Rat & Swan wrote:

>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> No. YOU have already conceded, when you said that sexual
>>>> penetration of an 8-year-old is ALWAYS violent, and should ALWAYS be
>>>> prosecuted as an assault [actually, battery].
>
>
> And here you try to sneak something in which I did not say and
> hope your dishonesty will not be noticed. It was. You failed.

No sneaking, no dishonesty. It's a necessary implication.

>
> I do believe anal penetration of young children is violent.

You categorized it as assault.

>
> I do NOT believe it should be prosecuted as assault (or battery).

Yes, you do. You said:

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.


That is CATEGORICAL, you ****ing liar. It is ALWAYS
harmful, and because it is a physical harm inflicted by
one person on another, it is battery.

You also wrote:

Indeed, I agree anal penetration of young boys is
harmful, and that it would be forbidden AS HARMFUL
either as part of assault laws [snip dreamy irrelevant
'anarchist' bullshit].


You DO believe it should be prosecuted as battery, you
lying ignorant **** (even though you LAW-IGNORANTLY
said 'assault').

> That would mean I support laws, which, as an anarchist, I do not.

That's the weakest dodge you've ever tried, you
desperate liar

You are not an anarchist:

The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need it, I can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Liar Winter
25 Dec 2003

You never were an anarchist.

>
> <snip>
>
>> Ipso facto criminal, is how you view it:
>
>
> No, jonnie. "Criminal" refers to LAWS -- that is "criminal" which
> violates a criminal law. That is not the issue, nor my concern.

Yes, it is. You have to live in the present, which is
a society with laws. Your ****ing dystopia will never
come to pass, and you know it.

>
> You must lie

I have not lied. You consider sexual penetration of a
pre-teen to be always harmful, and the legal act of
causing that kind of harm is battery. Therefore, you
consider sexual penetration of pre-teens to be battery,
IRRESPECTIVE of whether you claim to believe there
should be a law against battery or not.

It's really stupid for you to be mistakenly and
ignorantly arguing against so-called "status" crimes;
you only show that you implicitly approve of laws
designating other categories of crimes

"Rat & Swan" > wrote

> To confiscate all guns from private hands because a small minority will
> either kill themselves or others by misusing them is unjust. In the
> same way, to set up age of consent laws because some people may abuse
> young children is unjust.

What bloody sophistry.

Adults having sex with young children is *by definition* abuse. No minor
should be burdened with the decision to have or not have sex with an adult,
they are *by definition* not equipped to make such a decision.

Dutch wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
>>To confiscate all guns from private hands because a small minority will
>>either kill themselves or others by misusing them is unjust. In the
>>same way, to set up age of consent laws because some people may abuse
>>young children is unjust.
>
>
> What bloody sophistry.

Exactly.

>
> Adults having sex with young children is *by definition* abuse.

Karen admits it, too:

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.

She classes sexual penetration of young children as
*intrinsically* harmful. At some point, of course,
"it" - sexual penetration - becomes classed as "not
intrinsically harmful", but for pre-teens, Karen
classes it harmful. Therefore, her magical age - the
age at which it is not presumptively wrong - is 13, and
her claim that the *instrinsic* harmfulness is not
based on age is bullshit (like everything she writes).
She also writes:

Indeed, I agree anal penetration of young boys is
harmful, and that it would be forbidden AS HARMFUL
either as part of assault laws [snip dreamy irrelevant
'anarchist' bullshit].

Karen knows that CURRENTLY, we live under a regime of
laws (actually, so has any society that she wants to
consider to have been "anarchist"), and that the type
of harm she EXPLICITLY acknowledges is dealt with by
the law.


> No minor
> should be burdened with the decision to have or not have sex with an adult,
> they are *by definition* not equipped to make such a decision.

Obviously, some young people right below the age of
consent are probably mature enough, and some people a
little above the age aren't. But the intent of this
kind of classification is worthy, and it doesn't
violate any rights.

It's always interesting to watch you two -- Ball and Dutch -- play
fast and loose games with the truth. Somehow, you have concluded
that an opposition to anal penetration of young children on my part
means I advocate pedophilia -- a Humpty-Dumpty conclusion if there
ever was one, Jon, in his typical lying fashion, claims that
my opposition to anal penetration of young children means I support
age of consent LAWS -- which I have stated I don't.

So -- since you can do nothing here but lie -- I conclude you have
no real argument, and bid you an ( unfond) adieu.

<snip>

Rat

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "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.
>

Perhaps not, but if you choose to define the crime by "age of consent" then
it is the same crime. Of course that's why we have courts, with jury, etc.
to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.

Even so your insistence that the crime is defined by the age of the victim
isn't entirely honest because we all know that in truth that in our own
minds we define the crime in terms of the age and to some extent the
behaviour of the adult involved. In some UK cases, particularly where the
adult involved has been female, the public view seems to be that they are
simply immature themselves. Whether that's actually the case for adult
women that prey on young girls (or boys) I couldn't even guess.

Michael Saunby

Michael Saunby

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> It's always interesting to watch you two -- Ball and Dutch -- play
> fast and loose games with the truth. Somehow, you have concluded
> that an opposition to anal penetration of young children on my part
> means I advocate pedophilia

No, lying asshole sophist - that's not the route to the
conclusion AT ALL, and of course you know it.

It's your opposition to age-of-consent laws that shows
you advocate pedophilia. The claim you make that you
believe sexual penetration of young children to be
harmful is how we know you are grotesquely
inconsistent: you oppose age-of-consent laws, yet
think there's a minimum age for sex, below which any
adult penetrating a child is inflicting harm on the child.

Just how you manage to tie yourself up in a sheep shank
like that, I don't know.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> you oppose age-of-consent laws, yet think there's a
> minimum age for sex, below which any adult penetrating a child is
> inflicting harm on the child.

Don't you?

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> you oppose age-of-consent laws, yet think there's a minimum age for
>> sex, below which any adult penetrating a child is inflicting harm on
>> the child.
>
>
> Don't you?

No and yes: I do not oppose age-of-consent laws, and I
do believe there is an age below which sexual
penetration of a child by an adult is intrinsically
harmful.

You oppose age-of-consent laws, which is inconsistent
with your beliefs that sexual penetration of pre-teen
children by adults is intrinsically harmful, AND that
there is a need for government and law. Your claim
that you are opposed to laws in general is bogus.

Michael Saunby wrote:

> "Rubystars" > wrote in message

<snip>

>> Sex between two teenagers of the same or very close ages is not
> really
>>comparable, IMO, to an adult preying upon a child.

> Perhaps not, but if you choose to define the crime by "age of consent" then
> it is the same crime. Of course that's why we have courts, with jury, etc.
> to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.

