Your reading comprehension… I'll just point out two problems so I can save myself considerable time walking you through what you should have learned in maybe high school grammar classes, because at this point we’re not even talking about the issues, we’re just struggling with your illiteracy. I’m not your grammar teacher, go back to school.


Really, I mischievously assigned it to you? Did I mischievously sneak in that “then” and those 3 other points that led up to that?

What do you think I meant with the word “then”? Well let’s look at the whole context shall we?


I was walking through scenarios that would give us a different understanding of the situation, depending on what the situation is, because “Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money?” depends on a lot of factors, so I said “If on the off chance there was literally no better option than sex trafficking, then you’ve painted a picture that it’s either prostitution or death and the last thing they might be able to turn to is charity.”

So you taking that position depends on whether this 12 year old was in the off chance situation of having literally no other options other than sex trafficking or death (through starvation).
I didn’t paint you in it, force you in it, or do anything “mischievous” by any normal standards.

The other problem you have is with both mainstream economics and Austrian Economics. You keep trying to say that because I can’t prove something empirically, I have lost all credibility.


You would get laughed out of any serious economics class if you said something like this, because you could say this to any mainstream or Austrian economics professor and it would be true. That doesn’t discredit our entire understanding of economics, any more than it discredits my position on the welfare system.

Now, it would be a fair criticism that I hadn’t made a connection all the way from praxeology to the welfare system, but I certainly can’t do that in a forum post, and the way Austrian Economists understand economics gives them a different way of addressing economic problems that avoids the empirical issue, but again, the fact that economics is empirically untestable or predictable is pretty much a universally accepted fact of economists.

The fact that you don’t see this connection either again reflects your reading comprehension issues, or a deeply flawed understanding of economics (Probably a combination of both). Don’t debate this with me, go debate this with the entire Economics profession.


No, it really isn’t. I walked through 4 different steps that would lead to different answers depending on what the situation is.
It is probably immoral because I don’t think 12 years old is old enough to consent, but the whole “consent” issue for what age group is a gray area that I haven’t seen a really good answer to from anyone. It is certainly immoral in my society.
So doing this whole “yes or no” thing for this very complex issue just reflects a very puerile and not well considered moral philosophy.


So. I wish you the best in luck in all your endeavors, but I can’t continue with this because you’ve demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension, a lack of basic knowledge of economics, and very poorly considered moral philosophy. You don’t need to be doing debates, you need to be taking some basic level English, Economics, and Philosophy courses. Cheers.

Edit: Oops, Rugrats correctly pointed out I had the wrong name in my quote. (He incorrectly thought that this absolves him of his inability to understand the word "then".)