Another poster has linked you to his video on this topic. Yes, he said some very stupid things to provoke discussions and reactions, and the whole thing was both immature and misguided. But shouldn't you be able to say "I did some very stupid things and will do better in the future"?

If he did something similar more recently, I'd be with you - tar and feather him, and exclude him from the community. But he hasn't (afaik). Mistakes shouldn't brand you forever, as long as you're honestly doing better and working against those mistakes.

You are aware that 18 years old is higher than the age of consent in most of the Developed World, were it's generally set at 16: in this like in many other things it's the US that's the outlier religious nutter of the developed world.

Not to mention that your "logic" is claiming that somebody who wants to change the law is not law abidding, which is ridiculous: if that person did not care to abide by the law, why change it?!

No idea what's the full idea of this guy and if it is or not a good suggestion, but the logic and format of you counter-point has a crazy "only criminals would want to change the law" subservient statist-bitch vibe to it.

This is a good example of an argument that fails by virtue of its foundational premises. Vaush's foundational premise for age of consent is tied to socioeconomic or material factors around power. In other words, the argument is founded on the premise that a child has less power than an adult so children can't consent to intimate relationships with adults. This ignores the much more intractable argument over psychological and emotional maturity and the significance of particular age-specific life milestones that help to shape a child into an adult - a fully self-accountable member of society. Socioeconomics have mitigating influence over those things, which implies that even under socialism or any kind of post-capitalist society, that a society would have good reason to maintain agent of consent laws. It also totalizes socioeconomic factors as the defining impetus for consent, but that is in and of itself a slippery slope because you could take it to a logical extreme and argue that people of color and white people shouldn't be allowed to be in relationships, because a person of color has less socioeconomic power in America than a white person, or even that men and women shouldn't be allowed to be in relationships at all because men have greater socioeconomic power than women, which would mean that everyone should only be allowed to date same-sex members of their own race.

That's a bit troubling, though I would like to see Vaush expand on that. I could understand that the age of consent could be updated. For example, it's illegal for a 18 y/o to be with a 17 y/o, which is ridiculous to me. What are two 17 y/o kids that are dating supposed to do when the first one to turn 18 happens? We know it's not typically enforced in situations like that, but it shouldn't even be a thing because if the parents are jerks, they could come after the recent 18 y/o who is probably mentally still a kid since transitioning to adulthood doesn't happen from one day to the next. I would like to see a rolling age of consent for that age range. Maybe like a 1.5 year range between partners or something like that until the older one hits 19.5 y/o. From then on, it's a hard line at 18 y/o.

While I'm at it, I would be ok with raising the age of consent to participate in professional porn to 21 y/o.

Edit: Apparently, there are already laws that allow what I have described about with the 17/18 divide. See comments below.

Wow a stupid not-thought out take on Discord from 6 years ago, he's clearly Epstein himself in disguise

I wonder what point he was trying to make in those latter two clips? I wonder if he made a dumb choice to say something extremely inflammatory in an attempt to highlight problems with other forms of child exploitation that we as a society not only accept, but actively endorse?