"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Genuine harm does not have to involve much physical damage, but the
> >>point is that there is real harm, genuine harm, not that a simple
> >>status is involved, like an age, or being ***, or some such thing.
> >>Change it, perhaps, to "genuine, real harm", or "genuine, objective
> >>harm" -- something involving the real world. I think you understand
> >>what I mean.
>
> > Fine, I accept the stipulation. The central point that you can't seem to
> > grasp is that prevailing understanding of sex between adults and
children is
> > that it is damaging *frequently enough* to warrant prohibition.
>
> And what you can't seem to grasp is that that prohibition does not have
> to be enforced by State force, and does not have to be defined on the
> basis of age _per se_. It can be defined on a case-by-case basis on the
> basis of demonstrable HARM.

And what you can't seem to grasp is that by that time it's too late. After a
person kills an innocent pedestrian it's too late to prohibit them from
driving while drunk.

> <snip>

Yes, snip indeed, snip the analogies that expose the folly of your position.

<unsnip>
Shooting off
a gun on a public street or driving while drunk doesn't *always* result in
harm to innocents either, but it occurs often enough that those freedoms are
best curtailed. I may *love* getting hammered and driving my Camaro fast
down Main Street, I amy be quite confident that *I* can do so safely, but
society makes it illegal for everyone, to protect innocent citizens.

> >>>You're full of shit. Your shitty logic has you running in circles, and
> >>>condoning horrible harm to children, for the sake of protecting the
> > jollies
> >>>of a few perverts. The only logical conclusion is that you are one
> > yourself.
>
> >>That is certainly not the "only logical conclusion" -- and you know it.
>
> > Everything about your position reeks of it. You speak as one who is
sexually
> > attracted to children but believe in yourself that you would never harm
one
> > or force your attentions upon one.
>
> I am not sexually attracted to children -- but think whatever you want.
> I don't care. The logic of my position does not depend on belonging to
> any particular sexual orientation.

There is no valid logic to your position, that's why it appears that you're
operating from the kind of rationalization that an alcoholic might use when
excusing his habit of driving while intoxicated.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Freedom is always capable of abuse, but freedom is the central value
> >>on which all others are based, and without it, nothing else is
> >>of real value.
>
> > Freedom is the easy part. Democratic rights are all about accepting
> > limitations on one's own freedom on behalf of a greater good.
>
> Accepting limitations, and having stupid, ill-conceived, and unjust
> limitations on one's freedom thrust upon one by the State are two
> different things.

Thrust by "the State" eh? Who do you suggest do the thrusting? And why must
we wait until we discover damaged children?

The freedom you are asking for is to risk aggregious harm to children before
action is taken, and for what, to satisfy the lusts of a few perverts.

Do you also wish to allow the freedom to shoot off handguns in schoolyards
until harm is done, or shall you allow the State to "thrust" limitations on
that?