RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Essay:Age of consent abolitionist FAQ

Essay:Age of consent abolitionist FAQ | Result: Deleted

Essay:Age of consent abolitionist FAQ (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. child rape apology; likely author is sock of banned User:Tisane (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   By the way, I think there is room for legitimate debate about the age of consent – exactly what age it should be set at (e.g. 15 or 16 or 17 or 18), whether there should be close-in-age exceptions (aka "Romeo and Juliet laws"), whether it should be the same for all sexual acts or apply different ages for different kind of sexual acts, etc, etc, etc. But abolishing it entirely would mean that it would be legal for a grown man to have sex with a five year old so long as the five year old "consents", which is just sick, and frankly I think it is not the kind of idea that should be given a platform. (Of course, if Nathan wants to advocate for those ideas on his own webshites, well I guess he has the legal right to do that in the jurisdiction in which he lives; but that doesn't mean anyone else should give him a platform to do so.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   Granted and this essay handles AoC poorly.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 04:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I was about to object that this could be a legit viewpoint and I was almost reminded a hint (emphasis on hint) of the whole Alison Rapp harassment on essays that challenge firmly accepted social viewpoints. LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Poorly written essay by a sock to defend pedophilia.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 04:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
3. "Age of consent abolitionist" sounds nice, but it's just another way of saying that underage sex should be unlimited. Bad. Given the history of the user and the potential sock, it doesn't cast this essay in a very favorable light. LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Only b/c it is a work by a sock of a banned user. I assume in good faith that this has been verified somehow. The controversial nature of the opinions put forth is not a good reason to delete a user essay in the opinion of this free speech extremist. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Don't allow our critics to say we're apologists for child abuse.Spud (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Are we going to delete Essay:Abolish the close-in-age exception, written by the same author? LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably yes. It is advocating the same viewpoint just in a more attenuated form. Also, the stuff about Lena Dunham could be viewed as defamatory. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It unironically cites Bold and Determined. Enough of a reason to nuke.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 05:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a supremely low-quality citation, but does that exactly go against policy to have essays that have terrible citations? LEFTYGREENMARIO 05:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than bothering with another AFD I just deleted it. If anyone strongly objects, we can restore it and we can have an AFD proper. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)