holmes blathers:
quote:
I am not saying that he cannot be challenged on why he says A is wrong. I think I have suggested opening a new thread.
Since when is it necessary to start a new thread in order to challenge a goddamned assertion? Will you please quote the relevant forum guideline?
quote:
I am just saying that actually challenging him on that moral declaration is not relevant to this thread...
The hell it isn't. He made an assertion
in this thread. I challenged his assertion
in this thread. Can you please show me where in the forum guidelines it says that a challenged assertion does not have to be backed up
simply because holmes says so?
If I am off-topic for challenging his assertion, then wouldn't his assertion also be off-topic? In case you haven't been paying attention, I challenged his assertion
after he made it (which is usually the way it works). So if you really think this is off-topic then it would seem that your issue is with Tal, not me.
quote:
I just said it was relatively recent, at EvC, and was NOT submitted by me.
And you cited it
in this thread. So here I am going off-topic again (according to you) because
I INSIST: show me the damned study and tell me precisely which harmful effects you see that it shows which go beyond socio-cultural concerns! It's not up to me to go find it when
you are the one citing it.
quote:
Indeed Rrhain came in to make the defense which you are shooting down... that it must be seen in context of the socio-cultural environment.
I haven't had a
chance to shoot anything down because neither you nor Tal will trouble yourselves to
back up your assertions!
I certainly don't want to speak for Rrhain - especially since I haven't seen what you're talking about - but I suspect that he meant that any study purporting to show harmful effects of homosexuality between consenting parties must be viewed in the light of its socio-cultural environment. When a child is raped by an adult there is clearly a victim, and the harmful effects go beyond socio-cultural concerns.
quote:
See, this is your problem. You are part of the modern witchhunt/commiekilling/fagbashing. At every turn you see a defense of something you hate, including words that I have not only not said, but within this thread have actually made a point of countering.
No, I see an assertion about consenting homosexual activity being compared morally to child rape. I took offense. Apparently the fact that I would dare to take offense at such a bigoted comparison is evidence to you that I'm hypersensitive. I've now reached the point where I really don't give a damn what you think.
All of this is moot anyway, as Quetzal seemed to say, since Tal is obviously not going to back up his assertion.
quote:
All I did was point out that there is a socio-cultural component to harm, and this includes (to children that were not overtly raped or coerced) sex with minors.
So far, the comparison has been to first a seven-year-old then a four-year-old. Is there some scenario under which you would view sex between an adult and a seven-year-old or four-year-old as
not overtly rape or coercion?
Most everything you've said would make perfect sense if the comparison between consenting homosexual activity had been made to consenting sexual activity between an adult and an older teen, but it makes no sense when the activity is between an adult and a child of four or seven.
Keep America Safe
AND Free!
™ Version 4.2