Rubystars wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>

>>>I'm calling violence violence, I don't see what the problem is.
>>
>>The problem is you're *defining* violence by things
>>that are not inherently violent.
>>
>>
>>>If you can
>>>argue that penetrating children isn't violence, you could probably argue
>>>that just about anything isn't violent.
>>>
>>>Hmmm, for example, by what standard would you consider a boxing match to
>>>be violent?
>>
>>By the standard that unequivocal physical injury is
>>done to the participants. That they are willing
>>participants doesn't change the fact that it's violent.
>> Not all violence is illegal, although a pretty strong
>>case could be made that boxing ought to be illegal.
>>Personally, I still enjoy watching some boxing, but I
>>long ago learned to appreciate more than merely KO punches.
>
>
> Oh, but just because they punch at each other doesn't mean they'll actually
> hit each other, so boxing isn't "inherently" violent.

Your stubbornness is really making you look silly.

The intent of and threat of violence is legally
sufficient. Gotcha: you didn't think of that, did
you? If a person accosts me on a dark street and has
his hand in his coat pocket with a finger extending to
make it appear he has a gun, and tells me to hand over
my wallet, he has committed an act of violence.

In boxing, the combatants are attempting to strike one
another, and in fact, they *always* do strike one
another, even if only on the gloves. If you accost me
on the street, attempt to strike me about the head, and
I deflect the blow with my hands, you *still* have
struck me and committed a violent, and in that case
illegal, act.

>
> In fact, it might be argued that most punches don't connect.

They don't need to connect in order for the event to be
judged violent.

>
> Obviously, it's foolish to use this argument as a way to show that boxing
> isn't a violent sport, obviously it is, and you're using the same kind of
> foolishness to argue that rape isn't violent.

No, I'm not, because someone committing statutory rape
need not harm or even attempt to inflict physical harm
on the victim.

>
> <snip>
>
>>>I don't agree with you that it usually wouldn't. It would almost always
>>>cause rupture of the hymen in young girls and anal soreness and bleeding
>>>in boys and girls who were anally raped.
>>
>>It's going to depend on the age of the child, and on
>>the care taken by the pervert.
>
>
> So under a certain age, its always violent?

No, absolutely not. I said exactly the opposite: it
*isn't* always violent at any age under the age of
consent. It isn't the violence that makes it wrong;
you keep losing sight of that.

> I don't think perverts are
> taking much care for anything except their own sexual gratification, anyway.

You're only speculating now. In fact, I suspect most
child molesters DON'T commit violence in order to
seduce their victims.

>
>
>>>>>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_.
>>>
>>>
>>>So let me ask you a question. Could a non-violent protest group make their
>>>point by raping their debate opponents and still be considered nonviolent?
>
>>Groups can't rape; individuals in a group can.
>
>
> Can a non-violent protester maintain that title if they use rape to make
> their point?

I wouldn't think so. So what?

Your question is not pertinent.

>
>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just because a girl turns 13 doesn't mean that raping her suddenly
>>>becomes non-violent.
>>
>>You really are being stubborn.
>
>
> You bet.

You shouldn't be. It's leading you into colossal
blunders, and far away from your main and correct point.

>
>
>>The crime of statutory
>>rape exists IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not violence
>>ensued. When we talk about putting adults who inflict
>>sex on children behind bars, we're talking primarily
>>about statutory rape, not necessarily the violent or
>>threatened-violence rape of an adult.
>
>
> We're mostly talking about rape of children, anyway.

Yes: the *statutory* rape of children; that is, an
ILLEGAL sex act, irrespective of whether or not
violence (actual or threatened) was involved.

There was a woman in Washington state, Mary Kay
LeTourneau, the daughter of a former wacko Califorina
state senator named John Schmidt, who was an elementary
school teacher. She seduced one of her 6th grade
pupils, a boy 11 or 12 at the time, and conceived a
child. She was convicted of child rape, given a
sentence of 89 months in prison, and paroled after 6
months. Upon her release, she had sex with the boy
again, and again became pregnant. She was returned to
prison to serve the remainder of her term.

It was pretty obvious that there was no violence in the
relationship at all, but she nonetheless was convicted
of a rape. Your point that rape equals violence is
nonsense.

As an interesting footnote, State Senator Schmidt's
political career crashed and burned after it was
revealed that he fathered two out-of-wedlock children.

>
>
>>If an adult man
>>seduces an adult woman, or if the woman makes the
>>advances, it isn't rape; if the female in this case is
>>a sexually developed 15 year old girl, the law defines
>>it as statutory rape. "Rape" in a legal sense means
>>any unlawful sex, whether or not it is violent.
>
>
> I don't think most 15 year olds are mature enough to make those decisions.

Nor do I, at least on average; nor does the rest of
society, which is why the age is set higher.

Your answer, though, was a non sequitur. It doesn't
address the fact that a 15-year-old girl could be
seduced and the victim of a non-violent *statutory* rape.

>
>
>>>It doesn't mean that she wouldn't bleed from having her hymen
>>>broken and it doesn't mean that she wouldn't bleed anally.
>>
>>But the likelihood is much less. Your focus on this
>>actually weakens your case, because if they don't
>>occur, then by your standard the perp could claim he
>>didn't commit a rape. That's plainly absurd.
>
>
> I never claimed that at all. You're trying to twist it around.

I'm not twisting anything around. Did you focus on
these specific symptoms, or didn't you? You did.

> I am merely
> pointing out that the occurrence, and the risk of, anal and vaginal soreness
> and bleeding are evidence in support of the point that rape is a violent
> act.

No, they aren't, because they can readily occur in
instances that clearly aren't rape. They are only
evidence of injury, not violence.

> Those aren't the only reasons that rape is violent, but they are points
> in favor of my argument.

They are neither reasons that rape is violent nor
points in your favor.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
>
> >>>I'm calling violence violence, I don't see what the problem is.
> >>
> >>The problem is you're *defining* violence by things
> >>that are not inherently violent.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you can
> >>>argue that penetrating children isn't violence, you could probably
argue
> >>>that just about anything isn't violent.
> >>>
> >>>Hmmm, for example, by what standard would you consider a boxing match
to
> >>>be violent?
> >>
> >>By the standard that unequivocal physical injury is
> >>done to the participants. That they are willing
> >>participants doesn't change the fact that it's violent.
> >> Not all violence is illegal, although a pretty strong
> >>case could be made that boxing ought to be illegal.
> >>Personally, I still enjoy watching some boxing, but I
> >>long ago learned to appreciate more than merely KO punches.
> >
> >
> > Oh, but just because they punch at each other doesn't mean they'll
actually
> > hit each other, so boxing isn't "inherently" violent.
>
> Your stubbornness is really making you look silly.

Your arguments are just as silly as the one above.

> The intent of and threat of violence is legally
> sufficient. Gotcha: you didn't think of that, did
> you?

The rape itself is also an act of violence, IMO.

>If a person accosts me on a dark street and has
> his hand in his coat pocket with a finger extending to
> make it appear he has a gun, and tells me to hand over
> my wallet, he has committed an act of violence.

Yup.

> In boxing, the combatants are attempting to strike one
> another, and in fact, they *always* do strike one
> another, even if only on the gloves. If you accost me
> on the street, attempt to strike me about the head, and
> I deflect the blow with my hands, you *still* have
> struck me and committed a violent, and in that case
> illegal, act.

Rape is also a violent and illegal act.

> > In fact, it might be argued that most punches don't connect.
>
> They don't need to connect in order for the event to be
> judged violent.

Rape doesn't have to actually cause physical pain and damage to be
considered violent. It's a violent act regardless of the level of damage
caused.

> > Obviously, it's foolish to use this argument as a way to show that
boxing
> > isn't a violent sport, obviously it is, and you're using the same kind
of
> > foolishness to argue that rape isn't violent.
>
> No, I'm not, because someone committing statutory rape
> need not harm or even attempt to inflict physical harm
> on the victim.

