Gnu, instead of going through your long post and explaining yet again how you are completely wrong, I want you to think about what you're doing here.
So that's a dodge, and a red herring.
Do you think your use of reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of debate?
That's a loaded question; which is a type of fallacy.Reductio ad absurdum
is indeed a valid form of argument, but I haven't used it in this discussion.
Do you think you are in any position to dictate my opinions to me?
Even after I've clarified my statements repeatedly, you insist that I in fact meant something different.
No, you're simply refusing to accept the implications of what you said; you said that the AoC should be reduced to the age of criminal responsbility. That means 14 in China, 10 in the UK, 6-12 in the US and so on.
Do you think it's appropriate to cherry pick your definitions to win an argument?
For example, most people reach for a dictionary to define a word, you go to Wikipedia. In situations where a word has multiple definitions, and I've used a different one than the one you had in mind, do you think it's accurate to say I was wrong?
Yes. Wiki's definitions are more detailed than dictionaries. But to humour you, here are some online dictionary definitions of adopt
American Heritage: To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child.
Macmillan: to take someone else's child into your family and legally make him or her your own child
Cambridge: to take another person's child into your own family and legally look after him or her as your own child
Dictionary.com : to take and rear (the child of other parents) as one's own child, specifically by a formal legal act.
Just as I said: adoption is understood to be a formal legal process.
Your argument style is at best riddled with fallacies and at worst purely dishonest.
As Seppuku said, feel free to point out any fallacies which you think I'm committing. Merely claiming that I'm making them is insufficient.
And calling me dishonest is uncalled for. I haven't lied in these discussions with you at all; I have no reason to.
But I HAVE explicitly stated repeatedly that in my opinion 14 should be both the age at which a person can be tried as an adult, and the age of consent.
And when did you first make this clear, Joe? You made your initial claim on June 8th:
I agree, there should be a line, but I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult.
I quoted that back at you four times (June 8, 15, July 21, 22) pointing out the implications of the statement; finally, on July 22nd, you produced this figure of 14:
6 to 12 was your number, not mine. <snip> 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.
So why didn't say that right from the start, Joe? Why did it take you six weeks for you state your position clearly?
Cynics might suspect that this isn't your true position.
And to continue to assume I meant 6 when I've stated clearly that I did not, and clarified my position, is dishonest.
You're misrepresenting what I said; I said that you implied 14, or 10, or 12, or 6, depending on the jurisdiction. Which is true, as the age of criminal responsibility may be any of those ages.