Which is also why I oppose age of consent LAWS -- because we should make
the decision in each case -- although we do not have to make it by legal
means. The decision should be based on whether HARM is caused, not on
the basis of age involved. Again, the punishment, if any, will vary
according to the capability of those involved as well, which is why
younger children, or the severely retarded, or the insane, etc., are
often seen as worthy of lesser or no sentence under law than a normal
adult who does the same action.

Rat
<snip>

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Michael Saunby wrote:
>
>> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Sex between two teenagers of the same or very close ages is not
>>
>> really
>>
>>> comparable, IMO, to an adult preying upon a child.
>
>
>> Perhaps not, but if you choose to define the crime by "age of consent"
>> then
>> it is the same crime. Of course that's why we have courts, with jury,
>> etc.
>> to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.
>
>
> Which is also why I oppose age of consent LAWS -- because we should make
> the decision in each case -- although we do not have to make it by legal
> means. The decision should be based on whether HARM is caused, not on
> the basis of age involved.

You're lying, again. You BELIEVE that below a certain
age - 13 is your magic number - sexual penetration of a
child by an adult is ALWAYS harmful:

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.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM

That is CATEGORICAL, you ****ing liar. It is ALWAYS
harmful, in your view, and it IS age-dependent. You
also wrote:

Indeed, I agree anal penetration of young boys is
harmful, and that it would be forbidden AS HARMFUL
either as part of assault laws [snip dreamy irrelevant
'anarchist' bullshit].

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM

You've made two CATEGORICAL statements saying sexual
penetration of children below a certain age is harmful.
You also have made two statements showing you BELIEVE
in laws and government; here's the one in which you
show you SUPPORT government intervention, as long as it
is in accord with your beliefs:

The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need [help], I
can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM


Three statements that COMPLETELY contradict your
sophisty that you are opposed to laws, and that you
think the determination of harm to children by sexual
penetration must be made on a case-by-case basis.

You are absolutely HOPELESS, you ****ing lying sophist.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> I do not oppose age-of-consent laws, and I do believe there
> is an age below which sexual penetration of a child by an adult is
> intrinsically harmful.

Then any opposition should be based on the harm involved, not the age
involved. Also, re laws; you should (though I doubt you can) be able
to see a distinction between means and ends -- laws are not the only
means of preventing socially undesirable actions.

Look at guns again. There is a certain age below which a person
is incapable of using a gun safely. Any adult who gave, say, a
four-year-old a loaded gun, and encouraged him to play with it, would
be acting irresponsibly (as I'm sure you would agree). But that
would not mean that age-of-consent laws are needed for guns, or that
guns should be kept out of the hands of responsible people of any
age. I've read about adults taking children shooting and shuddered
at the thought of pre-teens -- or even some teens I know -- waving
lethal weapons around. In general, guns are a lot more dangerous
than sex. Yet I don't approve of gun control laws either.

<snip>

Rat

Karen Winter, lying CRIMINAL in Santa Fe, NM, wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I do not oppose age-of-consent laws, and I do believe there is an age
>> below which sexual penetration of a child by an adult is intrinsically
>> harmful.
>
>
> Then any opposition should be based on the harm involved, not the age
> involved.

You don't believe that yourself:

Yes, it [sexual penetration of pre-teens] is
harmful, I believe. THEREFORE it should be
prohibited -- not because the boy is a certain
age, but because the action involved is HARMFUL.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM


Indeed, I agree anal penetration of young
[pre-teen] boys is
harmful, and that it would be forbidden AS HARMFUL
either as part of assault laws [snip dreamy irrelevant
'anarchist' bullshit].

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM


The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need [help], I
can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM


You are hoist on your the petard of your own words.
YOU ARE ****ED. You believe that sexual penetration of
pre-teen children is intrinsically harmful, and should
be punished, through LAWS.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I do not oppose age-of-consent laws, and I do believe there
> > is an age below which sexual penetration of a child by an adult is
> > intrinsically harmful.
>
> Then any opposition should be based on the harm involved, not the age
> involved.

Sex between children and adults is harmful frequently enough to make
prohibition the only rational course.

Also, re laws; you should (though I doubt you can) be able
> to see a distinction between means and ends -- laws are not the only
> means of preventing socially undesirable actions.

What do you suggest?

> Look at guns again. There is a certain age below which a person
> is incapable of using a gun safely. Any adult who gave, say, a
> four-year-old a loaded gun, and encouraged him to play with it, would
> be acting irresponsibly (as I'm sure you would agree). But that
> would not mean that age-of-consent laws are needed for guns, or that
> guns should be kept out of the hands of responsible people of any
> age. I've read about adults taking children shooting and shuddered
> at the thought of pre-teens -- or even some teens I know -- waving
> lethal weapons around. In general, guns are a lot more dangerous
> than sex. Yet I don't approve of gun control laws either.

Permitting sex between adults and children in the hopes that *somehow* harm
will be averted would be like permitting discharging of firearms in
schoolyards in the hopes that nobody will get struck by a stray bullet.

Dutch wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I do not oppose age-of-consent laws, and I do believe there
>>>is an age below which sexual penetration of a child by an adult is
>>>intrinsically harmful.
>>
>>Then any opposition should be based on the harm involved, not the age
>>involved.
>
>
> Sex between children and adults is harmful frequently enough to make
> prohibition the only rational course.

Not just "frequently enough"; Karen says sexual
penetration of pre-teens is ALWAYS harmful:

Yes, it [sexual penetration of pre-teens] is
harmful, I believe. THEREFORE it should be
prohibited -- not because the boy is a certain
age, but because the action involved is HARMFUL.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM


Indeed, I agree anal penetration of young
[pre-teen] boys is
harmful, and that it would be forbidden AS HARMFUL
either as part of assault laws [snip dreamy irrelevant
'anarchist' bullshit].

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM


Karen can't rationally reconcile her opposition to
age-of-consent laws with those statements. She wants
to pretend - sophistry - that her opposition is to an
age-of-consent LAW, because she claims to be an
"anarchist" who opposes all laws. However, she is NOT
opposed to government and law:

The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need [help], I
can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM


Karen's irrational opposition to age-of-consent laws is
solely motivated by her desire to support her friends:
the child-raping queers of NAMBLA.

Karen Winter supports special rights for queers,
because she's a queer. She is worse than speciesist.

"Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
<snip>
> Perhaps not, but if you choose to define the crime by "age of consent"
then
> it is the same crime.

Neither party is really old enough to be able to support kids should an
accident happen (if its male/female sex), and neither party is mature enough
to weigh the risks of disease, etc. Both of these are related to their age.

I don't think its the right thing to do, but I think that an adult preying
upon a child is much worse.