They often do harm and always have the risk of doing harm whenever they
engage in the activity.

> >>>I don't agree with you that it usually wouldn't. It would almost always
> >>>cause rupture of the hymen in young girls and anal soreness and
bleeding
> >>>in boys and girls who were anally raped.
> >>
> >>It's going to depend on the age of the child, and on
> >>the care taken by the pervert.
> >
> >
> > So under a certain age, its always violent?
>
> No, absolutely not. I said exactly the opposite: it
> *isn't* always violent at any age under the age of
> consent. It isn't the violence that makes it wrong;
> you keep losing sight of that.

Violence is part of what makes it wrong, but not the only thing. My argument
is not "Violence is the reason rape is wrong." My argument is that "Rape is
a violent act".

> > I don't think perverts are
> > taking much care for anything except their own sexual gratification,
anyway.
>
> You're only speculating now. In fact, I suspect most
> child molesters DON'T commit violence in order to
> seduce their victims.

Every single time they do it, they risk causing damage to the vagina or
anus.

> >>>>>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_.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So let me ask you a question. Could a non-violent protest group make
their
> >>>point by raping their debate opponents and still be considered
nonviolent?
> >
> >>Groups can't rape; individuals in a group can.
> >
> >
> > Can a non-violent protester maintain that title if they use rape to make
> > their point?
>
> I wouldn't think so. So what?

Why not?

> Your question is not pertinent.

Sure it is. If rape isn't violent, then why couldn't a non-violent protester
use it?
<snip>
>>You really are being stubborn.
> >
> >
> > You bet.
>
> You shouldn't be. It's leading you into colossal
> blunders, and far away from your main and correct point.

My main point is that rape is an act of violence in itself.

> >>The crime of statutory
> >>rape exists IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not violence
> >>ensued. When we talk about putting adults who inflict
> >>sex on children behind bars, we're talking primarily
> >>about statutory rape, not necessarily the violent or
> >>threatened-violence rape of an adult.
> >
> >
> > We're mostly talking about rape of children, anyway.
>
> Yes: the *statutory* rape of children; that is, an
> ILLEGAL sex act, irrespective of whether or not
> violence (actual or threatened) was involved.

Damage is always a risk (and often happens) when men stick their penises
into children, and therefore violence is always involved.

> There was a woman in Washington state, Mary Kay
> LeTourneau, the daughter of a former wacko Califorina
> state senator named John Schmidt, who was an elementary
> school teacher. She seduced one of her 6th grade
> pupils, a boy 11 or 12 at the time, and conceived a
> child. She was convicted of child rape, given a
> sentence of 89 months in prison, and paroled after 6
> months. Upon her release, she had sex with the boy
> again, and again became pregnant. She was returned to
> prison to serve the remainder of her term.
> It was pretty obvious that there was no violence in the
> relationship at all, but she nonetheless was convicted
> of a rape. Your point that rape equals violence is
> nonsense.

The boy was too young to make those kinds of decisions, whether he thought
he was, or not. He may not have beaten him up, but she certainly was
manipulative.

> As an interesting footnote, State Senator Schmidt's
> political career crashed and burned after it was
> revealed that he fathered two out-of-wedlock children.

lol

> >>If an adult man
> >>seduces an adult woman, or if the woman makes the
> >>advances, it isn't rape; if the female in this case is
> >>a sexually developed 15 year old girl, the law defines
> >>it as statutory rape. "Rape" in a legal sense means
> >>any unlawful sex, whether or not it is violent.
> >
> >
> > I don't think most 15 year olds are mature enough to make those
decisions.
>
> Nor do I, at least on average; nor does the rest of
> society, which is why the age is set higher.

Yup.

> Your answer, though, was a non sequitur. It doesn't
> address the fact that a 15-year-old girl could be
> seduced and the victim of a non-violent *statutory* rape.

If she could not be mature enough to truly give consent, then the adult
would be taking advantage of her naive state. Thus, though it is much less
heinous than forcing a toddler down and raping them, its still a form of
rape.

> >>>It doesn't mean that she wouldn't bleed from having her hymen
> >>>broken and it doesn't mean that she wouldn't bleed anally.
> >>
> >>But the likelihood is much less. Your focus on this
> >>actually weakens your case, because if they don't
> >>occur, then by your standard the perp could claim he
> >>didn't commit a rape. That's plainly absurd.
> >
> >
> > I never claimed that at all. You're trying to twist it around.
>
> I'm not twisting anything around. Did you focus on
> these specific symptoms, or didn't you? You did.

Those specific symptoms were only examples.

> > I am merely
> > pointing out that the occurrence, and the risk of, anal and vaginal
soreness
> > and bleeding are evidence in support of the point that rape is a violent
> > act.
>
> No, they aren't, because they can readily occur in
> instances that clearly aren't rape. They are only
> evidence of injury, not violence.

So I can injure someone else without violence? Interesting.

> > Those aren't the only reasons that rape is violent, but they are points
> > in favor of my argument.
>
> They are neither reasons that rape is violent nor
> points in your favor.

I disagree.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>

>>>>>Hmmm, for example, by what standard would you consider a boxing match
>>>>>to be violent?
>>>>
>>>>By the standard that unequivocal physical injury is
>>>>done to the participants. That they are willing
>>>>participants doesn't change the fact that it's violent.
>>>> Not all violence is illegal, although a pretty strong
>>>>case could be made that boxing ought to be illegal.
>>>>Personally, I still enjoy watching some boxing, but I
>>>>long ago learned to appreciate more than merely KO punches.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, but just because they punch at each other doesn't mean they'll
>
> actually
>
>>>hit each other, so boxing isn't "inherently" violent.
>>
>>Your stubbornness is really making you look silly.
>
>
> Your arguments are just as silly as the one above.

They are logically consistent, and have at least some
basis in fact. Yours are just wildly emotional.

>
>
>>The intent of and threat of violence is legally
>>sufficient. Gotcha: you didn't think of that, did
>>you?
>
>
> The rape itself is also an act of violence, IMO.

Wrong. That's what you've been trying to persuade me
and others to accept, and now you're reduced merely to
repeating the belief.

>
>
>>If a person accosts me on a dark street and has
>>his hand in his coat pocket with a finger extending to
>>make it appear he has a gun, and tells me to hand over
>>my wallet, he has committed an act of violence.
>
>
> Yup.

Yup. So, your bizarre tangent about boxers not
actually striking one another was just silly.

>
>
>>In boxing, the combatants are attempting to strike one
>>another, and in fact, they *always* do strike one
>>another, even if only on the gloves. If you accost me
>>on the street, attempt to strike me about the head, and
>>I deflect the blow with my hands, you *still* have
>>struck me and committed a violent, and in that case
>>illegal, act.
>
>
> Rape is also a violent and illegal act.

No. If it is judged to be rape, then it is illegal
_per se_. It is not always violent, however.

>
>
>>>In fact, it might be argued that most punches don't connect.
>>
>>They don't need to connect in order for the event to be
>>judged violent.
>
>
> Rape doesn't have to actually cause physical pain and damage to be
> considered violent. It's a violent act regardless of the level of damage
> caused.

False. That's just your political belief. It also is
miles removed from *statutory* rape.

>
>
>>>Obviously, it's foolish to use this argument as a way to show that boxing
>>>isn't a violent sport, obviously it is, and you're using the same kind of
>>>foolishness to argue that rape isn't violent.
>>
>>No, I'm not, because someone committing statutory rape
>>need not harm or even attempt to inflict physical harm
>>on the victim.
>
>
> They often do harm

But not always.

> and always have the risk of doing harm whenever they
> engage in the activity.

You're trying to be cute with "harm" now. I'm not buying.

