akaMechsmith wrote:Craven, One at a time
a. Certainly, not even argueable!
Molestation is actually not all that arguable - (whether or not it has occurred IS, the definitions are usually pretty clear) - it is, although not in that language, pretty clearly defined in most legal systems - yet, you decide that it is VERY arguable, and then, oddly, accede to Craven's...what, a tu quoque, I guess? "Molestation can be very subjective" - what CAN you mean by this, other than to defend some molestation, by what arbitrary and self-serving definition I cannot imagine. Perhaps, finally, you might like to be honest about what is, in your view, "molestation", and what is not? This might expedite rational discussion, since, to date, your terms are alarmingly unclear.
akaMechsmith wrote:b.Simply remarking on things that can be shown.
So - your perversion IS on display???????
akaMechsmith wrote:c. I suspect that my judgement may be better than some judges.
(Remember the specific crime in question had not been previously mentioned)
Well, I have known many judges, and some of their judgements, especially in relation to the matters under discussion, were appalling (in my view - plate sin with gold etc.). So far none, except later identified and prosecuted paedophiles, have felt entitled to publicly promulgate such noxious crap as you do - that is generally left to the defendants charged with multiple offences against children (and their gross chorus). So far your judgment, in mine, is nonexistent. And the specific crime HAD been mentioned!
akaMechsmith wrote:d. Point of contention, no doubt about it. Forced anal penetration of a minor is unfair. Along with most of the other offenses listed. But as I understand it, legally is some places the charge or the offense of rape doesn't require penetration. Thats why I asked about "harmed".)
"Unfair". I see. Rape is "unfair". Rape of children is "unfair".
Not being picked for chasey is unfair. Being called out in a game of baseball, when you were not is unfair. Getting a smaller piece of pie than the next kid is unfair.
Rape is traumatic, horrendous, damaging, demaeaning, brutal, disgusting... I could go on - I have worked with many victims of rape - child and adult. Unfair is in there. Not the major focus, generally, but in there.
Penetration is not necessary? IF this is so, IF, hmmmmmm - we must, I assume, be looking at children sucking penises, or being sucked, or tongued, or masturbating grown people, or being masturbated (I know only Oz law - non-penetrative abuse has other names - it is still SEXUAL ABUSE) - so, this violation of boundaries is less damaging than some other violation that excludes some flap of flesh, or digit, or tongue, or bottle, or whatever - IS IT? The onus is upon you to prove this. And you cannot, because I am here to tell you that it is the betrayal of trust and relationship that is truly devastating - and the violation of developmental reality.
Harmed? I have dealt with this stupid sophistry above.
akaMechsmith wrote:Regarding my PM.
you asked "Is this the type of person you would protect"
I answer, Yes I would. He's sick and probably not deserving of punishment. But the children deserved protection.
May I digress, ( I will anyway)
If I owned sheep I would not place them in a pen of unsupervised dogs for the sheeps protection. This is where I am trying to point out that society deserves some of the blame for these unfortunate occurrences.
This is the point of sardonic amusement!!!
I would never ever place my children in a monastary, convent, or church school. They tend to attract persons who have a sense of responsibility that is not warranted by observation. These persons tend to live in an insulated fantastical world with allegiances that cannot be shown to have any basis in facts.
SO WHAT DO WE EXPECT when we place our children in Church schools , monastaries or madrasses? What should a reasonably intelligent person expect when he pens his sheep with the wolves?
This is what we get. Suicide bombers, perversions,and lack of political responsibilities. Damaged personalities and the perpetuations of antisocial attitudes. Unhappiness, greed, and miseries untold.
End of digression.
Serial raping. Thats not fair. I never defended any of the acts specifically alluded to. But I reserve the right to defend the perpertrator. He's sick!
Comparison of rape to football. Nope, I am comparing our practices of putting our children in harms way---differently.
And now you go on to blame the parents and such.
The church represented itself as SAFE. As helpful, as healing - as a proper partner in raising children.
It had - and for many has - the power of tradition - of religion - of awe.
Interestingly, on the one hand you deny harm, on the other you speak of "penning sheep with wolves" and "This is what we get. Suicide bombers, perversions,and lack of political responsibilities. Damaged personalities and the perpetuations of antisocial attitudes. Unhappiness, greed, and miseries untold".
You are right - abuse is harmful.