I mean, compare a 15 year old having sex with a 15 year old, to a 30 year
old having sex with a 5 year old. Certainly the latter is much worse!

Another thing that's really bad about adults having sex with young children,
is that young children often don't even know sex exists. They may have been
told some kind of story about where babies come from (The stork, etc.) So
when someone forces them down and penetrates them, they're being hurt in a
way they didn't even think was possible. Little kids don't even realize a
lot of times that the opposite sex is different down there.

When I was in kindergarten I used to think the way to tell boys from girls
was that girls had long hair and boys had short hair. It got kind of
confusing when I found out there were some girls who had short hair too.

> Of course that's why we have courts, with jury, etc.
> to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.

Yup.

> Even so your insistence that the crime is defined by the age of the victim
> isn't entirely honest because we all know that in truth that in our own
> minds we define the crime in terms of the age and to some extent the
> behaviour of the adult involved.

The age of the victim is one factor, a very important factor.

>In some UK cases, particularly where the
> adult involved has been female, the public view seems to be that they are
> simply immature themselves. Whether that's actually the case for adult
> women that prey on young girls (or boys) I couldn't even guess.

I think they're just perverts. Remember that people are trying to say
Michael Jackson is just a child himself, too.

-Rubystars

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Michael Saunby wrote:
>
> > "Rubystars" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Sex between two teenagers of the same or very close ages is not
> > really
> >>comparable, IMO, to an adult preying upon a child.
>
> > Perhaps not, but if you choose to define the crime by "age of consent"
then
> > it is the same crime. Of course that's why we have courts, with jury,
etc.
> > to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.
>
> Which is also why I oppose age of consent LAWS -- because we should make
> the decision in each case -- although we do not have to make it by legal
> means. The decision should be based on whether HARM is caused, not on
> the basis of age involved.

How exactly do you propose deterring sexual predators from approaching
children? Or shall we just wait and hope that somehow we find out after the
fact when harm has been done?

> Again, the punishment, if any, will vary
> according to the capability of those involved as well, which is why
> younger children, or the severely retarded, or the insane, etc., are
> often seen as worthy of lesser or no sentence under law than a normal
> adult who does the same action.

How do you measure psychological harm to a child?

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
news
>
> "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > Perhaps not, but if you choose to define the crime by "age of consent"
> then
> > it is the same crime.
>
> Neither party is really old enough to be able to support kids should an
> accident happen (if its male/female sex), and neither party is mature
enough
> to weigh the risks of disease, etc. Both of these are related to their
age.
>

Age is a factor, but so is environment, education, and presumably culture -
since there is quite a deal of variability in age of consent from one land
to another.

> I don't think its the right thing to do, but I think that an adult
preying
> upon a child is much worse.
>

Of course, but as I pointed out such a crime isn't actually defined by the
age of the victim.

> I mean, compare a 15 year old having sex with a 15 year old, to a 30 year
> old having sex with a 5 year old. Certainly the latter is much worse!
>

In this example you've picked two very different situations. One factor
that makes them distinct is the age difference, but is that really what
troubles us?

Another example. If we assume an age of consent of 16 then how about a 30
year old women and a 15 year old boy, compared with a 15 year old boy and
a 5 year old boy. In the first case the age difference is 15 years, in the
second only 10.


> Another thing that's really bad about adults having sex with young
children,
> is that young children often don't even know sex exists. They may have
been
> told some kind of story about where babies come from (The stork, etc.) So
> when someone forces them down and penetrates them, they're being hurt in
a
> way they didn't even think was possible. Little kids don't even realize a
> lot of times that the opposite sex is different down there.


There's loads of stuff that's bad about it and a lot of psychological harm
can be surely be done with no penetration at all.

>
> When I was in kindergarten I used to think the way to tell boys from
girls
> was that girls had long hair and boys had short hair. It got kind of
> confusing when I found out there were some girls who had short hair too.
>

If that's the worse thing that happened to you then you're clealry very
fortunate.

> > Of course that's why we have courts, with jury, etc.
> > to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.
>
> Yup.

Which, hopefully, handles the punishment side. The purpose of the age of
consent is to make it clear to folks what defines this crime. In the past
it was probably easier since any sex outside marriage was a sin and in many
places therefore a crime.

>
> > Even so your insistence that the crime is defined by the age of the
victim
> > isn't entirely honest because we all know that in truth that in our own
> > minds we define the crime in terms of the age and to some extent the
> > behaviour of the adult involved.
>
> The age of the victim is one factor, a very important factor.

Of course, but it clearly there are other factors or we both wouldn't be so
certain that it's wrong for adults to have sex, grope, and in many cases
even discuss sex with children, or take photos of them....

>
> >In some UK cases, particularly where the
> > adult involved has been female, the public view seems to be that they
are
> > simply immature themselves. Whether that's actually the case for adult
> > women that prey on young girls (or boys) I couldn't even guess.
>
> I think they're just perverts. Remember that people are trying to say
> Michael Jackson is just a child himself, too.
>

Most people think they're perverts, that's why it's a crime. Indeed that's
why for most of the global population homosexuality is also a crime. What
you need to be sure of isn't that it's wrong, but why it's wrong and how
you determine whether a crime has taken place. Age of consent helps, I
won't deny it, but you must take other factors into consideration too.

Michael Saunby

Dutch wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>>
>>Michael Saunby wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rubystars" > wrote in message
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Sex between two teenagers of the same or very close ages is not
>>>>really comparable, IMO, to an adult preying upon a child.
>>
>>>Perhaps not, but if you choose to define the crime by "age of consent" then
>>>it is the same crime. Of course that's why we have courts, with jury, etc.
>>>to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.
>>
>>Which is also why I oppose age of consent LAWS -- because we should make
>>the decision in each case -- although we do not have to make it by legal
>>means. The decision should be based on whether HARM is caused, not on
>>the basis of age involved.
>
>
> How exactly do you propose deterring sexual predators from approaching
> children?

She doesn't; that's the whole point. She wants queer
men to be able to butt**** young boys, something she
has acknowledged as categorically harmful to the boys.

Age-of-consent laws are a strong deterrent, possibly
the only strong deterrent, to queer men ****ing boys,
and Karen Winter wants to get rid of that deterrent.
Her solidarity with other queers is more important to
her than protecting young children.

> Or shall we just wait and hope that somehow we find out after the
> fact when harm has been done?

Note that she presumes harm is ALWAYS done when
preteens are ****ed by adults.

>
>
>>Again, the punishment, if any, will vary
>>according to the capability of those involved as well, which is why
>>younger children, or the severely retarded, or the insane, etc., are
>>often seen as worthy of lesser or no sentence under law than a normal
>>adult who does the same action.
>
>
> How do you measure psychological harm to a child?

