You be the judge - sexual assault?

Status
Not open for further replies.
billvon said:
You are disgusting.
Click to expand...
Why?

sideshowbob said:
Dr. Bradley really connected with his patients. They adored him. He was fondling them, jamming his fingers into their diapers and vaginas as he cooed at them and they cooed back. Is there really an assault? After all, there is no "perceived threat".
Click to expand...

That's what I'm hoping people will think about instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction. Is it really and assault? Or is the real harm caused to them in the future caused by people telling them they were victims?
Click to expand...

I think at this point, pjdude was kind of pointing out the obvious in how sideshowbob has decided to debate and the content of what he he has said thus far in this thread.

We should ask ourselves if stating the obvious is disgusting, or if questioning if "real harm" happens when the child is sexually molested and raped or when the child is made aware of what their doctor did to them. Keep in mind, Dr. Bradley molested dozens of children, ranging from a few months old to pre-teens. Some, he drugged and then raped them so violently they had to be revived, others he digitally raped them while they were a few months old. And he got away with it for years.
 
Bells said:
Because there is trying to stir debate and then there is pushing to the point where one can validly question an underlying motive. Because you are not trying to stir debate. You are trying to demand we agree with you on child pornography. Any answer we give you is not acceptable because it is not the answer you agree with. So what's the deal?
Click to expand...
I have seen these types of fruitless discussions before. The poster clearly wants to flag his interests in children so that other like minded individuals or groups will contact him via this web site. ( not to mention possibly law enforcement).
Net working is one of the hall marks of pedophile activities and posting as we have seen could very well be a part of an ulterior motive to invite contact.

... again just thoughts...
 
Quantum Quack said:
I have seen these types of fruitless discussions before. The poster clearly wants to flag his interests in children so that other like minded individuals or groups will contact him via this web site. ( not to mention possibly law enforcement).
Net working is one of the hall marks of pedophile activities and posting as we have seen could very well be a part of an ulterior motive to invite contact.

... again just thoughts...
Click to expand...
I do not think this is what he is doing. Well, fielding an interest in children at any rate. At least, I hope that is not what he is doing.

But there comes a point where questions about motives have to be raised when one throws down for something like this.

His comments about virtual child pornography aren't new. But in saying that, he fails to recognise all the information that is out there when it comes to child pornography and normalisation of sexuality of children..

He puts it down to "drawings", which minimises the nature of those "drawings". When he asks 'can drawings harm children?'.. It is the content and context of those "drawings" that he fails to take note of and tries to bypass..

So yeah, why this subject? Why this topic?

What is there to gain in pushing this particular subject matter? Why push arguments that essentially excuse harmful behaviour and actions?

That is something only he can answer. I do think arguing that it is merely an attempt to stir discussion is a lost cause at this point. One does not throw down this hard and this hard simply for a discussion point..
 
billvon said:
Same reason this is:


You aren't sure if "real harm" happens when a child is raped? Do you really not know? Do you have any kids? Hope not!
Click to expand...
Im not the one questioning that though. im the one appaled that anyone would question it.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Are the drawings and stories for strictly personal use or are they to be shared with others?
Click to expand...
That isn't really relevant. My question is about whether they harm children. Anything can be made illegal, whether the law can be enforced or not. The question is about what should be made illegal. Say homosexuality, for example.
 
sideshowbob said:
I'm talking about drawings.
Click to expand...
ok thats all well good decent people don't choose defending child porn as their hill to die on like you doing. people who do usually have ulterior murders. I don't know maybe you could be perfectly innocently defending the sexualization of children and viewing them as sex objects. history and common sense suggests other wise. i don't maybe your just a libertarian this is the kind of fucked up shit they defend.
 
Bells said:
You are changing the context, from essentially how does child pornography that is drawn and written, harm children to 'how does drawing harm children'.
Click to expand...
How is that a different context?

"Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape."
Click to expand...
So you finally post an actual fact? Thanks. That's what I've been asking for.

... you are also the one who queried whether sexually molesting children was even really that harmful or if the harm came from having the children know what happened to them....
Click to expand...
I said no such thing and I have corrected that misstatement a number of times so you have no excuse for continuing the lie. I was talking about a situation where the child - or any person - never found out that anything had happened.

I have to ask, why do you want to legalise fictional child pornography?
Click to expand...
I haven't said that I want to legalize it. I've asked why it should be illegal. In this post, after a lot of misrepresentation, you've finally answered. Thanks again.

The rationale is because it will be harmful to children.
Click to expand...
Anything can be rationalized. Next time, why don't you put the facts first and keep the name-calling to yourself?
 
sideshowbob said:
I'm not defending child porn. I'm asking a question.
Click to expand...
which why your getting super defensive about the fact most people are pointing normal people don't question why child porn is illegal.
It's the same as questioning whether homosexuality should be illegal.
Click to expand...
no its not. one is about what consenting adults are doing and one is about the sexualization of children who legally can't consent. 2 completely different things and that you equate them says nothing good about you. your being given every reason to rational explain yourself as to why this important to you and your getting defensive. the way you are acting is making it incredibly hard not to assume your a pedophile or have those tendencies. a nonpedophile wouldn't be touching this ground and getting so defensive about it.

not to mention im just asking questions is how the right wing smear machine operates to protect its self from slander and libel charges. so your using a smlimey tactic to defend the indefinsible. and you've yet to answer a rather simple and important question if your goal isn't to defend child porn and pedophilia why are you so amped up about this. someone uninvested would back away from the pummeling their taking you doubling down.

asking why something is illegal is inherently defending such a position.
 
pjdude1219 said:
normal people don't question why child porn is illegal.
Click to expand...
"Normal" people didn't question why homosexuality was illegal either - until they did.

one is about what consenting adults are doing and one is about the sexualization of children who legally can't consent.
Click to expand...
It isn't about the specific questions at all. It's about whether or not it's permissible to question something that "normal" people consider "abnormal". If we're not allowed to ask the question, how can we figure out the answer?

asking why something is illegal is inherently defending such a position.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
 
pjdude1219 said:
Asking why something is illegal is inherently defending such a position.
Click to expand...
?? I often questioned why smoking pot was illegal before the latest laws were passed. I still think it's a stupid thing to do.
I question why people want to make abortion illegal, even though I personally don't think it's a good idea, and would not condone it.
I question why cocaine is illegal and pot isn't in California, even though I don't think people should do cocaine.
I question why redistricting is allowed by the majority party, even though I don't necessarily want to see it changed. (Can't think of a better system.)
I question why they chose .08 as the BAC limit for drunk driving, even though I would not want to see it changed without a lot of supporting work done.

Etc etc. Most people can ask questions about a topic without supporting or opposing it.
 
sideshowbob said:
That isn't really relevant. My question is about whether they harm children. Anything can be made illegal, whether the law can be enforced or not. The question is about what should be made illegal. Say homosexuality, for example.
Click to expand...
If you want a hypothetical argument, fine. But this is nasty.
 
billvon said:
Etc etc. Most people can ask questions about a topic without supporting or opposing it.
Click to expand...

Except that Sideshowbob has already made it clear--multiple times--that he doesn't believe that a rape, for instance, of which one has no collection is an assault, or crime--actually, he vacillates on that last bit (the crime part), as he's just making this bullshit up as he goes.
 
parmalee said:
In multiple post you have asked, "do you think?" or some variant--show me explicitly where you have asked for a "fact."
Click to expand...
I have asked if and/or why something "should" be illegal. That isn't about opinions. We don't pass laws based on personal opinions; we pass them based on facts. At least, we should.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top