Earlier in this thread you argued that the government had no business in our personal lives and various points against democracy. It was questioned and argued that the majority has no right to dictate to the minority, particularly in our personal relationships.
When queried about whether your mother had business telling you whether you could have sex with the dog, you responded with a status quo argument that you are over 18 and your mother had no right to tell you what to do. You further argued that the age of 18 was what was generally accepted in society and so on. Further status quo arguments were made in this thread that animals cannot consent.
I did not use the status quo as justification for anything, only as a means to simplify my argument. I already stated this, which you've conveniently ignored:
I only brought it up as a simplification of my argument; if I were under 18, I would be making exactly the same argument, except I would have to argue for why the status quo should be changed. Since I am over 18, that matter is irrelevant.
I never once made the claim that, if I were under 18, my assertions would be untrue. If you had posed a more general question as to whether mothers in general should be able to control their children's lives, then you might have a point, but instead you inexplicably decided to focus on
my mother. That makes mothers of under-18s irrelevant, and therefore a discussion of the restrictions imposed on under-18s by the government irrelevant.
If I have made one error in judgment, it was giving you fodder to pick on beside my main point. My main point is, and always has been, that my mother is irrelevant. Any further discussion should be in response to that point, please.
This is entirely antipodal to your original anti-democracy arguments that the government had no business in our personal lives. By framing your response under the justification that the age of 18 is the generally accepted status quo, for when your mother can and cannot tell you things, the subtext is that we should have democratic authorities telling us what to do.
Ignoring what I've said and repeating yourself isn't going to change my response. If you'd like to continue pretending that the status quo is the same thing as democracy, perhaps you'd care to answer this question I posed previously?
Aside from being mistaken, you are also wrong, in that what is generally accepted by society at large does not necessarily align with the laws created by a democratic government, especially a representative democracy which is limited by a constitution. To suggest otherwise would be to accept that same-sex marriage is generally accepted by American society because it is now legal in the US. Which is it, Tom?
"Irrelevant," "it was just humor," whatever.
Yes, I imagine you would have a tough job explaining how it is relevant. That's most likely why you ignored my claims of irrelevance and focused on the unimportant parts of what I said to begin with.
Status quo justifications were made and that is on you. You are through. Your arguments against the system have shown to be flaky, unsupportable, hypocritical, and you are done here.
I have to hand it to you, you've done a fantastic job of destroying arguments I haven't made. Well done, Tom.