Pot, meet Kettle

If you disagree, contradict it with this 'proof' you talk about. If you're not willing to go out of your way to provide that and just assume everyone knows where it is (and agrees with it) then you could save yourself additional effort by not replying at all. It makes replying easier if there are less commentators, and more quality replies that create a progressive conversation.

Erm, this is interesting coming from someone who gets evasive anytime he's asked to cite his sources.

And since you will neither put-up nor shut-up when challenged, you might at least allow others to refrain from having to cite the oft-reprinted well-known facts occasionally; particularly when you've already been a party to the discussions thereof.

JD probably has more well vetted sources in his pinky than many of the rest of us put together. I've seen the evidence of this when he starts dropping them here. But I also concur with his exasperation in having to do so. Since when does the effort to establish the validity of claims have to be so one-sided?

Since you exhibit intellectual cowardice on such a grand scale, ultimately we can either choose to ignore your false factual claims, or we can engage them in order to speak to those who will profit; to others. Since we can assume that others need less hand-holding than you, certain things will be left unrepeated from time to time. After all, we don't want to spam the board in order to counter every instance of spam on the board.

This love of the phrase "Straw Man" demonstrates your lack of understanding. You hide behind this anytime others see inconsistencies in your views or can follow your illogic to its conclusive ends. Its time you put this one to a rest because you look illiterate when you trot it out reflexively. Those here who have demonstrated a greater command of logic than you refer to the Straw Man rarely, if ever; usually being capable of refuting their opponents without having to declare them wrong by fiat.

LGs is clearly not attempting to legally redefine the term "sexual abuse;" but to show how views which seek to deny positive sexual contact with others are inconsistent with the definitions of "child abuse" which allow neglect of needs to be defined as "abusive."

I'm afraid I must agree with him. Technically, it would be seen as emotional-cruelty in combination with child-neglect. But the last time anyone in the US Govt treated sexual fulfillment as the right of a child, she lost her title as Surgeon General. ( "Deprived," anyone?)

Dante