Do you think I care if you dismiss me, babe? I fully expect it - that is what people like you do, after all; you dismiss those who disagree with you, and those who point out that you are completely wrong. Facts do not depend on your "agreeing" with them in order to be facts. That you "disagree" with them makes you…

"We disagree on this point..." No, you are being willfully ignorant of actual fact.

Making it OK to charge people with crimes they did not commit is not a good idea. And given that you are arguing in support of charging people with crimes they did not commit (or breaking laws they did not break), you are the one who is being willfully obtuse here.

"These kids were not truly "exploiting" each other for sexual gratification or financial gain and they can't truly be called pedophiles." Charging someone forthe production of child pornography does not require the person / people producing it to be pedophiles - it only requires that they committed the act of…

"Facts don't become facts when you type them."

So you don't "agree" with facts. Got it.

Are you completely unaware of the fact that human beings form long-term or even lifelong habits throughout adolescence (as well as young-adulthood)??? I think you are.

It seems you skipped actually reading my reply before responding to it, so I will post it here again:

I capitalized one single word - four letters total - for emphasis. That is hardly "flying off the handle".

.

Did you miss the part about them producing child pornography?

You don't really understand consent, do you? A minor is not capable of legally consenting to appear in porn. The law requires (legal) consent from those appearing in porn.

So, if the child is not truant or breaking curfew (or committing any other crimes or punishable acts) while turning tricks, just arrest the John and let the kid keep doing what they're doing? A big part of sentencing for crimes is to keep the convicted from continuing on with what they are doing, and to remove them…

"Teaching kids that they're making porn and they can't legally do that until they're 18 is (...) stupid."

The issue is the video recording of the acts.

Oh, cool! Ad hominem attacks!

If names indicate gender, then what is the need for "Mr." or "Mrs."..?

Also, if accordingto's name* is gendered, then anyone addressing him/her by that name is, by their own argument, addressing their gender...!

Ok, so if names are gendered, then adding a "Mr." or "Mrs.'" is totally redundant and unnecessary in acknowledging your gender, no? If your name is Sally Jones, someone addressing you as "Sally Jones" is, by your own argument, acknowledging your gender - "Mrs. Jones" doesn't acknowledge your gender any more than…

Also - I never said that posting on jezebel "means (you) need to be so open-minded and inclusive and hippie-dippy warm and fuzzy tolerant of everything ever that (your) brain falls out" - as a matter of fact, I never said you "need to be" anything at all.