She presumes there is great harm to the child; she
doesn't even need to measure it. That makes her
opposition to age-of-consent laws that much more
loathsome and irresponsible.

Her sophistry about being opposed to a LAW is, of
course, bullshit, as such sophistry always is. She is
not opposed to government and laws:

The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need [help], I
can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM


She pretends to be opposed to laws because she claims
to be an "anarchist", and she believes, falsely, that
there are no laws in an anarchist society. She is
completely wrong: there are laws in anarchist society.
Because Karen loves to **** away her life, she wants
to ensnare people in a long, tedious, fruitless
discussion about the merits of anarchy. Fortunately,
no one so far has risen to the tainted bait. There are
no anarchist societies, and all past attempts have failed.

Karen doesn't really believe an anarchist society is
possible; she merely uses the pretext of anarchism to
avoid having to confront the FACT that everything she
perniciously conceives of as a just society depends,
realistically, on repressive totalitarian state power.
Her bullshit about how the human-nature-denying
bullshit she espouses could somehow magically be
attained in an anarchist society is bullshit. She is
wrong, and knows she is wrong.

"Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> news
> >
> > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
> > <snip>
> > > Perhaps not, but if you choose to define the crime by "age of consent"
> > then
> > > it is the same crime.
> >
> > Neither party is really old enough to be able to support kids should an
> > accident happen (if its male/female sex), and neither party is mature
> enough
> > to weigh the risks of disease, etc. Both of these are related to their
> age.
> >
>
> Age is a factor, but so is environment, education, and presumably
culture -
> since there is quite a deal of variability in age of consent from one land
> to another.

For the purposes of this discussion I was talking about first world
countries like the US and GB. I'm sure there is some culture somewhere,
where a girl is mature at the point of puberty and ready for married life,
but I really don't believe that's the case in the vast majority of children
in industrialized countries.

> > I don't think its the right thing to do, but I think that an adult
> preying
> > upon a child is much worse.
> >
>
> Of course, but as I pointed out such a crime isn't actually defined by the
> age of the victim.

That's a pretty reasonable thing to measure it by.

> > I mean, compare a 15 year old having sex with a 15 year old, to a 30
year
> > old having sex with a 5 year old. Certainly the latter is much worse!
> >
>
> In this example you've picked two very different situations. One factor
> that makes them distinct is the age difference, but is that really what
> troubles us?

It's part of what troubles me.

> Another example. If we assume an age of consent of 16 then how about a 30
> year old women and a 15 year old boy, compared with a 15 year old boy and
> a 5 year old boy. In the first case the age difference is 15 years, in
the
> second only 10.

Good point, clearly the 15 year old having sex with the 5 year old would be
worse. It seems complicated, but its really not.

> > Another thing that's really bad about adults having sex with young
> children,
> > is that young children often don't even know sex exists. They may have
> been
> > told some kind of story about where babies come from (The stork, etc.)
So
> > when someone forces them down and penetrates them, they're being hurt in
> a
> > way they didn't even think was possible. Little kids don't even realize
a
> > lot of times that the opposite sex is different down there.
>
>
> There's loads of stuff that's bad about it and a lot of psychological harm
> can be surely be done with no penetration at all.

Yes, that's true.

> >
> > When I was in kindergarten I used to think the way to tell boys from
> girls
> > was that girls had long hair and boys had short hair. It got kind of
> > confusing when I found out there were some girls who had short hair too.
> >
>
> If that's the worse thing that happened to you then you're clealry very
> fortunate.

Yeah I know

> > > Of course that's why we have courts, with jury, etc.
> > > to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.
> >
> > Yup.
>
> Which, hopefully, handles the punishment side. The purpose of the age of
> consent is to make it clear to folks what defines this crime. In the past
> it was probably easier since any sex outside marriage was a sin and in
many
> places therefore a crime.

Sex outside of marriage generally isn't a good idea, IMO, whether its a sin
or not, is up to religious beliefs to indicate. I don't think the state
should be involved in that though.

I think the easiest and simplest way to handle this is the age of consent
laws, that way a seemingly complicated problem is made simple.

> > > Even so your insistence that the crime is defined by the age of the
> victim
> > > isn't entirely honest because we all know that in truth that in our
own
> > > minds we define the crime in terms of the age and to some extent the
> > > behaviour of the adult involved.
> >
> > The age of the victim is one factor, a very important factor.
>
> Of course, but it clearly there are other factors or we both wouldn't be
so
> certain that it's wrong for adults to have sex, grope, and in many cases
> even discuss sex with children, or take photos of them....

Yes, there are other factors. The naivety of young children, the lack of
maturity of children in general, and many others.

> > >In some UK cases, particularly where the
> > > adult involved has been female, the public view seems to be that they
> are
> > > simply immature themselves. Whether that's actually the case for
adult
> > > women that prey on young girls (or boys) I couldn't even guess.
> >
> > I think they're just perverts. Remember that people are trying to say
> > Michael Jackson is just a child himself, too.
> >
>
> Most people think they're perverts, that's why it's a crime. Indeed
that's
> why for most of the global population homosexuality is also a crime.
What
> you need to be sure of isn't that it's wrong, but why it's wrong and how
> you determine whether a crime has taken place. Age of consent helps, I
> won't deny it, but you must take other factors into consideration too.

Of course other factors need to be weighed in but age of consent is a simple
way to say that everything below a certain age is illegal, then people can
deal with other circumstances in other ways.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
> ...
>

>>>Neither party is really old enough to be able to support kids should an
>>>accident happen (if its male/female sex), and neither party is mature enough
>>>to weigh the risks of disease, etc. Both of these are related to their age.
>>
>>Age is a factor, but so is environment, education, and presumably culture -
>>since there is quite a deal of variability in age of consent from one land
>>to another.
>
>
> For the purposes of this discussion I was talking about first world
> countries like the US and GB. I'm sure there is some culture somewhere,
> where a girl is mature at the point of puberty and ready for married life,
> but I really don't believe that's the case in the vast majority of children
> in industrialized countries.

Quite right. The point in the discussion is that
society may set an age, without violating any "right"
on the part of those under the age, and certainly not
violating any "right" of those above the age who prey
on those under it. Every society, correctly, considers
children to have less than the full set of whatever
rights adults have in that society. No one with a
proper understanding of rights theory has any trouble
with this.

What bothers Karen is that queer men, a group for whom
she feels a special political affinity, want to ****
boys in the ass, and age-of-consent laws provide a
powerful deterrent.

>
>
>>>I don't think its the right thing to do, but I think that an adult
>>>preying upon a child is much worse.
>>>
>>
>>Of course, but as I pointed out such a crime isn't actually defined by the
>>age of the victim.
>
>
> That's a pretty reasonable thing to measure it by.

