Cofty-To acknowledge that there are degrees of sexual assault is not so say anything controversial is it?
Yes Cofty it is controversial and to use your favourite terms it is "dumb"
"intellectually dishonest" and "ignorant" of basic definitions in Law and Science
of what sexual abuse of children is and how it impacts the formation
of the individual. Internalizing the violation and these effects have been studied,
documented and volumes of scientific literature exist on this subject.
Cofty your constant habit of calling people"dumb" "ignorant"
"intellectually dishonest" and "The days when you could attack
somebody behind a keyboard with impunity are gone."
That applies to YOU Cofty. You attack all you please and then
complain loudly and insult everyone who challenges you or your
(to coin your phrase "ignorant") opinions.
You are the keyboard attacker Cofty, YOU. You also LIE,
you posted here that you PM'd me to apologize and I "insulted you"
My reply was two words: Yes Master.
Nothing to compared to the insults on this thread alone.
"Child abuse law provides the rules for holding individuals who harm children legally accountable for their actions. These laws are directed at parents, guardians, caretakers, and anyone else responsible for a child’s wellbeing. Child abuse is not limited to physical harm. Most child abuse statutes also include emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, as well as acts or failures to act that result in an imminent risk of danger to the child. Allegations of child abuse can result in criminal charges and/or the initiation of a child neglect case in civil court. Statutes prohibiting child abuse have been enacted at the state and federal level." from : http://www.hg.org/child-abuse.html
THIS A LEGAL DEFINITION OF CHILD ABUSE
Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect, Summary of State Laws
Abusive Sexual Contact
Abusive sexual contact includes intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing,…….Abusive sexual contact does not involve penetration
. Noncontact sexual abuse can include the following:
1. Acts which expose a child to sexual activity (e.g., pornography; voyeurism of the child by an adult; intentional exposure of a child to exhibitionism);
2. Filming10 of a child in a sexual manner (e.g., depiction, either photographic or cinematic, of a child in a sexual act);
3. Sexual harassment of a child (e.g., quid pro quo; creating a hostile environment because of comments or attention of a sexual nature by a caregiver to a child);
As far as me "accusing" anyone of child abuse, I would have to know
that individual and the child he/she abused. My very ACCURATE statements
about Dawkins stand. There are two men who posted they were victims
themselves and believe it "caused them no harm" I doubt either of these
men have been to a psychiatrist/psychologist or 12 Step recovery program,
or they would know that part of classic sublimation is denial.
To deny or minimize harm. It creates a false self and magical thinking.
Without outside help they have little hope of real insight into their
own emotional patterning and how they were violated. As far as pedophiles
being on this site: Since this is a site full of Jehovah's Witness Elders and ex-Elders,
in the thousands ?? And since the WT has had a long standing policy, which no
Elder following instructions in the Shepherding the Flock Elders' manual, did not
know about and understand, and which none of them objected to, or was willing to
violate, then it stands to reason there is culpability somewhere in this group, just
as a statistic. Pedophiles were released, protected, offended
and then served as Elders. None of this was stopped or changed
by the Elders themselves. It was outside forces that changed those policies
because of legal liability. No heroes here. Statistically, the chances are high
we have here among us both victims and offenders. Thats a fact.
My comments to the man on this site were based on his lack
of awareness and therefore his acceptance of Dawkins remarks,
which were and are, completely unacceptable. The fact it was
his own personal story is not relevant to the criminality.
I did not imply or accuse the poster, since I could not,
since I do not even know who he is or his age or history
or anything about him, except his own revelations.