>>7903806Imagine raising the age of consent to 150, so that every woman on the planet would never become an adult. That's what life was like for women in the victorian era. You are arguing for reducing womens rights by literally declaring them to be children, even though they're adults, and acting like you deserve a pat on the back for doing so. In fact, you specifically called participating in porn "the ultimate expression of freedom for her and others", and then immediately stated that it should be made more illegal. These kind of blatant logical contradictions make it look like you're not even attempting to apply critical thinking to your opinions.
Malcom X talked about how there are two types of white people at civil-rights protests; one: altruistic people who are genuinely willing to put their life on the line to protect the rights of others; and two: people who don't give a shit about human rights, are there entirely because they think being a "humanitarian" will complement their public image, and would abandon the movement in a heart beat if it stopped being beneficial to them. When you directly contradict your own beliefs within the span of a single paragraph, it tends to make people think that you're the latter of those two; that you aren't genuinely contemplating what's best for the women of the world; you're in fact just parroting garbage neo-liberal hot-takes you read on twitter, and expecting a pat on the back for doing so. The reason people don't bother debating you is that, if somebody's motivating is to look good, rather than to actually advance society, it is impossible to make them admit that they're wrong, as doing so would directly contradict their narcassistic motivations. Basically, you'll put your ego first, pretend you won, and probably call the other guy sexist, because you actually do not give a shit if you're helping or hurting women, so long as you get your oppurtunity to act sophisticated and morally superior on the internet.