Michael is wrong, and Karen thinks he is, too. She
thinks the age of the victim IS determinative of harm:
100% of the time, according to Karen, harm occurs
when an adult sexually penetrates a pre-teen child.


>>>I mean, compare a 15 year old having sex with a 15 year old, to a 30 year
>>>old having sex with a 5 year old. Certainly the latter is much worse!
>>>
>>
>>In this example you've picked two very different situations. One factor
>>that makes them distinct is the age difference, but is that really what
>>troubles us?
>
>
> It's part of what troubles me.
>
>
>>Another example. If we assume an age of consent of 16 then how about a 30
>>year old women and a 15 year old boy, compared with a 15 year old boy and
>>a 5 year old boy. In the first case the age difference is 15 years, in the
>>second only 10.
>
>
> Good point, clearly the 15 year old having sex with the 5 year old would be
> worse. It seems complicated, but its really not.
>
>
>>>Another thing that's really bad about adults having sex with young children,
>>>is that young children often don't even know sex exists. They may have been
>>>told some kind of story about where babies come from (The stork, etc.) So
>>>when someone forces them down and penetrates them, they're being hurt in a
>>>way they didn't even think was possible. Little kids don't even realize a
>>>lot of times that the opposite sex is different down there.

My son, currently 3 years 2 months, realized the
difference before he was 2 years old. He isn't blind.

>>
>>There's loads of stuff that's bad about it and a lot of psychological harm
>>can be surely be done with no penetration at all.
>
>
> Yes, that's true.

Yes, it is true, which is why there are other crimes to
cover adult men forcing or tricking young boys into
performing oral sex on the men, or adults of either sex
forcing or tricking children into having genital
contact with them.

>
>
>>>When I was in kindergarten I used to think the way to tell boys from girls
>>>was that girls had long hair and boys had short hair. It got kind of
>>>confusing when I found out there were some girls who had short hair too.

Those were early dykes.

>>
>>If that's the worse thing that happened to you then you're clealry very
>>fortunate.
>
>
> Yeah I know
>
>
>>>>Of course that's why we have courts, with jury, etc.
>>>>to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.
>>>
>>>Yup.
>>
>>Which, hopefully, handles the punishment side. The purpose of the age of
>>consent is to make it clear to folks what defines this crime. In the past
>>it was probably easier since any sex outside marriage was a sin and in many
>>places therefore a crime.
>
>
> Sex outside of marriage generally isn't a good idea, IMO, whether its a sin
> or not, is up to religious beliefs to indicate. I don't think the state
> should be involved in that though.
>
> I think the easiest and simplest way to handle this is the age of consent
> laws, that way a seemingly complicated problem is made simple.
>
>
>>>>Even so your insistence that the crime is defined by the age of the victim
>>>>isn't entirely honest because we all know that in truth that in our own
>>>>minds we define the crime in terms of the age and to some extent the
>>>>behaviour of the adult involved.
>>>
>>>The age of the victim is one factor, a very important factor.
>>
>>Of course, but it clearly there are other factors or we both wouldn't be so
>>certain that it's wrong for adults to have sex, grope, and in many cases
>>even discuss sex with children, or take photos of them....
>
>
> Yes, there are other factors. The naivety of young children, the lack of
> maturity of children in general, and many others.
>
>
>>>>In some UK cases, particularly where the
>>>>adult involved has been female, the public view seems to be that they are
>>>>simply immature themselves. Whether that's actually the case for adult
>>>>women that prey on young girls (or boys) I couldn't even guess.
>>>
>>>I think they're just perverts. Remember that people are trying to say
>>>Michael Jackson is just a child himself, too.
>>>
>>
>>Most people think they're perverts, that's why it's a crime. Indeed that's
>>why for most of the global population homosexuality is also a crime. What
>>you need to be sure of isn't that it's wrong, but why it's wrong and how
>>you determine whether a crime has taken place. Age of consent helps, I
>>won't deny it, but you must take other factors into consideration too.
>
>
> Of course other factors need to be weighed in but age of consent is a simple
> way to say that everything below a certain age is illegal, then people can
> deal with other circumstances in other ways.
>
> -Rubystars
>
>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
> It's always interesting to watch you two -- Ball and Dutch -- play
> fast and loose games with the truth. Somehow, you have concluded
> that an opposition to anal penetration of young children on my part
> means I advocate pedophilia -- a Humpty-Dumpty conclusion if there
> ever was one,

You're hopelessly confused. It's your support for abolition of age of
consent that makes you an advocate of pedophilia, and an ememy of children
everywhere.

> Jon, in his typical lying fashion, claims that
> my opposition to anal penetration of young children means I support
> age of consent LAWS -- which I have stated I don't.

So what is your idea? What do you propose to prevent pedophiles from preying
on children?

> So -- since you can do nothing here but lie -- I conclude you have
> no real argument, and bid you an ( unfond) adieu.

Explain how it's consistent to view sexual interference of adults with
children as a crime while opposing the only meaningful law that controls it.

Dutch wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>>It's always interesting to watch you two -- Ball and Dutch -- play
>>fast and loose games with the truth. Somehow, you have concluded
>>that an opposition to anal penetration of young children on my part
>>means I advocate pedophilia -- a Humpty-Dumpty conclusion if there
>>ever was one,
>
>
> You're hopelessly confused. It's your support for abolition of age of
> consent that makes you an advocate of pedophilia, and an ememy of children
> everywhere.
>
>
>>Jon, in his typical lying fashion, claims that
>>my opposition to anal penetration of young children means I support
>>age of consent LAWS -- which I have stated I don't.
>
>
> So what is your idea? What do you propose to prevent pedophiles from preying
> on children?
>
>
>>So -- since you can do nothing here but lie -- I conclude you have
>>no real argument, and bid you an ( unfond) adieu.
>
>
> Explain how it's consistent to view sexual interference of adults with
> children as a crime while opposing the only meaningful law that controls it.

She has attempted to explain it, but it was just the
usual sophistry - that is, BULLSHIT. It has to do with
claiming to be opposed to LAWS, because she claims to
be an "anarchist", and there are no laws in an
"anarchist" society. First, there are no anarchist
societies; second, those that have existed in the past
most certainly DID have laws, even if they weren't
called that. The most widely studied instance is
Iceland during what is referred to as the Commonwealth
Period, from 930-1264 AD. They had laws.

