Aardvaarkman said:Why do you refer to it as "child-sex" rather than child rape?Treblaine said:You still haven't explained how my "mis-statement" caused anything. Before I even said that Aardvarkman had jumped in with the derailing "there is a grey area between statutory rape and rape", bringing in the issue of child-sex. Which is NOT what this discussion needs AT ALL and an entirely semantic ambiguity anyway!
Semantics are rather important here, especially given that Jim offers no definition of "rape" in the video. The concept of rape is legally and culturally varied. It's pretty important to specify those terms. You seem to consider rape as only a violent act, and you earlier mentioned that in this discussion it was only considered to be the rape of adults.
My question is why you only consider rape in such narrow terms, when the reality is that it's a lot more complex. Rape isn't just people being held at knife-point and being brutalised.
Why would the definition of rape exclude the rape of children? You say it's a non-issue because it's illegal - but the rape of adults is also illegal. You're really not making any sense here.Treblaine said:Now its "people raping people" is another contrived attempt at getting child rape included (people is both adults and children) in the discussion. No. Stop it. Just please stop this. Drop this derailing tangent of trying to include the depiction of child rape in games, You have been TOLD it is a non-issue as it is totally illegal so you can't even go there.
"child sex" because a 17 year old girl is technically a child yet is she has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend it's a bit much to call it rape though under law it is defined as "statutory rape". Also, don't EVER think that the term "sex" automatically means consent, or that rape isn't a type of sex.
It is a FALLACY to argue from semantics. Your link between "rape" and "statutory rape" is entirely based on the semantics of the word "rape" not how 17 year old and 18 year old having sex is equivalent to - for example - a kind of rape as depicted in the rape scene in Deliverance.
Why should Jim have to give a definition of "rape"? IF you don't know what rape is then you should not be watching a video about rape. There is no ambiguity WITHOUT the "statutory-" prefix.
"you earlier mentioned that in this discussion it was only considered to be the rape of adults."
Lying will get you NOWHERE. I never said that. I explained that. I have REPEATEDLY AND EXPLICITLY stated that I never held that consideration.
"Rape isn't just people being held at knife-point and being brutalised."
I did make clear the threats may not be direct or immediate, but still the threat of force, anything that defies their ability to consent. Such as an interrogator demanding sex or else be sent out to a firing squad or be tortured later. And of course being unconscious or paralysed. Either way, I made clear that is follows the unambiguous definition of sex without or against their consent.
"Why would the definition of rape exclude the rape of children? You say it's a non-issue because it's illegal - but the rape of adults is also illegal."
Please, stop fucking me around, you know full well I meant rape involving children SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED here, not that the 'definition' of rape cannot include children as victims. You also know IT is the THE DEPICTION of child sex/rape is illegal, the depictions of adult having sex IS NOT ILLEGAL so the latter is even a possibility.