Oh you know one guy who worked in China? That's not confirmation bias at all. His expert opinion far outweighs my own. After all, I've only lived here most of my adult life, speak the language fluently, and have a Chinese wife. That can't compare to your drinking buddy who used to live here.
I use the terms wife and girlfriend interchageably. This is a habit I've picked up from the Chinese.I had a drink with a old friend tonight who has worked in China for years, so I asked him about this. He said it's bollocks. Chinese people make exactly the same distinction between wives and girlfriends that we do.
It does compare. He's lived there longer than you. More importantly, I trust him to tell me the truth. And your 'explanation' makes no sense:
The Chinese use the words laogong (husband) and laopo (wife) to describe their lover if they are in a committed relationship. They typically begin using them once the relationship is consummated. They refer to each other as husband and wife during their courtship and engagement, long before they are married. These are the same exact words they will continue to use after they are formally married. Tell that to your idiot friend who knows nothing about China.
That's the opposite of the scenario I'm asking you about. Sure, I can understand that engaged couples might use the words 'husband' and 'wife' prematurely, before they're formally married; but do married couples refer to their spouses as 'boyfriend' and 'girlfriend', as you did? You haven't answered that at all.
This seems to be rather similar to you saying that you had two adopted children, but on further enquiry it turns out that formally, you don't.Ding ding ding ding ding! So, are you saying I don't, or formally I don't? Does that mean I lied, or does that perhaps mean that I raise my wife's children as my own but haven't gone through the legal formalities yet? That is the correct use of the word adopted, it does not require a formal or legal action.
And here we go again, another feeble semantic excuse to deny what you said. Adoption is a formal process with legal implications for both parent and child. The opening paragraph of the wiki article on adoption says (my bolding):
Adoption is a process whereby a person assumes the parenting for another and, in so doing, permanently transfers all rights and responsibilities from the original parent or parents. Unlike guardianship or other systems designed for the care of the young, adoption is intended to effect a permanent change in status and as such requires societal recognition, either through legal or religious sanction. Historically some societies have enacted specific laws governing adoption where others have tried to achieve adoption through less formal means, notably via contracts that specified inheritance rights and parental responsibilities. Modern systems of adoption, arising in the 20th century, tend to be governed by comprehensive statutes and regulations.
You haven't adopted any children.
Are you formally married, Joe? Or do you just refer to your girlfriend as your wife sometimes?We have a marriage license
I don't trust a word you say any more.
6 to 12 isn't my number; they're the numbers used in the US to define criminal responsibility. And you said that you would like the AoC to be reduced to those levels. Here in Britain, it's 10. That's too young for the AoC, Joe. I never suggested lowering the age of consent to 6 or even 10.
Yes, you did. You said:
I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult.
In the US, that age is between 6 and 12, depending on the State. So as far as the US is concerned, you think the AoC should be reduced to 6-12. How else can your statement be interpreted?
You know it's dishonest. Is that the reputation you want to cultivate? My point was that I don't think it's fair that we consider young children adults in some situations, but children in other situations. Did you not get that or are you simply pretending you didn't get that? Set the bar a little higher for yourself, Gnu.
Your insults are tiresome, yet they reflect the weakness of your arguments. When your back's to the wall, you start swearing and insulting your opponents in the hope of unsettling them. I noticed one of your karma messages in support of Jeremy referring to us in these terms:
Ignore the circle jerking haters.
And I see that a few days previously you down-karma'd Graybeard thus:
Immature namecalling is not a logical argument.
I'm sure you'll come back with some arcane explanation of why your
namecalling is mature
Because you're saying that a 31-year-old man having sex with an 11-year old girl should be legal in some circumstances:Certain theoretical circumstances that I quickly admitted may be an impossible condition to meet.
No you didn't. You claimed
that you said this on the adoption thread, but when I asked you about it,
you completely ignored my question in your reply
You see, I am not promoting lowering the age of consent to 11. I was asked if it should be legal to have sex with an 11 year old. I said that I didn't believe it was a simple yes or no question.
Well, it is. And your attempts to justify it in some circumstances constitute promotion.
If it could be proven harmless, it should be legal. I then voiced my doubt that it could be proven harmless and in conclusion made no recommendation to lower the age of consent laws.
As I quoted you above:
I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult
You are contradicting yourself.
Well, this is just rude and stupid.
I think 14 is a reasonable age to be considered an adult, and I think that should apply to both sexual consent and accountability for one's actions.Thanks for sharing, but who cares what you think, or what number you plucked out of thin air?
And, I don't believe you.
It's not particularly rude. Whereas you calling me stupid definitely is rude.
Also, 14 is not plucked out of thin air. 2394762936 is plucked out of thin air. 3589 is plucked out of thin air. In fact almost any number plucked out of thin air would be impractical as there are infinite numbers beyond the human life span.