Word of advice: do not get into a discussion of
anarchism with her. It's a total waste of time, and
it's exactly what she wants. Instead, focus on her
inconsistencies in the here-and-now. She is advocating
the abolition of ONE kind of law, not because it is
law, but because it impedes a group of people for whom
she feels a political affinity: queer men.
Furthermore, she is a LIAR when she says she is opposed
to government and law. We have this handy quote from her:

The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need [help], I
can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM

Karen understand full well that in the here-and-now,
she supports *some* laws. She also knows that her
support for abolishing age-of-consent laws is only to
help her fellow queers; the bullshit about her
"anarchist" opposition to law is easily dismissed.

Dutch wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote

<snip>

>>Which is also why I oppose age of consent LAWS -- because we should make
>>the decision in each case -- although we do not have to make it by legal
>>means. The decision should be based on whether HARM is caused, not on
>>the basis of age involved.

> How exactly do you propose deterring sexual predators from approaching
> children?

The way we prevent harm of any kind coming to children - by exercising
caution and knowing about our children's activities. How do you
propose we prevent children from falling into our neighbor's swimming
pool? Should we require all owners of swimming pools in neighborhoods
with small children to fill or cover the pools because some two year
old *might* fall in and drown? No -- we say adults should exercise
proper care over their children. Responsible people (including
children) should be able to enjoy pools in peace, without government
interference.

Or shall we just wait and hope that somehow we find out after the
> fact when harm has been done?

Which is what laws do. Laws do not prevent crimes, or save potential
victims. Laws punish *afterward* -- after the fact. They are
institutionalized revenge.

>>Again, the punishment, if any, will vary
>>according to the capability of those involved as well, which is why
>>younger children, or the severely retarded, or the insane, etc., are
>>often seen as worthy of lesser or no sentence under law than a normal
>>adult who does the same action.

> How do you measure psychological harm to a child?

By observing -- and asking -- the child.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Which is also why I oppose age of consent LAWS -- because we should make
>>> the decision in each case -- although we do not have to make it by legal
>>> means. The decision should be based on whether HARM is caused, not on
>>> the basis of age involved.
>
>
>> How exactly do you propose deterring sexual predators from approaching
>> children?
>
>
> The way we prevent harm of any kind coming to children - by exercising
> caution and knowing about our children's activities.

No, you idiot. We don't allow children below a certain
age to drive, we don't allow them to join the army, we
don't allow them to do myriad things. You approve of
all the restrictions; it is sophistry for you to
pretend otherwise.


>> Or shall we just wait and hope that somehow we find out after the
>> fact when harm has been done?
>
>
> Which is what laws do. Laws do not prevent crimes, or save potential
> victims. Laws punish *afterward* -- after the fact. They are
> institutionalized revenge.

False. You are wrong. Laws specifying penalties for
proscribed activities have a deterrent effect.


>>> Again, the punishment, if any, will vary
>>> according to the capability of those involved as well, which is why
>>> younger children, or the severely retarded, or the insane, etc., are
>>> often seen as worthy of lesser or no sentence under law than a normal
>>> adult who does the same action.
>
>
>> How do you measure psychological harm to a child?
>
>
> By observing -- and asking -- the child.

No, liar. You have admitted categorically that
pre-teen children are harmed by adults inflicting
themselves sexually on the children.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> She doesn't; that's the whole point. She wants queer men to be able to
> butt**** young boys, something she has acknowledged as categorically
> harmful to the boys.

Do you really think anyone will believe such ridiculous drivel, jon?

> Age-of-consent laws are a strong deterrent, possibly the only strong
> deterrent, to queer men ****ing boys

Again, homophobic drivel. Do you really believe that *** men are some
alien species totally outside of western culture? The vast majority
of *** men don't even agree with NAMBLA's stand on intergenerational
sexual activity of any kind. An even tinier minority of men who HAPPEN
to be *** are also violent predators, just as a tiny minority of men who
HAPPEN to be straight are violent predators, especially on very young
children. *** men have much the same views on sex with children as
straight men, and most do not desire it, or, if they do, would not do
it because they consider it wrong. You might as well say that age of
consent laws are "the only strong deterrent" to straight men raping
babies. If you believe that, I hope your wife never leaves you alone
with your child(ren); you have a serious problem.

<snip>

> She is completely wrong: there are laws in
> anarchist society.

No, there are no laws -- by definition -- in an anarchist society.
There are, however, social norms in any society.

<snip>

Rat

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
<snip>
> > For the purposes of this discussion I was talking about first world
> > countries like the US and GB. I'm sure there is some culture somewhere,
> > where a girl is mature at the point of puberty and ready for married
life,
> > but I really don't believe that's the case in the vast majority of
children
> > in industrialized countries.
>
> Quite right. The point in the discussion is that
> society may set an age, without violating any "right"
> on the part of those under the age, and certainly not
> violating any "right" of those above the age who prey
> on those under it. Every society, correctly, considers
> children to have less than the full set of whatever
> rights adults have in that society. No one with a
> proper understanding of rights theory has any trouble
> with this.

I agree.

> What bothers Karen is that queer men, a group for whom
> she feels a special political affinity, want to ****
> boys in the ass, and age-of-consent laws provide a
> powerful deterrent.

What is confusing to me about Rat's posts is that they seem to flip from one
position to the other.

<snip>
> Michael is wrong, and Karen thinks he is, too. She
> thinks the age of the victim IS determinative of harm:
> 100% of the time, according to Karen, harm occurs
> when an adult sexually penetrates a pre-teen child.

I think that harm occurs then too.

>>>Another thing that's really bad about adults having sex with young
children,
> >>>is that young children often don't even know sex exists. They may have
been
> >>>told some kind of story about where babies come from (The stork, etc.)
So
> >>>when someone forces them down and penetrates them, they're being hurt
in a
> >>>way they didn't even think was possible. Little kids don't even realize
a
> >>>lot of times that the opposite sex is different down there.
>
> My son, currently 3 years 2 months, realized the
> difference before he was 2 years old. He isn't blind.

He's seen naked women?

> >>There's loads of stuff that's bad about it and a lot of psychological
harm
> >>can be surely be done with no penetration at all.
> >
> >
> > Yes, that's true.
>
> Yes, it is true, which is why there are other crimes to
> cover adult men forcing or tricking young boys into
> performing oral sex on the men, or adults of either sex
> forcing or tricking children into having genital
> contact with them.

Yup.

> >>>When I was in kindergarten I used to think the way to tell boys from
girls
> >>>was that girls had long hair and boys had short hair. It got kind of
> >>>confusing when I found out there were some girls who had short hair
too.
>
> Those were early dykes.

That's pretty harsh. *L* Their moms probably had their hair cut that way to
cut down on having to brush it too much and/or because they thought it
looked cute.

-Rubystars

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

Rat:

> The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
> when I look at those who really need [help], I can't see
> any alternative for the present but to have some
> government help.

