Do you think "necrophilia" can be considered a legit sexual orientation?

[Violet]

And you do not see any danger behind lowering the age of concent? I have mentioned before that this would give actual abusers a legal relaim to act within and to avoid punishment.

Or do you simply ignore things which dont fit into your fairytale way of seeing the world?

Age of consent varies so incredibly that I feel quite comfortable stamping it under the bullshit column, right along with every other arbitrary age line ever invented No, I do not see any danger behind lowering the age of consent... anyone who wanted drugs got them, anyone who wanted sex got it, anyone who wanted smokes got them, anyone who wanted drink got it. This is with all of it illegal, heavily frowned upon, socially unacceptable, and in a place with relatively few students in the first place.

Really begins to set in at the latter end of elementary school (10-13ish), goes to hell in middle school (12-15ish), high school is riding the crashing wave for many. Experience can do that to people... it can also go the other way for certain subsets of people (thrill-seekers, addicted, gangs and cliques, etc).

Mine being an inclusionary point of view... why would I ignore anything? Perhaps instead of calling me out on being ignorant, you'd like to explain what constitutes child rape as you are using it?

I am not talking about circumcision!!!!

Teaearlgreyhot proposed in another (lets debate outlandish useless stuff) threads that one should debate the possible legalisation of having a boy castrated before he reaches puperty - so his vocal chords remain unchanged and give him the possibility to sing with a high pitched voice as an adult.

You didn't specifically note the degree of the genital mutilation, circumcision is as valid a concern as any other form/extent of genital mutilation... in nearly every case: the genital mutilation is justified according to X reasons. In few cases is the child asked, in many of the cases where the child is asked: they are also pressured.

My stance in that thread was clear: avoid tampering unless unit very vocally requests it for a time-period deemed significant regarding the speed at which the desired effect is to be preserved. Same stance I have for all children's issues.

Please guide me through that thought process which makes you think that a dildo can be equated to a corpse?!

Object used for sexual gratification. Methodology between corpse and dildo typically differs, recommend comparison to blow-up dolls and fleshlights... both of which I find way more creepy than corpses

What the fuck are you actualy talking about?!

Why do you believe I owe you an explanation?

Wrong.
Show me the sociaty in which people would be ok with people selecting random corpses and fucking these?

For illustration, see cannibalism. Tell me: is there a significant difference between using a (not-necessarily) dead human body for food, weaponry, art, worship, and warning... and using them them for sex? If so: what is that difference?

The society where it is okay to do any number of things with a dead body, is a society with either a religious belief that they will have gained from performing some activity with the dead body, or it is a society where personhood is considered a spiritual/active element which has left the vessel upon death (or shortly thereafter). There are a few others, of course... but I'd say these are the main two categories of it... feel free to argue

Show me where the castration of a child is legal?

And it might be that the removing of the clitoris is common in some African countries, yet this doesnt make it alright!

Until relatively recently... the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Surgery_2

Male circumcision appears to be an acceptable form of genital mutilation in a great many societies. Female circumcision is also an acceptable form of genital mutilation in a great many societies. You tell me that it isn't right to remove the clitoris... but clearly: they believe it is in their right to do so.

Violet, do you actualy want to add things to a debate or are you simply writing things without realising what you are writing?!

Do you honestly believe that if a thing is legal or not doesnt really make a difference?!!!

I'd appreciate a debate. Usually what I get is outcry, but reasonable people make for wonderful, pleasant, and sometimes enlightening conversation.

Yes, I honestly believe that making the action legal would result in but a *very* slight increase to numbers of people participating in the activity. I also believe that current punishments (time-out, execution) are often either ineffective or grossly unjust. Too often, the same people we lock up commit crimes again http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detai...5899358607 or have their reputations tarnished for their entire lives on the basis of false claims (or are executed on them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham ).

Tell me... how many people do not use drugs BECAUSE they are illegal? Not because they're concerned for the dangers, or its effects on their performance, or scared of them, or have been turned off of them from bad experiences with drug users... but to illegality alone?

How has the one thing got to do with these things?!

Violet, if you want to annoy someone with nonsence go and annoy someone else!

You don't see how the legalization of child rape might also correlate to additional murders (sometimes of the child, sometimes of the offender by a relative of the child, sometimes by an onlooker with a gun who kills both in their shock), might also involve child protection lawsuits (parents and other relatives are among the more common offenders, in general nontrafficking cases: the child is nearly guaranteed to know the offender... in some cases it is the 'child' who is the offender, since you haven't established what child rape IS yet), and how questions might arise over whether motherhood or fatherhood is granted and the whole ball of worms that might come with it if child rape is not an illegal offense?

You might even say that each of these follow, to say nothing for what it means for trafficking, general kidnapping, and child porn. Question: *IF* child rape is legal, on what grounds is adult rape not legal?

Being clever is a mixed blessing. Bunch of really smart people think I'm hysterical, bunch of moderately intelligent people get about half my jokes, bunch of dull people just think I'm some sort of, well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDdeOncpD5E

To make it legal, you'd first have to unravel that ball of wax, otherwise it would be both legal and not legal at once (raping the child is legal, abusing the child... isn't?).

Fantasy world much?!

It does indeed sound like one, doesn't it? That's what happens when you argue without ever establishing definitions for what you're arguing: fantastical universes where the illogical dance in the streets with the logical and marry and have metrological babies raining down in a virgin coffee storm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aae_RHRptRg

It's a wonderful place... not knowing, uncertainty, change, surprise, learning and and relearning and being wrong again! Set me in your world, and I will explore it, I will break it, I will probably die in it, and it will be GLORIOUS.

Or, yknow... you could always just define your shit, baddie

Doctors and relatives.

Condoms, and relatives may or may not care (not that they should know in most current cases)... fuck my dead sisters, parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins: you're golden. Lay a finger on 3 of my nieces and I will fucking cut you, and your entire bloody continent, into ribbons.

I'm totally into legislation introduced which allows you to open yourself up to legal corpse-fucking after your death, lots of ways to legalize something, y'know.

I've been told before that it's illegal for moose to fuck each other 'in the street'... lots of outrageous things in the world.

What has that to do with the subject?!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRmgaNm2ko0

The lady speaks in words that mean more than they might have otherwise said. Put focus on last potion of the quote: attempt forming prior sentence around 'lots of outrageous things in the world'. Understand that it leads into the next portion, and as a separated text it is lacking.

It was the pivot between the two bits, after it modifies the first sentence as being an outrageous thing: it continues on the theme by stating a number of other outrageous things... and I really don't feel like the page worth of information it would take to explain every nuance behind these following the first sentence, its modifier, and its crux:

"Moose who get it on when there's people around, liars and bullies and witches oh my, a good side of bluster with a european accent unrecognizable due to inebriety. "

I probably meant to include an 'and' in that third bit, I apologize for the absence of an and sending you into this state:

Dearly, I do apologize. Would you like some grapefruit with that?

Violet! When I deliver an argument which is based on reality, I am not interested and certainly not amused about you giving an "argument" which is nothing else but a fart from the disneyland you have created in your brain.

Germans, buddy! Where've you been? It's been 1000000 years!!!! IT'S GOOOD TO SEE YOU MAAAANNN!

When I deliver an argument which shits all over your reality for its unreality, I'm not interested in your insistance that I stick to specifically 'your reality', since I've just demonstrated the unrealness of it

Look around... I do not fart disneyland, but crap it for people locked in prison and otherwise unable to see it. I did no such thing here... maybe you should get out more.