14-year old anti attacks Megyn Kelly

[mrlolicon93]

Found this videon on FSTube of a 14-year old calling out Megyn Kelly for saying Epstein was not a pedophile.

https://fstube.net/w/rmyUuwVGxGRkbjbk9F5Afw

To me it seems like the words coming out of her mouth are not her own tbh.

[Jim Burton]

I'm only a kid, listen to me because I'm a kid.

OK.

Kids like me shouldn't have rights and responsibilities, we can't make our own minds up, can't reason, and some of us are still going to school and not even out of braces.

I agree, kids with your level of reasoning ability should not have elective rights or responsibilities. We would be better off without you participating, or being listened to.

Others can, if they so please.

[John_Doe]

I've never understood the logic behind women (e.g. those who argue against women's suffrage) or minors advocating against their being granted autonomy over their own lives (or a say in the democratic process) on the basis that the class of people they belong to are too cognitively underdeveloped or unsuited to make thought-out rational choices because if what you're saying is true, why should I consider your position? You are right off the bat starting with the assumption that you're developed enough to understand the position/issue you are advocating for/commenting on while maintaining that you're too underdeveloped to make choices on your own behalf so the responsibility should be relegated to wiser, more cognitively developed people (and I don't support autonomy or democracy for their own sakes, although I don't think that there's a better alternative to democracy even if it's not fundamentally ideal, but I'm not arguing that blacks or men or the entirety of whatever groups I belong to are too cognitively underdeveloped to be taken seriously as rational agents but my input on philosophical issues should still be taken seriously by those I'm claiming have a greater capacity for understanding than I do. Mind you, there are many people who are undeniably cognitively sharper/quicker than I am and can have a deeper understanding of physics, mathematics, etc. that I could never hope to attain but I still believe that I can grasp certain philosophical or x category concepts that they might miss).

Why are you arguing with your intellectual superiors? She presupposes that she has a better grasp of the situation than someone who is capable of greater understanding and if adults can be so lacking and children developed enough to understand what they can miss that would seem to make it all the more difficult to draw this clear line between the two.

I remember being 14. I'm not saying that there's no difference between my past self and I or that I haven't 'matured' at all but I was closer to an adult than I was to a prepubescent child. I suspect that a lot of the difference is more so the result of changes brought about by life experience than just fundamental wiring. At the time, I certainly did not consider myself to be a child and I don't 'understand' anything about sex now at 40 that I didn't then (I don't think it will ever not be a bummer to write/say out loud that I am 40. The brutality of that fact still hits me now and then, I try to avoid thinking about the fact that I'm not a 30-something-year-old anymore).

I don't want to get into this, and it's not an appeal to nature, but I'll never understand how we've managed to convince ourselves that there is something thoroughly deviant and pathological (I'm not associating those two things) about post-pubescent adolescents being sexual (or denying that they are biologically 'adults' by 15/16 under any meaningful standard. Saying that they are adults does not mean that we can't make any meaningful distinction between very young adults and older adults. You're not allowed to run for president if you're under 35 in the U.S, right or wrong, but no one would deny that 30-year-olds are adults). People really carry on as though age expectations have nothing to do with culture or environment or socialization, we are just biologically wired with a trauma response to sexual activity (or sexual intimacy with older people) until 25 (or to any significant age gap relationship even after 25) or can't 'understand' behavior that instincts we share with older adults gear us toward in the same way that older people can. What specifically is it about sex that adolescents can't understand? When you really wake up to the absurdity of denying adolescent sexuality and the implications of that (which even people who claim to accept might not understand) it's almost like living in The Twilight Zone. I don't think that anything about some kind of sexual or erotic intimacy with other children or adults is necessarily damaging to prepubescent children either but this attitude is especially ironic in regards to people who are at their sexual peak in life, when their libido is at its highest.

What really annoys me is the term 'pedophile' used in reference to anyone over a certain age being attracted to significantly younger people and the complete erasure of the very concept of PUBERTY. 5-year-olds, 17-year-olds, no meaningful difference. I think it's so dishonest when people try to insult someone like Drake by pretending that his being attracted to teenage girls (I don't keep up with hip hop drama so I don't know if they even have, for all intents and purposes, good reason to think that he is beyond him presumably being a heterosexual male) is the corniest, lamest thing in the world and completely atypical of heterosexual men.

If 14-year-olds will suffer as a result of sexual/romantic/erotic intimacy with adults then by all means that would be a reason to view minor-adult sex negatively (when/to the extent that it causes people to suffer) but viewing it as bad only because it causes suffering wouldn't capture the idea that there's something inherently inappropriate about such a relationship. I forgot something I wanted to add but it would be a headache to write out anyway, I've written more than I should have, I'm rehashing basic points/preaching to the choir which is fine but I wanted to keep this relatively short (edit-I remember it now, I don't like how this vague, emotionally charged/manipulative concept of 'exploitation' and 'predation' completely side steps any question about the nature of welfare and what benefits people. Children's/minor's sexual happiness should be valued and celebrated, 'exploitation' as an injustice requires harm, there are no 'predators' without 'victims/would-be victims' so, again, what hurts people? Even consensual sex might circumstantially but not intrinsically or necessarily. I don't want to elaborate on this and there are other things I could get into).

[Brain O'Conner]

She's a disgrace to herself; what a disappointment.

[ReArm!]

has a straight man more crediblity when talking ab gay marriage because gay men are attracted to them?