| It's nice that you made the clear distinction with the general "you" but it'd be good if you worked a bit harder to cut out the other insinuations. For example: > At that point, it is, in fact, child rape, even if you aren't comfortable with the terminology and wish nicer language were used to describe it. - Where did I say or imply that it wasn't child rape?
- Where did I say or imply I wasn't comfortable with that terminology?
- Where did I say or imply I was wishing nicer language were used to describe it? I'm not sure how you hope to have an adult discussion on a sensitive topic if you're going to insinuate that asking you a question is tantamount to defending child rape. I for my part have tried to find out more from someone who says they know more. I'm reading the research from one of the Wikipedia references you gave and questioning some of my assumptions while trying to remain sceptical and clear headed enough to analyse it. > I don't feel compelled to try make it sound nicer given how damaging it can be to the child in question. I think it's unlikely that most people in this discussion are condoning or defending this behaviour (or maybe they are but they should still get a chance to give their point and be challenged). Since we know most people will say they're for the protection of children wouldn't it be better to take them at their word, play the numbers and realise the majority here will be the same, and, if not tone down the description, tone down the attitude? It's Hacker News, not Twitter. |