Vic, Sorry, I don't understand your complaint about my posting style.
Your post's angle seems similar to Joe's in that it claims that trauma resulting from an adult having sex with your body as a child is actually a result of trauma resulting from your secondary social environment and not your primary (the sex itself [the perp] would be considered your primary social environment). Sans evidence indicting the secondary over the primary (extremely unlikely), it's just arbitrary selectivism based on bias. Since your post refused to acknowledge "rule of law" as a principle, it should be debating with Wikipedia: "Rule of law - The rule of law is the principle that ---" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law Again, everything your post criticizes about libertarian principles and credits to rule of law is backwards. -Mark +++++++++++++++++++ ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Vic, > > Your post's only defense for denying that child sex abuse is > initiated aggression is other cultural variations. But your posts > are the ones that usually advocate upholding the rule of law. If > your post's criterion was consistent with itself, it would > advocate the opposite: that many things that are illegal in one > country should not be illegal at all - since they are not illegal > in another country. Besides this inconsistency, your posts deny > the fact that child sex abuse inflicts upon a non-consenting (by > nature) child untold amounts of emotional misery and trauma and > rage; if your posts don't call that "initiated aggression", my > posts would like to hear your post's definition. I dont make any such claim, in some cases that is certainly the case in other it is not, incest between mother and son is apparently quite common in japan without any concomitent emotional trauma. the trauma would seem to be more related to the reactions of others after the fact. if there was no reaction by others in a society that accepts sex with minors then there would be no misery or trauma. which leads then to the conclusion that the perception of trauma is a societal one and that its legal status is again a moral societal issue. > Your post implies that only govt laws, not libertarianism, can > deter and punish. That is incorrect. firstly can you stop top posting, it make it difficult to follow any points. quoting with > and indents makes it far eaier to follow the thread. secondly at no stage do I claim that rule of law is based on some universal invariable principles, quite the contrary, rule of law is arbitrary and evolves over time. consistency with principle is not a prerequisite for any law. expediency is far more important as for example with the age of consent or speed limits. some people will be ready well below the age of consent to make that decision and some cars can cruise far more safely then other way above the speed limit. these aberations are just part of keeping the costs of law enforcement down. are there no speed limits in a libertarian society? Vic