>
>
>>>>>I don't agree with you that it usually wouldn't. It would almost always
>>>>>cause rupture of the hymen in young girls and anal soreness and bleeding
>>>>>in boys and girls who were anally raped.
>>>>
>>>>It's going to depend on the age of the child, and on
>>>>the care taken by the pervert.
>>>
>>>
>>>So under a certain age, its always violent?
>>
>>No, absolutely not. I said exactly the opposite: it
>>*isn't* always violent at any age under the age of
>>consent. It isn't the violence that makes it wrong;
>>you keep losing sight of that.
>
>
> Violence is part of what makes it wrong,

Only if there *is* violence. Rape is not always violent.

> but not the only thing. My argument
> is not "Violence is the reason rape is wrong." My argument is that "Rape is
> a violent act".

That isn't an argument at all. It's a claim, and a
thoroughly unsupported one at that.

>
>
>>>I don't think perverts are
>>>taking much care for anything except their own sexual gratification,
>
> anyway.
>
>>You're only speculating now. In fact, I suspect most
>>child molesters DON'T commit violence in order to
>>seduce their victims.
>
>
> Every single time they do it, they risk causing damage to the vagina or
> anus.

That is not what makes it "rape".


>>>Can a non-violent protester maintain that title if they use rape to make
>>>their point?
>>
>>I wouldn't think so. So what?
>
>
> Why not?
>
>
>>Your question is not pertinent.
>
>
> Sure it is. If rape isn't violent, then why couldn't a non-violent protester
> use it?

The rape you're talking about is a physical assault.
You're not talking about statutory rape, or drugging
the victim first.

> <snip>
> >>You really are being stubborn.
>
>>>
>>>You bet.
>>
>>You shouldn't be. It's leading you into colossal
>>blunders, and far away from your main and correct point.
>
>
> My main point is that rape is an act of violence in itself.

Your point is false.

>
>
>>>>The crime of statutory
>>>>rape exists IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not violence
>>>>ensued. When we talk about putting adults who inflict
>>>>sex on children behind bars, we're talking primarily
>>>>about statutory rape, not necessarily the violent or
>>>>threatened-violence rape of an adult.
>>>
>>>
>>>We're mostly talking about rape of children, anyway.
>>
>>Yes: the *statutory* rape of children; that is, an
>>ILLEGAL sex act, irrespective of whether or not
>>violence (actual or threatened) was involved.
>
>
> Damage is always a risk (and often happens) when men stick their penises
> into children, and therefore violence is always involved.

No. That's completely wrong. That isn't what makes
the act wrong.

>
>
>>There was a woman in Washington state, Mary Kay
>>LeTourneau, the daughter of a former wacko Califorina
>>state senator named John Schmidt, who was an elementary
>>school teacher. She seduced one of her 6th grade
>>pupils, a boy 11 or 12 at the time, and conceived a
>>child. She was convicted of child rape, given a
>>sentence of 89 months in prison, and paroled after 6
>>months. Upon her release, she had sex with the boy
>>again, and again became pregnant. She was returned to
>>prison to serve the remainder of her term.
>>It was pretty obvious that there was no violence in the
>>relationship at all, but she nonetheless was convicted
>>of a rape. Your point that rape equals violence is
>>nonsense.
>
>
> The boy was too young to make those kinds of decisions, whether he thought
> he was, or not. He may not have beaten him up, but she certainly was
> manipulative.

She wasn't violent. Concede: rape is not inherently
violent. You are wrong to contend it is.

>
>
>>As an interesting footnote, State Senator Schmidt's
>>political career crashed and burned after it was
>>revealed that he fathered two out-of-wedlock children.
>
>
> lol
>
>
>>>>If an adult man
>>>>seduces an adult woman, or if the woman makes the
>>>>advances, it isn't rape; if the female in this case is
>>>>a sexually developed 15 year old girl, the law defines
>>>>it as statutory rape. "Rape" in a legal sense means
>>>>any unlawful sex, whether or not it is violent.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think most 15 year olds are mature enough to make those decisions.
>
>>Nor do I, at least on average; nor does the rest of
>>society, which is why the age is set higher.
>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>>Your answer, though, was a non sequitur. It doesn't
>>address the fact that a 15-year-old girl could be
>>seduced and the victim of a non-violent *statutory* rape.
>
>
> If she could not be mature enough to truly give consent, then the adult
> would be taking advantage of her naive state.

"taking advantage" does not equate to violence.

> Thus, though it is much less
> heinous than forcing a toddler down and raping them, its still a form of
> rape.

It is not *violent*. Rape is not intrinsically
violent. You are wrong to contend it is.

>
>
>>>>>It doesn't mean that she wouldn't bleed from having her hymen
>>>>>broken and it doesn't mean that she wouldn't bleed anally.
>>>>
>>>>But the likelihood is much less. Your focus on this
>>>>actually weakens your case, because if they don't
>>>>occur, then by your standard the perp could claim he
>>>>didn't commit a rape. That's plainly absurd.
>>>
>>>
>>>I never claimed that at all. You're trying to twist it around.
>>
>>I'm not twisting anything around. Did you focus on
>>these specific symptoms, or didn't you? You did.
>
>
> Those specific symptoms were only examples.

You FOCUSED on them. You made them the centerpiece of
your shabby argument.

>
>
>>>I am merely
>>>pointing out that the occurrence, and the risk of, anal and vaginal soreness
>>>and bleeding are evidence in support of the point that rape is a violent
>>>act.
>>
>>No, they aren't, because they can readily occur in
>>instances that clearly aren't rape. They are only
>>evidence of injury, not violence.
>
>
> So I can injure someone else without violence? Interesting.

Yes. If you trip and fall and injure YOURSELF, did you
commit an act of violence? Haw haw haw!

>
>
>>>Those aren't the only reasons that rape is violent, but they are points
>>>in favor of my argument.
>>
>>They are neither reasons that rape is violent nor
>>points in your favor.
>
>
> I disagree.

Your disagreement is baseless.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>Rubystars wrote:
> >>
>
> >>>>>Hmmm, for example, by what standard would you consider a boxing match
> >>>>>to be violent?
> >>>>
> >>>>By the standard that unequivocal physical injury is
> >>>>done to the participants. That they are willing
> >>>>participants doesn't change the fact that it's violent.
> >>>> Not all violence is illegal, although a pretty strong
> >>>>case could be made that boxing ought to be illegal.
> >>>>Personally, I still enjoy watching some boxing, but I
> >>>>long ago learned to appreciate more than merely KO punches.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, but just because they punch at each other doesn't mean they'll
> >
> > actually
> >
> >>>hit each other, so boxing isn't "inherently" violent.
> >>
> >>Your stubbornness is really making you look silly.
> >
> >
> > Your arguments are just as silly as the one above.
>
> They are logically consistent, and have at least some
> basis in fact. Yours are just wildly emotional.

I just have a different opinion on that matter than you do. It seems your
reluctance to call it violence is based on the emotions you feel toward
liberals and feminazis who misuse the terms "rape" and "violence."

It's fine for you to have your opinions, but I have the right to disagree
with them, and vice versa.

> >>The intent of and threat of violence is legally
> >>sufficient. Gotcha: you didn't think of that, did
> >>you?
> >
> >
> > The rape itself is also an act of violence, IMO.
>
> Wrong. That's what you've been trying to persuade me
> and others to accept, and now you're reduced merely to
> repeating the belief.

It's my opinion that rape itself is a violent act. That has been my whole
point all along. Specifically, the rape of young children by adult men was
what I was referring to originally.

> >>If a person accosts me on a dark street and has
> >>his hand in his coat pocket with a finger extending to
> >>make it appear he has a gun, and tells me to hand over
> >>my wallet, he has committed an act of violence.
> >
> >
> > Yup.
>
> Yup. So, your bizarre tangent about boxers not
> actually striking one another was just silly.

It was intended to be silly to show you what your arguments look like to me.

<snip>
> > Rape is also a violent and illegal act.
>
> No. If it is judged to be rape, then it is illegal
> _per se_. It is not always violent, however.

That's where we disagree, but you can think what you want.

