I can keep repeating it as long as you can keep asking: If they find out about it, ever, in their lifetimes, they can be considered to be harmed. If they never find out about it, ever, in their lifetimes, that seems like too broad a definition of harm. Was I harmed by butterfly number 1,3520,583 in the Amazon rain forest? Not as far as I am aware.
Do you want to compare a doctor diddling a baby's vagina with his fingers for his own sexual gratification to a butterfly in the Amazon rain forest?
Did he commit an assault?
Are you seriously asking if child sexual molestation constitutes an assault?
No you're not. You're ignoring what I actually said and trying to browbeat a pedophile.
Are you a paedophile?
Because I am literally trying to get you to answer to the real life examples of what you have been questioning... And your response is to accuse me of trying to browbeat a paedophile and that I am apparently ignoring what you actually said, despite the fact that I took your words at face value and am questioning you about it. So which paedophile am I browbeating?
Why do you refuse to address real life examples?
You have it backwards. Every crime is not assault. I made a minor remark about assault. I may have been unclear in my language but I have been trying to clarify ever since.
If clarification entails digging yourself in deeper...?
Every crime is not an assault. Stealing a car is not assault in a large portion of cases. But it is still a crime. Just as sexually molesting an unconscious woman who is unaware of of the molestation still constitutes an assault against her person. Which is a crime.
So, if a man reads a story about children and gets off on that, who is harmed? Does he automatically go out and rape children? I compared it to depictions of murder, etc. Do you watch a movie about murder and then go out and murder people? I don't think so. Some people don't. I'm saying that if nobody is actually murdered to make the movie, I see no harm in that. And if nobody is actually exploited in the making of pornography, I see no harm in that.
You completely ignore the fact that I said exactly the opposite. I was talking about drawings and stories. What damage is done to children in creating them?
It entails sexualising children. It suggests that children are sexual beings for adults to have sex with. Do you honestly not understand the dangers of that?
For example, paedophiles tend to groom their victims. Normalising paedophilia through, as you put it so disingenuously, 'a story about children' (while ignoring that said story would entail or involve children having sex, usually with adults), would allow for said grooming of said victim. One of the biggest tools in a paedophile's toolkit when it comes to grooming children and it is a recurrent theme, is the use of pornography. They expose their victims to pornography, to desensitise them to sex, particularly sex with adults. Child pornography would make it even easier for paedophiles and thus, more dangerous to children.
It also reinforces the belief that sex with children is normal and acceptable and would encourage paedophiles to act on it.. Which would lead to harm to children.
Now do you understand?
What I do not understand is why you are choosing to throw yourself down for this.. What is going on? Because most people would rather set themselves on fire than argue for allowing virtual child pornography to be legal, not just because it would be dangerous to children in society, but also because it would literally be normalising depraved and perverted behaviour... So why are you doing it, sideshowbob?
If I see a car accident, I will attend to the victim who is bleeding, not search through the onlookers for somebody who might have been injured years ago.
Which is completely unrelated to what you have been arguing in this thread.
Let me ask you this..
Do you think victims of child sex abuse, those who were too young to understand or remember, were not sexually assaulted because they were too young to understand or remember what happened to them?
Error #1. We're not talking about rape. We're talking about dry-humping.
Which is sexual assault without consent.
Error #2. We're talking about assault specifically.
And?
Are you suggesting that sexual molestation, sexual assault and rape do not constitute an assault upon a person?
Error #3. I have been saying that drugging somebody is a crime because of the potential harm, much like flying an airliner under the influence causes potential harm.
But sexually assaulting them while they are unconscious:
If a woman doesn't notice that she's been "assaulted" is there a crime?
In a thread about 'sexual assault' and determining if an act amounts to sexual assault..
Is apparently not so clear cut for you in regards to whether it is a crime or not? Sexually assaulting a person does not constitute or fall under the banner of "harm" for you? You'd rather focus on whether the rapist got the dosage of the drug right instead because hey, now that's a real crime?
