Thread:User talk:Nebuchadnezzar/Help (i.e. expertise) needed/reply (2)

To me, it reads as standard "WHY DO YOU CALL IT RATIONAL WIKI" stuff, alongside the sort of shit you'd expect from NAMbLA. Basically the argument seems to run along the lines of "it's consensual so it's fine", neglecting the major aspect of informed consent. Basically, if you're taking advantage of someone under a level of maturity we deem incapable of making such an informed decision, it's abusive. It's not loaded terminology in that respect. No more so than saying "creationism is wrong" is loaded.