> >>>In fact, it might be argued that most punches don't connect.
> >>
> >>They don't need to connect in order for the event to be
> >>judged violent.
> >
> >
> > Rape doesn't have to actually cause physical pain and damage to be
> > considered violent. It's a violent act regardless of the level of damage
> > caused.
>
> False. That's just your political belief. It also is
> miles removed from *statutory* rape.

Statutory rape in the sense of adults with sexually mature teenagers who
give "consent" within their limited ability, is still wrong, IMO (and not
always physically violent), but it IS a far cry from raping a toddler, so I
will agree with you on this point.

> >>>Obviously, it's foolish to use this argument as a way to show that
boxing
> >>>isn't a violent sport, obviously it is, and you're using the same kind
of
> >>>foolishness to argue that rape isn't violent.
> >>
> >>No, I'm not, because someone committing statutory rape
> >>need not harm or even attempt to inflict physical harm
> >>on the victim.

Someone having pedophilic tendencies and attempting to rape a young child
would be though.

> > They often do harm
>
> But not always.

If "But not always" you're talking about some 16 year old, then I'd agree
with you that there isn't always physical harm involved.

> > and always have the risk of doing harm whenever they
> > engage in the activity.
>
> You're trying to be cute with "harm" now. I'm not buying.

I'm not trying to be cute. I'm saying that when a grown man takes a little
boy and rapes them in the butt that there is a severe risk involved in
doing physical harm to that child through soreness and bleeding and other
problems.

What I don't understand is why you don't seem to consider this act, the rape
of young children, as inherently violent, whether or not those said effects
occur.

<snip>
> Only if there *is* violence. Rape is not always violent.

And we go back to this again. *L* Ok, I'm not going to convince you, and
you're not going to convince me.

> > but not the only thing. My argument
> > is not "Violence is the reason rape is wrong." My argument is that
>"Rape is
> > a violent act".
>
> That isn't an argument at all. It's a claim, and a
> thoroughly unsupported one at that.

All right, that's what I claim, and that's what the evidence tells me. You
can look at it for yourself, and draw your own conclusion.

> >>>I don't think perverts are
> >>>taking much care for anything except their own sexual gratification,
> >
> > anyway.
> >
> >>You're only speculating now. In fact, I suspect most
> >>child molesters DON'T commit violence in order to
> >>seduce their victims.
> >
> >
> > Every single time they do it, they risk causing damage to the vagina or
> > anus.
>
> That is not what makes it "rape".

You're right. Lack of informed consent is what makes it rape.

> >>>Can a non-violent protester maintain that title if they use rape to
make
> >>>their point?
> >>
> >>I wouldn't think so. So what?
> >
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> >
> >>Your question is not pertinent.
> > Sure it is. If rape isn't violent, then why couldn't a non-violent
protester
> > use it?
>
> The rape you're talking about is a physical assault.
> You're not talking about statutory rape, or drugging
> the victim first.

Why do you assume I was referring to a physical assault? Maybe the
nonviolent protester did drug the victim first? What if he'd asked to have a
meeting with them to reconcile their differences and he drugged them there?

<snip>
> She wasn't violent. Concede: rape is not inherently
> violent. You are wrong to contend it is.

Rape as in forced sex without informed consent given is inherently violent.
What she did was immoral and manipulative but not rape in the sense I was
talking about.

<snip>
> > Those specific symptoms were only examples.
>
> You FOCUSED on them. You made them the centerpiece of
> your shabby argument.

I can talk about other things if you want.

<snip>
> >>No, they aren't, because they can readily occur in
> >>instances that clearly aren't rape. They are only
> >>evidence of injury, not violence.
> >
> >
> > So I can injure someone else without violence? Interesting.
>
> Yes. If you trip and fall and injure YOURSELF, did you
> commit an act of violence? Haw haw haw!

It depends on if I did it deliberately or not.

<snip>

-Rubystars

Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> "Bob Yates" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My misunderstanding, I am familiar with cases of "civil disobedience or
> > possibly animal liberation, or some other worthy cause" where the intend
> > was to damage or destroy property without regard to injuries caused.
>
> That's not civil disobedience, no matter what they may call it. Civil
> disobedience is something like protest marches and sit ins.

Unfortunately, "civil disobedience" is subject to a wide range of
interpretations and misinterpretations. As an example of how far some
can go, I even saw David Duke refereed to as a civil rights activist!

Rubystars wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> <snip>

>>Once again, we see that Karen is driven by the mental
>>defect of *needing* to be alienated and marginalized.

<snip>

> I can't understand that mentality.

Neither can I -- but then, that isn't my "mentality." It's
another of jonnie's silly inventions about me.

<snip>

Rat

Rubystars wrote:

<snip>
> I guess it depends on what someone means by "Attempting to have sex."
> Penetration would automatically mean violence, IMO.

Yes, I agree in the case of any child younger than the early teens.

Rat

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
> First of all, understand that it is an axiom to most
> femi-nazis that heterosexual coitus is an act of rape:

And, of course, I am not a "femi-nazi" (whatever that is
supposed to mean in Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin-addled mind),
nor do I believe this about heterosexual relations.

Rat
<snip>

Rubystars wrote:

<snip>

> Anal penetration (which the NAMBLA pervies advocate) often causes that kind
> of thing anyway.

Where did you read that NAMBLA advocates anal penetration of young children?

Rat
<snip>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Anal penetration (which the NAMBLA pervies advocate) often causes that
kind
> > of thing anyway.
>
> Where did you read that NAMBLA advocates anal penetration of young
children?
>
> Rat

They're the Man Boy Love group.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
m...
>
...
> Penetration of children is violence.
>

Indeed using the terminology the subject of this thread a child is I guess
defined as someone below the age of consent. Therefore whatever that
person/child might wish, the act is without their consent because the law
does not permit them to give consent.

However you must accept that some young people do have sex, often with
other young people. I believe that in some countries this might even be
legal (I can't imagine how), but it isn't in the UK. Of course this
doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Michael Saunby

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> <snip>
>
>
>>> Once again, we see that Karen is driven by the mental
>>> defect of *needing* to be alienated and marginalized.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> I can't understand that mentality.
>
>
> Neither can I -- but then, that isn't my "mentality."

It *is* your mentality. You consciously adopt
far-outside-the-mainstream positions *because* of some
perverted, mentally ill need to be outside the
mainstream. For some reason only your shrink could
say, that's the only place you feel comfortable.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I guess it depends on what someone means by "Attempting to have sex."
>> Penetration would automatically mean violence, IMO.
>
>
> Yes, I agree in the case of any child younger than the early teens.

NAMBLA, an organization whose *goals* you defend,
disagrees. By seeking the abolition of *all*
age-of-consent laws, you are encouraging them to
inflict violence, in your view, on very young children.
You are promoting criminality, not just in the view
of society but in your own view as well.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> First of all, understand that it is an axiom to most femi-nazis that
>> heterosexual coitus is an act of rape:
>
>
> And, of course, I am not a "femi-nazi"

Yes, you are. You may deviate from the party line in
some inconsequential ways, but you are an arch femi-nazi.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Anal penetration (which the NAMBLA pervies advocate) often causes that
>> kind
>> of thing anyway.
>
>
> Where did you read that NAMBLA advocates anal penetration of young
> children?

They do. They, and you, advocate the abolition of all
age-of-consent laws. They, and you, place no lower
limit on the age at which a boy could give informed
consent to have his assfole ****ed by an adult man.
And yet, elsewhere, you wrote:

Yes, I agree [penetration would consitute violence]
in the case of any child younger than the early teens.


You are grotesquely inconsistent. You claim out of one
side of your ass that there is no lower limit to the
age of consent, yet out of the other that *even if* a
pre-teen boy gave his consent to have his asshole
****ed by an adult man, it would be violence.

On 29 Dec 2003 19:54:28 -0800, (sunny) wrote:

> I do believe that PETA is being investigated by Congress which wants
> to revoke their tax free status because PETA has supported via cash
> donations groups that the FBI has labeled as "internal terrorist"
> groups...