> Karen understand full well that in the here-and-now, she supports *some*
> laws.

No, I don't.

I feel about government aid much the way Melanie felt about taking
money for the Confederate Cause from a prostitute in _Gone With
The Wind_. She did not approve of the women's profession, but felt,
under the circumstances of great need, she would take the money.

I would much prefer that private charity provide for all needy people.
But I will take even tainted help if the only alternative is that
truly needy people die or starve.

The issue is that there is no need for arbitrary age of consent laws,
because any harm done will be quite adequately covered by whatever
means a society has to prevent and punish HARM. Harm must be
demonstrated. Defining harm by an arbitrary age limit is wrong.

Rat
<snip>

Rubystars wrote:

<snip>

> What is confusing to me about Rat's posts is that they seem to flip from one
> position to the other.

What do you mean by that? I think my position is quite clear: no matter
what means a society has for dealing with harm, those means should only
be invoked when harm is demonstrated, not on the basis of status. In
some cases a strong certainty of harm may be obvious: anal penetration
of a two-year-old by an adult man will certainly cause harm and injury.
Two characteristics may correlate closely, but we should be clear that
they are not identical. It is the harm which is the issue, not the age.
IF we focus only on harm, we then avoid cases of injustice where harm
is not done, but people are punished anyway, or prevented from engaging
in harmless activities.

Rat
<snip>

>>Those were early dykes.

> That's pretty harsh. *L*

You see how bigoted jon is.

Rat
<snip>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Which is also why I oppose age of consent LAWS -- because we should make
> >>the decision in each case -- although we do not have to make it by legal
> >>means. The decision should be based on whether HARM is caused, not on
> >>the basis of age involved.
>
> > How exactly do you propose deterring sexual predators from approaching
> > children?
>
> The way we prevent harm of any kind coming to children - by exercising
> caution and knowing about our children's activities. How do you
> propose we prevent children from falling into our neighbor's swimming
> pool?
> Should we require all owners of swimming pools in neighborhoods
> with small children to fill or cover the pools because some two year
> old *might* fall in and drown?

We enact laws requiring that swimming pools have safety enclosures. Your
"solution" is to wait until they fall into the pool and hope to able to
revive them afterwards.

> No -- we say adults should exercise
> proper care over their children. Responsible people (including
> children) should be able to enjoy pools in peace, without government
> interference.

I suggest you check your local building by-laws. I would note that at least
you are consistent in that you are advocating unsafe conditions for
children.

>
> Or shall we just wait and hope that somehow we find out after the
> > fact when harm has been done?
>
> Which is what laws do. Laws do not prevent crimes, or save potential
> victims. Laws punish *afterward* -- after the fact.

Should we punish *before* the act?

They are
> institutionalized revenge.

Are you unaware of the principle of deterrence?

> >>Again, the punishment, if any, will vary
> >>according to the capability of those involved as well, which is why
> >>younger children, or the severely retarded, or the insane, etc., are
> >>often seen as worthy of lesser or no sentence under law than a normal
> >>adult who does the same action.
>
> > How do you measure psychological harm to a child?
>
> By observing -- and asking -- the child.

And if the child is too terrorized or ashamed to speak? Tough.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > What is confusing to me about Rat's posts is that they seem to flip from
one
> > position to the other.
>
> What do you mean by that? I think my position is quite clear: no matter
> what means a society has for dealing with harm, those means should only
> be invoked when harm is demonstrated, not on the basis of status.

Adults having sex with children is a harmful act, therefore, its against the
law.

>In
> some cases a strong certainty of harm may be obvious: anal penetration
> of a two-year-old by an adult man will certainly cause harm and injury.

But then you turn right around and say you are opposed to age of consent
laws!

> Two characteristics may correlate closely, but we should be clear that
> they are not identical. It is the harm which is the issue, not the age.
> IF we focus only on harm, we then avoid cases of injustice where harm
> is not done, but people are punished anyway, or prevented from engaging
> in harmless activities.

Harmless activities do not include adults having sex with children.

<snip>

-Rubystars

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > What is confusing to me about Rat's posts is that they seem to flip from
one
> > position to the other.
>
> What do you mean by that? I think my position is quite clear: no matter
> what means a society has for dealing with harm, those means should only
> be invoked when harm is demonstrated, not on the basis of status. In
> some cases a strong certainty of harm may be obvious: anal penetration
> of a two-year-old by an adult man will certainly cause harm and injury.

So should *that* be illegal, or do we have to prove that there was harm?
What about three years old? What about sexual manipulation of a child where
there is no physical harm, such as oral sex and masturbation? Just because
there are no visual scars doesn't mean there isn't serious life-altering
psychological harm done, even more damaging long-term than some simple
broken tissue.


> Two characteristics may correlate closely, but we should be clear that
> they are not identical. It is the harm which is the issue, not the age.
> IF we focus only on harm, we then avoid cases of injustice where harm
> is not done, but people are punished anyway, or prevented from engaging
> in harmless activities.

You're royally ****ed in the head.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> She doesn't; that's the whole point. She wants queer men to be able
>> to butt**** young boys, something she has acknowledged as
>> categorically harmful to the boys.
>
>
> Do you really think anyone will believe such ridiculous drivel, jon?

"Drivel"??? That's awfully usenet-stale even for you.

Yes, once all the particulars are out in the open, I
expect people will find the conclusion persuasive.

>
>> Age-of-consent laws are a strong deterrent, possibly the only strong
>> deterrent, to queer men ****ing boys
>
>
> Again, homophobic drivel.

Nope. Nothing homophobic about it. You've already
admitted:

- you're trying to get rid of a law that offers
deterrent protection to children

- your motive in doing this is because NAMBLA is a
*** movement


>
>> She is completely wrong: there are laws in anarchist society.
>
>
> No, there are no laws -- by definition -- in an anarchist society.

False. That is not the definition of anarchy; you
parade your ignorance around like something of which
you're proud. -archy is a suffix indicating state;
anarchy therefore means 'no state'. No state, however,
does not mean no laws. Every anarchist society you
want to point to had laws.

> There are, however, social norms in any society.

Laws, whether you want to use the term or not.

You've already conceded: you believe in government and
laws. It is made plain in something you wrote:

The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need [help], I
can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM

You pretend to be opposed to laws because you claim to
be an "anarchist", and you believe, falsely, that there
are no laws in an anarchist society. You are
completely wrong: there are laws in anarchist society.
Because you loves to **** away her life, you want to
ensnare people in a long, tedious, fruitless discussion
about the merits of anarchy. Fortunately, no one so
far has risen to the tainted bait. There are no
anarchist societies, and all past attempts have failed.

