high drinking age doesn't infantilize these people!

[Donerail]

Just so we're clear that the word you want here actually is "dehumanizing" and not, for example, "infantilizing" or "condescending", you're aware that other animals besides humans have sex, right?

Antonio's original take was extremely poorly considered but it still deserves better than this kind of response.

There are plenty of words I could for Antonio, many of which are not permitted on this forum. Thank you for your suggestions.

Your word is "pedant," btw, though do let me know if you'd prefer "faux-intellectual" or some other variation on that. I'm sure we can be accommodating.

[afleitch]

Nope. Not going to get involved in this one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think the issue here is that Antonio is French and believes in certain quite classic principles of French political thought, notably the idea that the State is or at least ought to be a moral undertaking. This contrasts with the Anglo-German conception of the State which holds that it is a morally neutral entity that simply exists to implement the commands of political actors.* So from Antonio's perspective something that he considers to be morally abhorrent must logically - at least in a somewhat more ideal world - be prohibited by law. Which is a stance quite alien to those of us brought up with a different concept of the State and its purpose.

_{*Which, perhaps paradoxically, was not historically inconsistent with the idea - critical to traditional Conservatism across Northern Europe once upon a time - that nevertheless one must be loyal to it, absolutely.}

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Just so we're clear that the word you want here actually is "dehumanizing" and not, for example, "infantilizing" or "condescending", you're aware that other animals besides humans have sex, right?

Antonio's original take was extremely poorly considered but it still deserves better than this kind of response.

There are plenty of words I could for Antonio, many of which are not permitted on this forum. Thank you for your suggestions.

Your word is "pedant," btw, though do let me know if you'd prefer "faux-intellectual" or some other variation on that. I'm sure we can be accommodating.

"Pedant" will do just fine. Are you going to acknowledge the broader point that you're approaching this thread in an astonishingly personal, hostile way?

I think the issue here is that Antonio is French and believes in certain quite classic principles of French political thought, notably the idea that the State is or at least ought to be a moral undertaking. This contrasts with the Anglo-German conception of the State which holds that it is a morally neutral entity that simply exists to implement the commands of political actors.* So from Antonio's perspective something that he considers to be morally abhorrent must logically - at least in a somewhat more ideal world - be prohibited by law. Which is a stance quite alien to those of us brought up with a different concept of the State and its purpose.

_{*Which, perhaps paradoxically, was not historically inconsistent with the idea - critical to traditional Conservatism across Northern Europe once upon a time - that nevertheless one must be loyal to it, absolutely.}

Thank God you're here.

I was going to say something along these lines myself, but a bit more critically. It's somewhat similar to the issue that emerges when the "legislating morality" line is trotted out on subjects like drugs and abortion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think the issue here is that Antonio is French and believes in certain quite classic principles of French political thought, notably the idea that the State is or at least ought to be a moral undertaking. This contrasts with the Anglo-German conception of the State which holds that it is a morally neutral entity that simply exists to implement the commands of political actors.* So from Antonio's perspective something that he considers to be morally abhorrent must logically - at least in a somewhat more ideal world - be prohibited by law. Which is a stance quite alien to those of us brought up with a different concept of the State and its purpose.

_{*Which, perhaps paradoxically, was not historically inconsistent with the idea - critical to traditional Conservatism across Northern Europe once upon a time - that nevertheless one must be loyal to it, absolutely.}

That's an excellent point, and indeed it's probably at the root of almost every instance when I take an overwhelmingly unpopular stance on this forum. Usually that doesn't generate quite this degree of mockery and performative denunciation, though.