Labeling it thusly doesn't make it so. For an intelligent analysis of this
issue see:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7748

Here is an excerpt:
"The Texas bill defines an "animal rights or terrorist organization" as "two or
more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated
activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an
activity involving animals or... natural resources."

Someone has chosen to redefine terrorism. Deterrence can take many forms, most
of them non-violent. It can also occur in the form of education -- heaven
forfend.

"The bill adds that "'Political motivation' means an intent to influence a
government entity or the public to take a specific political action." Language
in the New York bill is similarly broad."

In other words, selected individuals will decide which propaganda is acceptable
and what isn't. Scary.

"Michael Ratner, a human rights lawyer and vice-president of the Center for
Constitutional Rights, has never seen such draconian legislation in the United
States."

"This is unique. Even under the definition of domestic terrorism in the Patriot
Act, you have to at least do something that arguably threatens people's lives,"
he says. "The definitional sections of this legislation are so broad that they
sweep within them basically every environmental and animal-rights organization
in the country."

> Plus, PETA have donated LOTS of money to support the legal funds of
> some of these groups leaders that are being tried for murder...
>
> Try these links to find out the truth about PETA--and remember, one
> of their goals is to ELIMINATE completely pet ownership...

I haven't heard this from any reputable source. The links you offered below are
propaganda sites for a group which calls itself the CCF (Center for Consumer
Freedom).

> http://www.animalscam.com/

From that site:
"CCF receives financial support from restaurants, food companies, and a growing
number of ordinary people who recognize that their right to eat meat, drink
milk, wear fur, enjoy the circus, hunt, and fish are in serious jeopardy."

> http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

From that site:
"What is The Center for Consumer Freedom?"

"The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by
restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal
responsibility and protect consumer choices."

"Unlike the anti-consumer activists we monitor and keep in check, we stand up
for common sense and personal choice. The growing fraternity of "food cops,"
health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent
radicals who think they know "what's best for you" are pushing against our basic
freedoms. We're here to push back"
________________

As long as there is big money in producing meat, dairy, fur, leather products,
those who produce them will continue to prosper. Wonder why these people feel
so threatened? "Consumer freedom" seems to be alive and well.

What's really bothering them is the idea that some of those "food cops, health
care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats and violent radicals"
(amusing how they try to lump them together) may push for legislation requiring
the producers of such products to implement safe work environments, sanitary
conditions, humane treatment of animals, closer inspection of food products, and
other means of protecting the consumer and the consumed. That would be awful,
wouldn't it? It might decrease profits, and we can't have any of that, now can
we?

Rubystars wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...

>>
>>Rubystars wrote:

>><snip>

>>>Anal penetration (which the NAMBLA pervies advocate) often causes that
> kind of thing anyway.

>>Where did you read that NAMBLA advocates anal penetration of young
> children?

> They're the Man Boy Love group.

Yes. But they do not advocate anal penetration of young children. They
oppose any action which injures or physically harms a child. Certainly,
there are many rational reasons one may have for opposing their views,
but it is good to know exactly what those views are before attacking
them. I would suggest visiting their website to see what those views
actually are.

Rat

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:

>> Rubystars wrote:
<snip>

>>> I guess it depends on what someone means by "Attempting to have sex."
>>> Penetration would automatically mean violence, IMO.

>> Yes, I agree in the case of any child younger than the early teens.

> NAMBLA, an organization whose *goals* you defend, disagrees.

Prove it.

Rat
<snip>

Can't help yourself, jonnie -- you actually agree with my basic position
here, as a libertarian must. You claim to support the freedom of the
individual, but come out against it when I advocate it. You claim to
oppose State power when it conflicts with individual freedom to act in
ways which are not harmful, but you leap to suggest individual freedom
doesn't matter -- that individuals who are, in fact, doing no harm,
violating no one else's rights, may be punished by the State in a
supposed "public interest." That is the essence of a fascist position:
that the good of the whole is more important than the individual good.
It is most certainly a fully statist position.

Do you not see that you can only oppose my beliefs on law of consent by
violating the libertarian principles you yourself claim to hold?

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>


> It is obviously true that an
> age-of-consent law is going to draw an arbitrary age, and that some
> young people on the "wrong" side of the limiting age would in fact be
> able to give informed consent.

In such a case, those people's rights have been violated by State power.

> Unfortunately, looking at an issue like
> that on a case-by-case basis is simply far too costly to society.

So rights may be violated, in your view, if it costs "too much" to
uphold them. Why bother to have legal protection of rights at all,
then?

> One must balance the harm done by denying a tiny handful of
> mature 15-year-olds the "right" to have sex, with the great good done by
> making sex with *any* 8-year-old _ipso facto_ illegal.

If sex with any eight year old involves harm to that child, then it
would be covered under laws against assault. Shouldn't a good
libertarian agree "no victim, no harm" and punish only acts which
are objectively harmful?

> That great good
> is obvious and undeniable, and one sees that the harm is negligible.

Not to the person sent to jail for 20 years for relations with someone
you yourself define as capable of consensual sexual relations, nor to
the young person involved. But those people's rights and welfare don't
matter to you, evidently, if it costs to defend them, or the State
benefits, or the majority benefits, in your opinion. That is not a
libertarian position.

Rat
<snip>

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
>> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>
>>>
>>> Rubystars wrote:
>
>
>>> <snip>
>
>
>>>> Anal penetration (which the NAMBLA pervies advocate) often causes that
>>
>> kind of thing anyway.
>
>
>>> Where did you read that NAMBLA advocates anal penetration of young
>>
>> children?
>
>
>> They're the Man Boy Love group.
>
>
> Yes. But they do not advocate anal penetration of young children.

Yes, they do, by *necessary* implication. They are an
advocacy group for adult men having sex with boys, boys
of *any* age. They don't *emphasize* any particular
sex acts in their propaganda, but because some part of
the population of queer men wants to **** pre-teen boys
up the ass, and because they, and you, claim that
pre-teen boys could give consent, they are by
*necessary* implication advocating anal penetration of
young boys by adult men.

Only a liar and sophist like you could pretend otherwise.

> They oppose any action which injures or physically harms a child.

False, and a typical example of your usual sleazy
sophistry. They advocate legal protection for an
action, anal penetration of young boys by adult men,
that rational people - not the perverts - feel is
intrinsically harmful to the children, whether or not
the children feel it is.

> Certainly,
> there are many rational reasons one may have for opposing their views,
> but it is good to know exactly what those views are before attacking
> them.

Their view, which you support, is that boys of any age
are capable of giving informed consent to submit to
anal penetration.

> I would suggest visiting their website to see what those views
> actually are.

I did:

NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of
men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

# building understanding and support for such
relationships;
# educating the general public on the benevolent
nature of man/boy love;
# cooperating with *******, ***, feminist, and
other liberation movements;
# supporting the liberation of persons of all ages
from sexual prejudice and oppression.

[...]

NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws
and all other restrictions which deny men and boys
the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over
their own lives.

http://www.nambla1.de/welcome.htm


By NECESSARY IMPLICATION, you filthy pervert, they
advocate anal penetration of boys.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
>>> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> I guess it depends on what someone means by "Attempting to have sex."
>>>> Penetration would automatically mean violence, IMO.
>
>
>>> Yes, I agree in the case of any child younger than the early teens.
>
>
>> NAMBLA, an organization whose *goals* you defend, disagrees.
>
>
> Prove it.

I support NAMBLA because it is an
advocacy organization and has a
right to free speech. And I agree
with NAMBLA that age of consent laws
should be abolished, because I am an
anarchist.

http://tinyurl.com/33cak


Elsewhe

Yes, I support NAMBLA because I see it as a
*** movement.

http://tinyurl.com/36b3p


I sincerely hope you some day are prosecuted for this.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
> Can't help yourself, jonnie -- you actually agree with my basic position
> here, as a libertarian must.

No, unlike you, I don't have an adolescent's need to
try to remain consistent with an impossible ideal. You
really, truly are a case of arrested development. You
are STUCK in your teen years.