You don't really believe an anarchist society is
possible; you merely use the pretext of anarchism to
avoid having to confront the FACT that everything you
perniciously conceive of as a just society depends,
realistically, on repressive totalitarian state power.
Your bullshit about how the human-nature-denying
bullshit you espouse could somehow magically be
attained in an anarchist society is bullshit. You are
wrong, and know you're wrong.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Rat:
>
>> The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
>> when I look at those who really need [help], I can't see
>> any alternative for the present but to have some
>> government help.
>
>
>> Karen understand full well that in the here-and-now, she supports
>> *some* laws.
>
>
> No, I don't.

Yes, you do:

The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need [help], I
can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM


> I feel about government aid much the way Melanie felt about taking
> money for the Confederate Cause from a prostitute in _Gone With
> The Wind_. She did not approve of the women's profession, but felt,
> under the circumstances of great need, she would take the money.
>
> I would much prefer that private charity provide for all needy people.
> But I will take even tainted help if the only alternative is that
> truly needy people die or starve.
>
> The issue is that there is no need for arbitrary age of consent laws,

YOU have come up with an arbitrary age: 13. You feel
that adult sexual penetration of pre-teens is ALWAYS
harmful to the children. That you engage in rotten
unpersuasive sophistry to try to feign that you don't
want a "law" instituting age-of-consent fools no one.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What is confusing to me about Rat's posts is that they seem to flip
>> from one
>> position to the other.
>
>
> What do you mean by that?

What the **** do you think she means by it, bonehead?
She means, you flip-flop: you acknowledge that adult
sexual penetration of pre-teens is CATEGORICALLY
harmful to the children, then you want to remove the
biggest impediment society has put in place to
discourage it.

> I think my position is quite clear: no matter
> what means a society has for dealing with harm, those means should only
> be invoked when harm is demonstrated, not on the basis of status.

But YOU have said that status IS important, you
inconsistent ****. You have said that for pre-teens,
sexual penetration by an adult is ALWAYS harmful. The
only debate left is where to draw the line. Sensible
people who don't have to worry about alienating a
political-darlings pressure group - queer men - have
decided the age should be higher.

That you acknowedge the rightness of the principle of
setting an age limit is beyond dispute.

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>>For the purposes of this discussion I was talking about first world
>>>countries like the US and GB. I'm sure there is some culture somewhere,
>>>where a girl is mature at the point of puberty and ready for married
>
> life,
>
>>>but I really don't believe that's the case in the vast majority of
>
> children
>
>>>in industrialized countries.
>>
>>Quite right. The point in the discussion is that
>>society may set an age, without violating any "right"
>>on the part of those under the age, and certainly not
>>violating any "right" of those above the age who prey
>>on those under it. Every society, correctly, considers
>>children to have less than the full set of whatever
>>rights adults have in that society. No one with a
>>proper understanding of rights theory has any trouble
>>with this.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>>What bothers Karen is that queer men, a group for whom
>>she feels a special political affinity, want to ****
>>boys in the ass, and age-of-consent laws provide a
>>powerful deterrent.
>
>
> What is confusing to me about Rat's posts is that they seem to flip from one
> position to the other.
>
> <snip>
>
>>Michael is wrong, and Karen thinks he is, too. She
>>thinks the age of the victim IS determinative of harm:
>> 100% of the time, according to Karen, harm occurs
>>when an adult sexually penetrates a pre-teen child.
>
>
> I think that harm occurs then too.
>
>
>>>>Another thing that's really bad about adults having sex with young
>
> children,
>
>>>>>is that young children often don't even know sex exists. They may have
>
> been
>
>>>>>told some kind of story about where babies come from (The stork, etc.)
>
> So
>
>>>>>when someone forces them down and penetrates them, they're being hurt
>
> in a
>
>>>>>way they didn't even think was possible. Little kids don't even realize
>
> a
>
>>>>>lot of times that the opposite sex is different down there.
>>
>>My son, currently 3 years 2 months, realized the
>>difference before he was 2 years old. He isn't blind.
>
>
> He's seen naked women?
>
>
>>>>There's loads of stuff that's bad about it and a lot of psychological
>
> harm
>
>>>>can be surely be done with no penetration at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, that's true.
>>
>>Yes, it is true, which is why there are other crimes to
>>cover adult men forcing or tricking young boys into
>>performing oral sex on the men, or adults of either sex
>>forcing or tricking children into having genital
>>contact with them.
>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>>>>>When I was in kindergarten I used to think the way to tell boys from
>
> girls
>
>>>>>was that girls had long hair and boys had short hair. It got kind of
>>>>>confusing when I found out there were some girls who had short hair
>
> too.
>
>>Those were early dykes.
>
>
> That's pretty harsh.

I was just 'avin' a larf. I notice that you laughed, too.

> *L* Their moms probably had their hair cut that way to
> cut down on having to brush it too much and/or because they thought it
> looked cute.
>
> -Rubystars
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
<snip>
> > That's pretty harsh.
>
> I was just 'avin' a larf. I notice that you laughed, too.

Yeah it was funny.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>>That's pretty harsh.
>>
>>I was just 'avin' a larf. I notice that you laughed, too.
>
>
> Yeah it was funny.

Glad you liked it!

Dutch wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message

<snip>

>>I think my position is quite clear: no matter
>>what means a society has for dealing with harm, those means should only
>>be invoked when harm is demonstrated, not on the basis of status. In
>>some cases a strong certainty of harm may be obvious: anal penetration
>>of a two-year-old by an adult man will certainly cause harm and injury.


> So should *that* be illegal,

No. You just don't get it. I don't think ANYTHING should be illegal,
because I don't think there should be LAWS enforced by the STATE.

Is that clear enough for you?

Rat
<snip>

Rubystars wrote:

<snip>

> Yeah it was funny.

You may think so, but it is NOT funny-- it is an example
of the kind of sexist, homophobic comment that escalates
into vicious prejudice in older children, teasing, beatings,
harassment, and perhaps death. "***" has become a slur
among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you. I just
hope none of your children turn out to be ***.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I think my position is quite clear: no matter
>>> what means a society has for dealing with harm, those means should only
>>> be invoked when harm is demonstrated, not on the basis of status. In
>>> some cases a strong certainty of harm may be obvious: anal penetration
>>> of a two-year-old by an adult man will certainly cause harm and injury.
>
>
>
>> So should *that* be illegal,
>
>
> No. You just don't get it. I don't think ANYTHING should be illegal,
> because I don't think there should be LAWS enforced by the STATE.
>
> Is that clear enough for you?

What's clear is that you are LYING. You DO believe in
government and laws:

The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need [help], I
can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM

Your gambit is the rankest bit of sophistry, and no one
is fooled.