"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...

> pearl wrote

> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> >>Glorfindel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Glorfindel wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have.
> >>
> >>You have not, Karen.
> >
> >
> > What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?
>
> She has stated that she studied history at university.
> Then she got a job shampooing cats. She hasn't
> studied biology, zoology, anatomy or any other science
> at the university level. Neither have you.

You don't know what we've studied.

Where did you learn that "no animal anticipates", as you have
repeatedly claimed? What are your qualifications in the field?

Where did you study various aspects of rape, and anatomy?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...

>>Rubystars wrote:
<..>
> not only because rape is violence,

Ipse dixit, and petitio principii.

> but because it could cause all manner of problems in those young children.

It *could*, but it wouldn't necessarily, and in fact
usually wouldn't. Your standard crumbles further...

> Damage to the vagina or anus, STDs, etc. but your claim that penetration of
> children is not violent,

It is not _intrinsically_ violent. It cannot be
defined as violent _per se_.

> is demonstrably wrong, due to soreness and bleeding
> from both the anus and the vagina.

No. Those might not happen, and as I said, almost
assuredly won't happen with girls 13 or older.

> Keep in mind that grown ups are much
> larger than children.

They are not always much larger than early adolescents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are you defending the rape of children, jonathan ball?