> You claim to support the freedom of the
> individual,

I do, generally. As a mature adult, something you'll
never be, I recognize that there is no absolute freedom
of the individual; it conflicts with the legitimate
rights of other individuals. You do not advocate
individual freedom at all; you advocate license for a
select few.

> but come out against it when I advocate it.

No. I come out against your selective advocacy of license.

> You claim to
> oppose State power when it conflicts with individual freedom to act in
> ways which are not harmful,

No, I don't. You can't cite a single instance,
including the present topic. Your problem is you have
an evil and purely sophistical definition of harmful.

> but you leap to suggest individual freedom
> doesn't matter -- that individuals who are, in fact, doing no harm,

Men ****ing boys is harmful per se.


> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> It is obviously true that an age-of-consent law is going to draw an
>> arbitrary age, and that some young people on the "wrong" side of the
>> limiting age would in fact be able to give informed consent.
>
>
> In such a case, those people's rights have been violated by State power.

No, they haven't: they do not have the right you
falsely claim.

>
>> Unfortunately, looking at an issue like that on a case-by-case basis
>> is simply far too costly to society.
>
>
> So rights may be violated, in your view, if it costs "too much" to
> uphold them.

No. Rights - genuine rights - may not be violated.
What you are claiming to be "rights" are nothing of the
kind.

> Why bother to have legal protection of rights at all,
> then?
>
>> One must balance the harm done by denying a tiny handful of mature
>> 15-year-olds the "right" to have sex, with the great good done by
>> making sex with *any* 8-year-old _ipso facto_ illegal.
>
>
> If sex with any eight year old involves harm to that child,

Rubystars:
I guess it depends on what someone means by
"Attempting to have sex." Penetration would
automatically mean violence, IMO.

Karen Winter, pervert living in Santa Fe, NM:
Yes, I agree in the case of any child younger than
the early teens.


You made a categorical statement: in the case of any
child younger than the early teens, sexual penetration
is _ipso facto_ violent. Do you believe that anal
penetration of an eight-year-old boy is violent? Is
that kind of violence harmful to children, or isn't it?

You support the total abolition of age-of-consent laws.
By absolutely necessary implication, you support
adult men ****ing eight-year-old and younger boys.

> then it would be covered under laws against assault.

Then ALL sex by adults with pre-teen children that
involves penetration should be prosecuted as assault,
correct? You have earlier DEFINED penetration of
pre-teens as violent, and now you have given a formal
legal name to the violent crime: assault. You have
established an age of consent: thirteen. By your
definitions, a child under age thirteen may not give
consent to penetration.

> Shouldn't a good
> libertarian agree "no victim, no harm" and punish only acts which
> are objectively harmful?

Sex with young children is harmful to them.

>
>> That great good is obvious and undeniable, and one sees that the harm
>> is negligible.
>
>
> Not to the person sent to jail for 20 years for relations with someone
> you yourself define as capable of consensual sexual relations, nor to
> the young person involved.

Going to prison is SUPPOSED to be seen as harmful by
would-be criminals. We don't care about their sense of
being harmed by it: they aren't supposed to commit the
crime. Do the crime, do the time.

> But those people's rights and welfare don't
> matter to you,

Their legitimate rights do matter. What you dopily
want to refer to as a "right" isn't a right at all, by
definition.

Rat & Swan wrote:

> But those people's rights

They do not have a right to prey on children.

> and welfare

I am not concerned with the welfare of sex predators.
Actually, that's not quite true. I wish to degrade the
welfare of people who inflict themselves sexually on
young children; I think 30 years in prison is the
appropriate degradation of their welfare.

> don't matter to you, evidently, if it costs to defend them,
or the
> State benefits, or the majority benefits, in your opinion.

It figures that you would confuse rights and interests
here; you confuse them all the time. My comment that
some young people's pursuit of their interests must be
curtailed in no way suggests that their rights can and
should be curtailed. Only a moral bankrupt like you
could be confused over this.

> That is not a libertarian position.

My position on this is fully consistent with
libertarian principles.


BTW, I note from NAMBLA's web site that the sexual
predator and queer Harry Hay is dead. Good. It only
would have been better if he had died in prison.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
<snip>
> > They're the Man Boy Love group.
>
> Yes. But they do not advocate anal penetration of young children.

I never marched with NAMBLA or anything like that, so maybe you know a
little more than I do, but why is it they want to have age of consent laws
repealed? I know you say you want them repealed because you're an anarchist,
but why do you think they do?

> They
> oppose any action which injures or physically harms a child.

Of course they would, officially.

>Certainly,
> there are many rational reasons one may have for opposing their views,
> but it is good to know exactly what those views are before attacking
> them. I would suggest visiting their website to see what those views
> actually are.

This page?
http://www.nambla1.de/snap.htm

It has a story including a recalling of a grown man having sex with a 13
year old boy.

-Rubystars

"Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> ..
> > Penetration of children is violence.
> >
>
> Indeed using the terminology the subject of this thread a child is I guess
> defined as someone below the age of consent. Therefore whatever that
> person/child might wish, the act is without their consent because the law
> does not permit them to give consent.
>
> However you must accept that some young people do have sex, often with
> other young people. I believe that in some countries this might even be
> legal (I can't imagine how), but it isn't in the UK. Of course this
> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>
> Michael Saunby

Even though its not a good idea, being that young girls past puberty have a
risk of unwanted pregnancy, and both boys and girls risk getting diseases,
etc. Sex between two teenagers of the same or very close ages is not really
comparable, IMO, to an adult preying upon a child.

-Rubystars

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> > But those people's rights
>
> They do not have a right to prey on children.
>
> > and welfare
>
> I am not concerned with the welfare of sex predators.
> Actually, that's not quite true. I wish to degrade the
> welfare of people who inflict themselves sexually on
> young children; I think 30 years in prison is the
> appropriate degradation of their welfare.

Seeing as they never really change and can never be cured, I wish they had
to go to prison for life for harming a child.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>>They're the Man Boy Love group.
>>
>>Yes. But they do not advocate anal penetration of young children.
>
>
> I never marched with NAMBLA or anything like that, so maybe you know a
> little more than I do, but why is it they want to have age of consent laws
> repealed? I know you say you want them repealed because you're an anarchist,
> but why do you think they do?

So they can **** young boys in the ass, and not be
presumptively guilty based on the age of the child.
You know it, I know it, and the advocate-for-perverts
Karen Winter knows it.

She KNOWS that's why they advocate it, she KNOWS that
men ****ing young boys will be the outcome, and so she
NECESSARILY advocates men ****ing young boys up the ass.

>
>
>>They
>>oppose any action which injures or physically harms a child.
>
>
> Of course they would, officially.

It's even sleazier and worse than that. They are
playing fast and loose with the word "injure". They
reject the idea, using the same filthy sophistry as
Karen Winter, that sex with children is inherently
injurious to them, *irrespective* of whether or not
there is physical harm.

>
>
>>Certainly,
>>there are many rational reasons one may have for opposing their views,
>>but it is good to know exactly what those views are before attacking
>>them. I would suggest visiting their website to see what those views
>>actually are.
>
>
> This page?
> http://www.nambla1.de/snap.htm

That's the page.

>
> It has a story including a recalling of a grown man having sex with a 13
> year old boy.

A thirteen-year-old boy quite obviously could
physically have sex without being physically harmed by
it. However, society has an interest in protecting the
boy's mental and emotional and social health as well.
It is believed by rational people, people who fully
support the idea of maximal freedom for competent
adults (subject to the constraint that the rights of
others are not infringed), that most children that age
will be harmed by having sex. There may be some
exceptions, and they will have their interests ignored,
but interests do not equal rights.

Children are different, as rational thinkers have
always known.

