User Controls
Legal yet morally objectionable things you can do
-
2019-08-03 at 4:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker A person who doesn't understand that a child is hurt by a being molested is not a good judge of what is good for a child. Analogies do not change that.
the child is only hurt because the society with which that child lives in convinced him or her that he/she has been hurt.
in the same way kids had been duped into thinking that smoking is cool, or wearing nike makes them a winner. -
2019-08-03 at 4:26 PM UTC
-
2019-08-03 at 6:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Yes but that is assuming i don't understand that molestation doesn't hurt a child. I do.
You just shored my point firmly. You know that something is harmful to a child and choose to engage in that behavior. Proving by your own actions that your judgement regarding child welfare is poor. -
2019-08-03 at 6:49 PM UTC
-
2019-08-03 at 7:01 PM UTCKeep on driving by a bad vehicular accident
-
2019-08-03 at 11:21 PM UTC
-
2019-08-04 at 9:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by G4LM It does not have a negative connotation. It's straight up definitively negative to assault people through molestation. Connotation is the meaning outside of the definition.
Anal fakt 3005
It does have a negative connotation in respect to its use regarding children, though. 'Molest' is merely unwanted physical contact, annoyances, or disturbances - all of which can mean a host of different things. To use it in a context where children are being discussed gives it a specific negative connotation. -
2019-08-04 at 3:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by D4NG0 It does have a negative connotation in respect to its use regarding children, though. 'Molest' is merely unwanted physical contact, annoyances, or disturbances - all of which can mean a host of different things. To use it in a context where children are being discussed gives it a specific negative connotation.
Thank you Dango Daikazoku, i knew i said it right the first time. -
2019-08-04 at 3:22 PM UTCit basically just means to annoy or bother someone but I think it has a specific legal definitiion that involves interfering with a person sexually
-
2019-08-04 at 3:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra it basically just means to annoy or bother someone but I think it has a specific legal definitiion that involves interfering with a person sexually
It does, which is why it isn't a connotation. You can't just be like 'oh no I'm using THIS outdated definition not the common modern one everyone uses'
If you tell someone your uncle molests you all the time, nobody is going to think he's just annoying. The definition is clear. On some dictionaries the bothering definition is listed as archaic. -
2019-08-04 at 3:38 PM UTCplay station pee
-
2019-08-04 at 3:45 PM UTCplay station whore
-
2019-08-04 at 3:45 PM UTCplay station poo
-
2019-08-04 at 3:46 PM UTCplay station cum,mn e
-
2019-08-04 at 3:50 PM UTCBest to use the word, molestation.
-
2019-08-04 at 3:52 PM UTCPlaymolestation 4
-
2019-08-04 at 6:07 PM UTC
-
2019-08-05 at 6:15 AM UTC
-
2019-08-05 at 6:23 AM UTC
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-08-05 at 6:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by G4LM It does, which is why it isn't a connotation. You can't just be like 'oh no I'm using THIS outdated definition not the common modern one everyone uses'
If you tell someone your uncle molests you all the time, nobody is going to think he's just annoying. The definition is clear. On some dictionaries the bothering definition is listed as archaic.
I feel like in the UK, molest is still used in a similar context to "accost" or "man-handle", outside of the sexual meaning. But certainly in US English it basically solely implies diddling.
