Aww, I thought you were taking a based stand that young girls are the property of their fathers and therefore consent is an irrelevant and ridiculous notion. I'm disappointed in you.
How is it stupid or a strawman? What I said is more reasonable and supported by human tradition than what you said. Their age is irrelevant. At least you finally gave some arguments for why 14 in your latest comment.
Speaking of strawmen, why do you keep mentioning age 18? Nobody else said that except 8BitArchitect who called it arbitrary. That's not the age of consent in most US states.
Good lord you're low IQ if not a leftist LARPer. Do you think saying STRAWMAN STRAWMAN to everyone's comments is distracting anyone from your literal "muh 18" strawman argument you still haven't explained?
Before confirming how far back on the bell curve you actually are, you had simply stated "14 year olds should be getting married". Not unheard of in the old days. I almost gave you the benefit of the doubt. But then you had to vomit out your "children can consent to sex!" fantasy too.
"a young woman belongs to her father/family who chooses when she can marry and to whom" -> this is historically reasonable and what I hoped you were going for
"14yo children can consent to sex" -> this is actual your retarded take
Don't read into it any more any than that. I'm not getting interested in a pissing match over age of consent. The concept of "consent" is a modern liberal construct. It has nothing to do with reality. "Her father gave her away at the alter" isn't just an expression.
Now go eat a dick because that's what most people on your side advocate for. :)
Aww, I thought you were taking a based stand that young girls are the property of their fathers and therefore consent is an irrelevant and ridiculous notion. I'm disappointed in you.
How is it stupid or a strawman? What I said is more reasonable and supported by human tradition than what you said. Their age is irrelevant. At least you finally gave some arguments for why 14 in your latest comment.
Speaking of strawmen, why do you keep mentioning age 18? Nobody else said that except 8BitArchitect who called it arbitrary. That's not the age of consent in most US states.
Good lord you're low IQ if not a leftist LARPer. Do you think saying STRAWMAN STRAWMAN to everyone's comments is distracting anyone from your literal "muh 18" strawman argument you still haven't explained?
Before confirming how far back on the bell curve you actually are, you had simply stated "14 year olds should be getting married". Not unheard of in the old days. I almost gave you the benefit of the doubt. But then you had to vomit out your "children can consent to sex!" fantasy too.
"a young woman belongs to her father/family who chooses when she can marry and to whom" -> this is historically reasonable and what I hoped you were going for
"14yo children can consent to sex" -> this is actual your retarded take
Don't read into it any more any than that. I'm not getting interested in a pissing match over age of consent. The concept of "consent" is a modern liberal construct. It has nothing to do with reality. "Her father gave her away at the alter" isn't just an expression.
Now go eat a dick because that's what most people on your side advocate for. :)