And I am trying to point out by the same criteria tapping someone on the shoulder MORE than meets the legal standard to be seen as a non-sexual molestation.
Which completely devalues the word and renders it meaningless.
Well by this point I've seen half a dozen different contradictory definitions of the word... I'm surprised you still think you can assert its objective meaning.
A rape is a crime because of the physical (molesting) aspect of the assault. The sexual component is just that... a component or aspect.
I'm confused... are these part of the same point? They're one right after another with no real conclusion or link so I assumed they were.
I'll tell you this, if you find the answers for yourself... you'll not only see my point is valid but you will have a whole new appreciation for the applicability of the word in various situations.
I'm well aware of how to use words in different situations. 'The caravan arrived at the city unmolested,' for example, means the caravan arrived undisturbed, not arrived un-sexually abused. 'The Rape of Nanking' doesn't refer to anyone actually physically inserting their penis into a city against the will of the city, it's just a play on words to illustrate the horror and depravity of what happened in Nanking.
We can use words like this because it gets the point across and people still get what we mean when we talk like that. However, if you want to get extremely literal about this practice, you start to destroy the point of language by making everything too vague and ambiguous to be of any practical use.
For example, one of the words used to define "rape" is "violate." If we consider every time anyone violates anything - a trespassing law, the trust of their friends, a contract, etc - legally the exact same thing as rape, our prisons would literally be packed to the ceiling with convicts. If you tried to claim a baby crying in a restaurant was molesting you because he was annoying you, technically, according to your subjective definition of the word, you're correct; you'd also look like a damn fool and nobody from the Supreme Court on up would take you seriously.
The problem is you're working language backwards. Most people try to find a word that most clearly and accurately describes what they are trying to say. You're doing the exact opposite, finding words that can just barely by some stretch of the imagination be made to work in certain, specific circumstances.
I've said several times before the word you (and those lawmakers) are looking for is "disturb."
1 Interfere with the normal arrangement or functioning of.
2 Destroy the sleep or relaxation of.
It fits perfectly. It doesn't need to be altered or bent, no part needs to be ignored or omitted for the entire definition of the word to seamlessly apply to the situations you are talking about.
And if you had said "abortions are a form of disturbing things" nobody would be arguing with you.
But you went out of your way to choose a word with an overtly sexual definition, like rape. I can only assume this was to be inflammatory, which is why I argue with you now.
Joe does shit like this all the time.
They're a bunch of fucking hippies in Pac Grove. I'm not unduly surprised their law doesn't make any sense.
And using what I said above, if we want to use the full, complete, comprehensive definition of "molest" it doesn't apply to butterflies or to fetuses. Unless someones diddling butterflies, I guess.
If we want to use a partial, selective, incomplete definition of "molest," we can make it apply to just about anything we like, abortions and butterflies included.
Seeing as how what you really mean is "undisturbed," one small, incomplete part of the definition of "molest," why don't you just say "undisturbed?" If this debate was titled "abortions are a form of disturbing," I think pretty much everyone would agree. But you specifically picked a word with overt and well-known sexual connotations and deliberately chose to ignore all that in favor of using a minor, incomplete part of the definition to make your inflammatory point. This must be why they call you "troll."
You should include the full definition, the part about to make annoying sexual advances to ;specif : to force physical and usually sexual contact on (as a child). I feel it might be kinda relevant, here.
However if you want to stick with the partial and extremely vague definition of the word, sure, abortions are a form of molestation. So is everything else, including walking, driving, talking, playing music, going to school, digging a hole, getting surgery done, hell, I'm molesting you right now as surely as you're molesting me, if "annoy and disturb" is as specific as we want to get with that definition.
I like how you always state your opponent is wrong before you dispute them. Like that makes a difference. Of course you think I'm wrong. Of course I think you're wrong. Stating so does absolutely nothing for your argument, and it's made even worse because you frequently use "you're wrong" instead of an argument.
Anti-abortion means you are against the practice of abortion being legal.
Pro-abortion, like pro-gay marriage, pro-Israel, pro-gun, etc means you are for the practice of abortion being legal.
It does not mean everyone has to have abortions all the time, like being pro-gay marriage doesn't mean you think everyone should have a gay marriage, or being pro-gun doesn't mean you think everyone should have to have a gun. It just means you think those things should be legal and allowed.
Please define prochoice and proabortion for me and see if they don't have almost the exact same meaning, when it comes down to it. You might be able to use different words for each but ultimately they both mean supporting abortion as a legitimate, legal, medical option.
It is actually. People who are for choice are also for abortions. It's just that "pro-life" people aren't actually pro-life because a) they go out and kill doctors and nurses at abortion clinics and b) because they could better be described as "anti-choice." Many pro-choice people choose life; anti-choice advocates want to eliminate the ability for others to make that decision.
Borrowing from Idiotbx, here:
Molestation- the act of subjecting someone to unwanted or improper sexual advances or activity (especially women or children).
Resource: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So non-sexual molestation would be defined as: the act of... nothing because molestation is a sexual act. Saying non sexual molestation is like saying non-sexual fornication. It doesn't make any sense.
That says tradition. Does the government of that country currently age it's citizens differently based on sex, more to do with lunar cycles than age, and using some guesswork as to when the parents might have conceived?
Like if twins were born in a hospital in Eastern Outer Mongolia today and one was a boy and one was a girl, would they really write different ages on their birth certificates as per some moons gone by?
I mean the same wiki page says they traditionally count newborns as one year old in China... shows how much they know.
Everyone has different opinions, but my opinion is the one that everyone (including every government in the world) actually uses. Nobody counts any period of time you spend in the womb as part of your "I am __ years old" identifier.
Yes it should. But a childs life starts at birth. You notice we wouldn't call a child born three months previous "one year old."
Stanford puts it better than I can:
The term “morality” can be used either
descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Okay, so the behavior of the minority is abnormal, abnormal is deviant, and deviant behavior often isn't accepted by the majority. This is what you've established, and I don't disagree with it. But nowhere have you done anything to show why the behavior of the minority is unethical and immoral simply because it is deviant. You haven't shown abnormal behavior to be unacceptable, just stated that it is frequently unaccepted - by people like you.
I suppose the once deviant notion that a woman's word was equal to that of a man's, the abnormal view that women should be allowed to vote and own property was just "a slide of hands" by the women's rights movement. And, of course, if we apply your logic evenly, this makes them immoral and unethical for perpetrating deviant behavior. Godforbid we see it as social progress, it was something new and different, how could it be?
Your slippery slope argument comes off more like paranoia. If you cant make the distinction between rape and homosexuality simply because they are both actions of the minority, you must live in a very frightening world.
Why is it immoral or unethical for gays to marry?
And am i right in saying that in your mind legitimizing gay marriage is equivalent to legitimizing rape, child porn, and sex with animals?
And why do I love deviant sexual behavior? Perhaps we should define the term, because i know to many right wing Christians deviant sexual behavior means anything outside of missionary position for a few minutes before bed.
You think allowing gays to marry constitutes a "world without morals?" And sexual deviation can be pretty fun in my experience, and i don't see anything immoral about it. Dont see your point.
