You be the judge - sexual assault?

[parmalee]

How about answering mine? Do you think a drawing is harmful to children?

 

[sideshowbob]

That's one specific question to one specific poster. Is that what "multiple" means?

 

[parmalee]

That's one specific question to one specific poster. Is that what "multiple" means?

What do you think?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

When was it ever anything but hypothetical?

We don't know and we're scared.

Is that a good answer?

 

[pjdude1219]

?? 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.

you respond to this but refuse to say why being against child sex makes my disgusting. why? did you get needlessly defensive when asked why you were doing that?

 

[pjdude1219]

"Normal" people didn't question why homosexuality was illegal either - until they did.

again with the equating of child porn and homosexuality

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?

somethings are obvious like water being wet.

Nonsense.

not at all.

 

[sideshowbob]

again with the equating of child porn and homosexuality

Again, I'm talking about the attitude toward questioning.

 

[sideshowbob]

We don't know and we're scared.

Is that a good answer?

What are you scared of?

 

[sideshowbob]

What do you think?

I think you're trying too hard to find something to fight about.

 

[billvon]

you respond to this but refuse to say why being against child sex makes my disgusting. why? did you get needlessly defensive when asked why you were doing that?

I'm not defending myself. I was saying that you were being disgusting.

A different case:
Joe: "I don't understand why Kate is saying the things she is. I mean, I know she was raped, and that was horrible for her, but the things she's saying now aren't even true. Maybe she needs to talk to someone."
Al: "Joe, why are you defending rape?"

Al is being disgusting. He is intentionally misinterpreting Joe to get a really good slam in. I am sure Al would just say "I am just asking a question! Why won't Joe answer why he's defending rape?" but of course his real motivation is to hurt Joe.

 

[parmalee]

We don't pass laws based on personal opinions; we pass them based on facts. At least, we should.

We pass laws based on both facts and opinions. I'm sure that some laws are almost entirely informed by facts, but often it comes down to the legislators' opinions.

 

[sideshowbob]

We pass laws based on both facts and opinions. I'm sure that some laws are almost entirely informed by facts, but often it comes down to the legislators' opinions.

As I said, you're working too hard at nitpicking and misunderstanding. Try to understand what people are saying.

 

[parmalee]

As I said, you're working too hard at nitpicking and misunderstanding. Try to understand what people are saying.

How is that nitpicking? Lawmaking isn't a science. Kind of an important distinction there.

 

[Bells]

How is that a different context?

Because you fail to address what we are discussing and attempt to trivialise it by referring to child pornography as being mere "pictures".

So you finally post an actual fact? Thanks. That's what I've been asking for.

Similar facts had already been posted and you refused to acknowledge them. So what is so different this time?

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.

Uh huh..

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".

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?

I have highlighted the important bit.

That was your response to a doctor sexually assaulting and raping babies and children, when I pointed out the idiocy of your "is it really an assault" line of argument.

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.

And it was been answered over and over and over again. You have refused to accept a single answer. What I linked, is no different to what I and others have been saying repeatedly.

I mean, for any grown arsed man to ask why child pornography should be illegal, really, what's the deal sideshowbob?

Anything can be rationalized. Next time, why don't you put the facts first and keep the name-calling to yourself?

What name did I call you, exactly?

You have spent the better part of nearly what? A dozen or so pages trying to rationalise sexual assault and sexual violence and rape against women and children. I have stuck to the facts. Consistently.

You have stuck to 'why should it be illegal?' when it comes to child pornography. You have queried if it is really assault if a woman is sexually assaulted when she is unconscious or incapable of consenting, etc..

I haven't called you any names. If pointing out your arguments is calling you names, perhaps you should rethink what you are doing here.

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!

You do realise it was sideshowbob who queried if real harm happens when a child is raped right?

I was quoting his post in response to my sarcastically pointing out the obscene nature of his arguments at the start of this thread when it comes to sexual violence against women and children - ie, his if they don't know it's happening, is it really assault..

?? 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.

Yep.

Now compare all that to questioning why it is illegal to rape a woman who is unconscious or sexually molest children and babies because they do not know it's happening, since ya know, according to sideshowbob, if you don't know it's happening, then it should not be illegal...

He makes his statement pretty clear:

Say a thief steals a dollar from Bill Gates -it's still a criminal offense.

It shouldn't be.

Beer responds:

I'm not really thinking about if Bill Gates gives a shit, but that of sexual assault.

Is there mandatory punishments for sexual assault?

To which sideshowbob responds with:

To me, if somebody "steals" from Bill Gates and he doesn't notice the "loss" then there's no crime. If a woman doesn't notice that she's been "assaulted" is there a crime?

I think we focus too much on the perpetrators and not enough on the victims. "What he did" is not as important as how it affected her.

Do you really think he was questioning?

Or are we going to try to make more excuses for what he has argued in this thread?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What are you scared of?

Being raped for one thing.

 

[sideshowbob]

Being raped for one thing.

How does that apply to this topic?

 

[sideshowbob]

That was your response to a doctor sexually assaulting and raping babies and children, when I pointed out the idiocy of your "is it really an assault" line of argument.

And I pointed out that that was not my response at all. My response was that I am only talking about cases in which the "victim" never has any knowledge of the incident. In any other case, I have no argument with you.

I mean, for any grown arsed man to ask why child pornography should be illegal, really, what's the deal sideshowbob?

And I have pointed out repeatedly that I have asked no such question about child pornography in general. Why do you keep lying about it?

I have asked only about situations in which no child was involved in the making.

You have spent the better part of nearly what? A dozen or so pages trying to rationalise sexual assault and sexual violence and rape against women and children.

That's a lie.

 

[sideshowbob]

How is that nitpicking? Lawmaking isn't a science. Kind of an important distinction there.

Now you're nitpicking about nitpicking.

 

[iceaura]

Does a drawing in somebody's house, that nobody else ever sees, threaten children with harm?

It can, yes.
Compare storing dynamite in one's city garage. It's illegal for a reason.

 

[pjdude1219]

Again, I'm talking about the attitude toward questioning.

which again is still equating the two as equal.