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Rat & Swan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But those people's rights
>>
>>They do not have a right to prey on children.
>>
>>
>>>and welfare
>>
>>I am not concerned with the welfare of sex predators.
>>Actually, that's not quite true. I wish to degrade the
>>welfare of people who inflict themselves sexually on
>>young children; I think 30 years in prison is the
>>appropriate degradation of their welfare.
>
>
> Seeing as they never really change and can never be cured, I wish they had
> to go to prison for life for harming a child.

There is a dangerous hysteria loose in this country
that wants to impose unreasonably harsh penalties for
even very minor infractions. Soon, we'll be seeing the
rightwingnuts advocating life without parole for the
"crime" of jaywalking; dropping a chewing gum wrapper
of cigarette butt as you jaywalk will qualify as a
"special circumstance" and you'll be potentially
subject to the death penalty.

Life without parole should be reserved only when
grievous bodily harm results, or possibly for repeat
offenders. Even if the urge is still there, lots of
people learn to curb their urges after a stint in
prison. Those who don't should be put away for a
longer time, possibly life.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
news
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>Rat & Swan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>But those people's rights
> >>
> >>They do not have a right to prey on children.
> >>
> >>
> >>>and welfare
> >>
> >>I am not concerned with the welfare of sex predators.
> >>Actually, that's not quite true. I wish to degrade the
> >>welfare of people who inflict themselves sexually on
> >>young children; I think 30 years in prison is the
> >>appropriate degradation of their welfare.
> >
> >
> > Seeing as they never really change and can never be cured, I wish they
had
> > to go to prison for life for harming a child.
>
> There is a dangerous hysteria loose in this country
> that wants to impose unreasonably harsh penalties for
> even very minor infractions. Soon, we'll be seeing the
> rightwingnuts advocating life without parole for the
> "crime" of jaywalking; dropping a chewing gum wrapper
> of cigarette butt as you jaywalk will qualify as a
> "special circumstance" and you'll be potentially
> subject to the death penalty.
>
> Life without parole should be reserved only when
> grievous bodily harm results, or possibly for repeat
> offenders. Even if the urge is still there, lots of
> people learn to curb their urges after a stint in
> prison. Those who don't should be put away for a
> longer time, possibly life.

I don't believe pedophiles are ever cured.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> news >
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rat & Swan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But those people's rights
>>>>
>>>>They do not have a right to prey on children.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and welfare
>>>>
>>>>I am not concerned with the welfare of sex predators.
>>>>Actually, that's not quite true. I wish to degrade the
>>>>welfare of people who inflict themselves sexually on
>>>>young children; I think 30 years in prison is the
>>>>appropriate degradation of their welfare.
>>>
>>>
>>>Seeing as they never really change and can never be cured, I wish they
>
> had
>
>>>to go to prison for life for harming a child.
>>
>>There is a dangerous hysteria loose in this country
>>that wants to impose unreasonably harsh penalties for
>>even very minor infractions. Soon, we'll be seeing the
>>rightwingnuts advocating life without parole for the
>>"crime" of jaywalking; dropping a chewing gum wrapper
>>of cigarette butt as you jaywalk will qualify as a
>>"special circumstance" and you'll be potentially
>>subject to the death penalty.
>>
>>Life without parole should be reserved only when
>>grievous bodily harm results, or possibly for repeat
>>offenders. Even if the urge is still there, lots of
>>people learn to curb their urges after a stint in
>>prison. Those who don't should be put away for a
>>longer time, possibly life.
>
>
> I don't believe pedophiles are ever cured.

I never suggested they are. I also don't think the
basic criminal tendencies of people who commit a lot of
other crimes are cured, either. That's not the point.
The point is, the punishment should fit the crime,
and the prospect of a lengthy prison term may be
sufficient deterrence to keep most convicted sexual
predators from doing it again.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
<snip>
> > I don't believe pedophiles are ever cured.
>
> I never suggested they are. I also don't think the
> basic criminal tendencies of people who commit a lot of
> other crimes are cured, either. That's not the point.
> The point is, the punishment should fit the crime,
> and the prospect of a lengthy prison term may be
> sufficient deterrence to keep most convicted sexual
> predators from doing it again.

I think what upsets me is that on the news I often hear about how some
pervert that attacked a child had already served time or been listed as a
sex offender.

I hate that kind of thing. It always makes me angry because I know that the
crimes could have been prevented if only they wouldn't have let them back
out to hurt people.

Two of those filthy perverts are living here in my neighborhood (I found out
by looking it up online some time ago). This is supposed to be a nice,
suburban area, not a ghetto full of rapists.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message om>...
> "sunny" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > I do believe that PETA is being investigated by Congress which
> > wants to revoke their tax free status because PETA has supported
> > via cash donations groups that the FBI has labeled as
> > "internal terrorist" groups--you know, the ones that
> > go around bombing research labs at colleges and private
> > companies?
>
> I hope their tax exempt status is revoked. With all the hype about terrorism
> over the recent years I'm surprised it already hasn't been.
>
> >Plus, PETA have donated LOTS
> > of money to support the legal funds of some of these groups
> > leaders that are being tried for murder--seems if you disagree
> > with these 'internal terrorist groups' and get killed by them
> > then PETA will pay for the 'bad' guys legal bills with the
> > (stupid and moronic) public donations who believe that PETA
> > stands only for warm and fuzzy things!!
>
> I think its sad that so many celebrities who could do so much good if they
> threw their support behind a legit animal welfare organization, choose
> instead to side with PETA. They may be helping to give it the innocent look
> and helping to cover up the support of terrorists.
>
> > Try these links to find out the truth about PETA--and
> > remember, one of their goals is to ELIMINATE completely
> > pet ownership--so, look at your sweet dog or cat and see
> > how your life would be without them, that is the PETA
> > agenda:
> > http://www.animalscam.com/
> > http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
>
> Yeah, and that goes for the people who have beautiful exotics too.
>
> -Rubystars



So you all think the "pet industry" is a good thing?

How about reversing it? We'll give you to a baby orangutang as a
Christmas present. When the novelty wears off he can send you to the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Humans to be either adopted
or put down.
For sure, if you are adopted you should be neutered. If you aren't
adopted maybe some research lab will pick up as one of their test
subjects.


..

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> I support NAMBLA because it is an
> advocacy organization and has a
> right to free speech. And I agree
> with NAMBLA that age of consent laws
> should be abolished, because I am an
> anarchist.

> http://tinyurl.com/33cak

> Elsewhe

> Yes, I support NAMBLA because I see it as a
> *** movement.

> http://tinyurl.com/36b3p

> I sincerely hope you some day are prosecuted for this.

So you support prosecuting people for exercising their constitutionally
protected right of free speech.

How "libertarian" of you, jonnie. Do you see why I consider you a
fascist at heart?

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I support NAMBLA because it is an
>> advocacy organization and has a
>> right to free speech. And I agree
>> with NAMBLA that age of consent laws
>> should be abolished, because I am an
>> anarchist.
>
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/33cak
>
>
>> Elsewhe
>
>
>> Yes, I support NAMBLA because I see it as a
>> *** movement.
>
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/36b3p
>
>
>> I sincerely hope you some day are prosecuted for this.
>
>
> So you support prosecuting people for exercising their constitutionally
> protected right of free speech.

No, I support prosecuting people - you - who openly
advocate criminal behavior that I feel should be
criminal. Coupled with your support for the aims of
terrorist organizations, that might prove sufficient to
put you away for the rest of your life.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>

You filthy stinking syphilitic so why did you snip
out your juvenile taunt to "prove it"? I didn't
provide that proof spontaneously, shitworm.

>
>> I support NAMBLA because it is an
>> advocacy organization and has a
>> right to free speech. And I agree
>> with NAMBLA that age of consent laws
>> should be abolished, because I am an
>> anarchist.
>
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/33cak
>
>
>> Elsewhe
>
>
>> Yes, I support NAMBLA because I see it as a
>> *** movement.
>
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/36b3p
>
>
>> I sincerely hope you some day are prosecuted for this.
>
>
> So you support prosecuting people for exercising their constitutionally
> protected right of free speech.
>
> How "libertarian" of you, jonnie. Do you see why I consider you a
> fascist at heart?
>
> Rat
>

Rat & Swan wrote:

> How "libertarian" of you, jonnie. Do you see why I consider you a
> fascist at heart?

