>>109699977>You're appealing to tradition here; having done it that way for a long time does not make it good, right or correct.Which is fine, since the point was that [this non-traditional way] is not the way it "has to" be. Since the existence of the tradition serves as a counterexample, appealing to tradition is not the logical fallacy of "appeal to tradition".
>For the majority of human existence we didn't fully understand the psychological impact of kid-diddling. Who said anything about kid-diddling? This is about basing legal ability to consent on age or on other indications of maturity.
>ImpracticalA potential argument to make, but then you'd have to actually make it, rather than simply assert that it is so. particularly since there are practical difficulties with the age-based criterion.
>In the interest of fairness, an arbitrary number is decided that fits the average the best.If it fits the average the best, it's not arbitrary. How is that standard evaluated, anyway? If it's a verifiable empirical standard, why not use that instead of age?