You don't, syphilis. You *know* you merely played
another sophist's word game. I'm not advocating that
you be prosecuted for exercising free speech rights,
and you of course know it. You know that the
prosecution I advocate is for your encouragement to
commit crimes, speech that is not protected.

"Ron" > wrote in message
<snip>
> So you all think the "pet industry" is a good thing?

The industry itself has both good and bad people in it.

> How about reversing it? We'll give you to a baby orangutang as a
> Christmas present.

1. Is it captive bred or wild caught?
2. Does the recipient have the knowledge and resources necessary to properly
care for the animal?

>When the novelty wears off he can send you to the
> Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Humans to be either adopted
> or put down.

People who aren't willing to care for an animal for the entire life of the
animal (and if its likely, make arrangements should the animal outlive them)
shouldn't have animals.

> For sure, if you are adopted you should be neutered. If you aren't
> adopted maybe some research lab will pick up as one of their test
> subjects.

Pound seizure (as horrible and sick as that is) is a separate issue from the
issue of keeping pets.

-Rubystars

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:

<snip>
>>>> Where did you read that NAMBLA advocates anal penetration of young
>>> children?

>>> They're the Man Boy Love group.

>> Yes. But they do not advocate anal penetration of young children.

> Yes, they do, by *necessary* implication.

No, jonnie -- again, a fascist concept: that anything which is not
forbidden is required; there is no freedom in your views. To say
that people must advocate anal penetration of young children
because they oppose age of consent laws in general is entirely false
and unwarranted.

<snip>

>> They oppose any action which injures or physically harms a child.

> False, and a typical example of your usual sleazy sophistry. They
> advocate legal protection for an action, anal penetration of young boys
> by adult men, that rational people - not the perverts - feel is
> intrinsically harmful to the children, whether or not the children feel
> it is.

Indeed, I agree anal penetration of young boys is harmful, and that it
would be forbidden AS HARMFUL either as part of assault laws, or by
social disapproval under anarchist social structure. Harm is not
advocated, or protected, by opposing age of consent laws, which create
a status crime under which harm is irrelevant.

>> Certainly,
>> there are many rational reasons one may have for opposing their views,
>> but it is good to know exactly what those views are before attacking
>> them.

> Their view, which you support, is that boys of any age are capable of
> giving informed consent to submit to anal penetration.

No, that is not their view, nor is it mine.

>> I would suggest visiting their website to see what those views
>> actually are.

> I did:

And nowhere did it advocate anal penetration of young children, did it?

You are constantly claiming positions imply things which they do not.

<snip>

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> Where did you read that NAMBLA advocates anal penetration of young children?
>
>
>>>> They're the Man Boy Love group.
>
>
>>> Yes. But they do not advocate anal penetration of young children.
>
>
>> Yes, they do, by *necessary* implication.
>
>
> No, jonnie -- again, a fascist concept: that anything which is not
> forbidden is required; there is no freedom in your views.

No, there is no fascist concept at work; your reflexive
resort to the word has robbed it of all meaning.

NAMBLA is an organization of queer men who want to have
sex with boys. That means it includes ****ing boys up
the ass.

> To say
> that people must advocate anal penetration of young children
> because they oppose age of consent laws in general is entirely false
> and unwarranted.

It is entirely true and fully warranted. The
organization is seeking the abolition of age-of-consent
laws PRECISELY because they wish to be able to ****
boys in the ass, and not be presumptively guilty of
rape based solely on the age of the victim.

Only a liar and a sophist would say otherwise.

>
> <snip>
>
>>> They oppose any action which injures or physically harms a child.
>
>
>> False, and a typical example of your usual sleazy sophistry. They
>> advocate legal protection for an action, anal penetration of young
>> boys by adult men, that rational people - not the perverts - feel is
>> intrinsically harmful to the children, whether or not the children
>> feel it is.
>
>
> Indeed, I agree anal penetration of young boys is harmful, and that it
> would be forbidden AS HARMFUL either as part of assault laws, or by
> social disapproval under anarchist social structure.

The ONLY reason your NAMBLA criminal buddies seek to
repeal age-of-consent laws is to allow ANY sex with
children, as long as they think they can plausibly make
a claim that the child "consented". You are seeking to
enable them in this; you support rape of boys.

> Harm is not advocated,

It necessarily will ensue. You advocate harm.

> or protected, by opposing age of consent laws, which create
> a status crime under which harm is irrelevant.

Harm is *not* irrelevant. There is a well-founded
presumption of harm, just as you falsely believe
children are harmed by being taught eating meat is
morally acceptable.

>
>>> Certainly,
>>> there are many rational reasons one may have for opposing their views,
>>> but it is good to know exactly what those views are before attacking
>>> them.
>
>
>> Their view, which you support, is that boys of any age are capable of
>> giving informed consent to submit to anal penetration.
>
>
> No, that is not their view, nor is it mine.

That certinly *is* their view, and necessarily yours.

>
>>> I would suggest visiting their website to see what those views
>>> actually are.
>
>
>> I did:
>
>
> And nowhere did it advocate anal penetration of young children, did it?

By implication, it does: it's precisely what NAMBLA is
seeking to enable by eliminating age-of-consent laws.
They are not seeking to promote cuddling; cuddling is
not proscribed by age-of-consent laws.

>
> You are constantly claiming positions imply things which they do not.

They do.

You advocate men ****ing boys up the ass. It is an
ironclad, unavoidable implication of your opposition to
age-of-consent laws.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:

<snip>

>> You claim to support the freedom of the
>> individual,

> I do, generally. As a mature adult, something you'll never be, I
> recognize that there is no absolute freedom of the individual; it
> conflicts with the legitimate rights of other individuals.

Indeed, and I agree that when one person's freedom conflicts with
the _legitimate_ rights of other individuals, that freedom must be
curtailed. The question must be: does the action HARM the individual,
does it infringe on LEGITIMATE rights of others. Status crime laws
do not fulfil those criteria, as any libertarian would agree.

<snip>
> Men ****ing boys is harmful per se.

For fifteen year olds? For seventeen year olds? For 20 year
olds, as is forbidden in some countries' age of consent laws?
Any status crime is going to be unjust to someone, jonnie --
as you yourself have stated. So laws (if there are laws)
should be based on harm done, not status.

<snip>
Right here, in your own words:

>>> It is obviously true that an age-of-consent law is going to draw an
>>> arbitrary age, and that some young people on the "wrong" side of the
>>> limiting age would in fact be able to give informed consent.

> You made a categorical statement: in the case of any child younger than
> the early teens, sexual penetration is _ipso facto_ violent. Do you
> believe that anal penetration of an eight-year-old boy is violent?

Yes.

> Is
> that kind of violence harmful to children, or isn't it?

Yes, it is harmful, I believe. THEREFORE it should be prohibited --
not because the boy is a certain age, but because the action involved
is HARMFUL.

> You support the total abolition of age-of-consent laws. By absolutely
> necessary implication, you support adult men ****ing eight-year-old and
> younger boys.

No, there is no implication that I support any act which is
harmful to others.

<snip>

>>> That great good is obvious and undeniable, and one sees that the
>>> harm is negligible.

>> Not to the person sent to jail for 20 years for relations with someone
>> you yourself define as capable of consensual sexual relations, nor to
>> the young person involved.

> Going to prison is SUPPOSED to be seen as harmful by would-be
> criminals.

Begging the question, jonnie. You have said that some young people
under the legal age of consent are capable of giving informed consent;
therefore the status crime law is unjust in their case, and the
person prosecuted under an unjust law ( in the view of real
libertarians, unlike you) is not a "criminal" but a victim of unjust
State power.

Your views are not libertarian, but fascist.

<snip>

Rat