Rayaan Wrote:The idea that you're a a pedophile if you find the 'innocent' look appealing, is not a good one, since pedophilia has more to do with sexual attraction than simply looks. If that's the definition, then anyone who thinks that little children are cute and innocent are pedophiles. However, I agree that the definition on E. Britannica which says that a pedophile's relationship with an adult has to be "less threatening" doesn't necessarily have to be true. But aside from that, I read the same thing on wikipedia and a few other articles on the definition of pedophilia.

I used 'appealing' to denote sexual appeal, which is supposedly different than other types of appeal. And infact, anyone that thinks little children are sexually attractive are pedophiles. Granted, I oversimplified my statements with 'look' (and nothing that incorporates more senses than one (ie: sex involving (smell)(taste)(sight)(touch)(hearing)) can be entirely summed up in one)... but I figured that it would be immediately understood what I meant (shows me for assuming!.

Also... if wiki says the same as E. Britanica here, then it too is cracked on this.

Quote:2. Like you or anyone else, I don't know the degree of his pedophilia, but it doesn't seem to be too strong since all his other wives were 17 years or older.

Then I don't see why people would make such a big deal over a single instance. Then again, I don't understand people very well, so...

Quote:3. I am not attempting to control a natural response by merely attributing this to a social value. If you think so, then explain how I'm doing that based on what I wrote in my original post (in # 3).

You're not (necessarily)... but E. Britanica and apparently Wikipedia certainly are perpetuating this... and being the chaotic force that I am, there is a great deal of disdain I hold for the creators of such a silly notion.

(May 24, 2011 at 7:11 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: The story is fiction --- but it's still repulsive.

One such as yourself has to ask yourself this.
If someone tomorrow came and told you he was the prophet of god, would you give him your nine year old little girl to marry and have sex with???

I'm replying to my own post because I thought this really drove my point home ....

Type in the words "9 year old girl" (nothing more) into Google Images and you'll notice TWO interesting things on the resulting page.

#1 - 9 YEAR OLD girls cannot be considered even REMOTELY women by ANY stretch of the imagination! Just LOOK at those pictures!!!

#2 - All the MEN that appear ON THE SAME PAGE of images are convicted PEDOPHILES - not loving husbands.


So let me first say, FUCK ISLAM! Filthy, vile religion.

And as a final thought from a father ... CLEARLY, the actions of your "prophet" are ok with you, and in my mind, that makes you highly worthy of careful and diligent observation around children. Something you may want to consider the next time you defend pedophilia.

(May 24, 2011 at 8:50 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Rayaan, there is no more ACTUAL EVIDENCE for muhammad than there is for jesus, moses, or quetzlcoatl.

What do you mean by "actual" evidence?

Is there any "actual" evidence for the existence of Ceasar, Socrates, and Plato? Why do you believe they exist and not Muhammad?

And here's the reason why I said that your view of Muhammad is inconsistent: It's because you believe in so many older historical characters than Muhammad - people like Artistotle, Celsus, Tacitus, Origen, Josephus, etc (which I've seen you talk about in other threads) - who lived hundreds of years before Muhammad, and secondly, they are less popular/well-known. You believe that they existed, but not Muhammad. Also, there is a lot more evidence for Muhammad than Jesus, especially because he came 600 years after the time of Jesus. Both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars have written about Muhammad with a great amount of detail and accuracy which is hardly anything near to the amount of contradictions and disagreements between scholars who have written about Jesus. Therefore, Muhammad's existence is significantly less questionable than Jesus, Moses, Noah, or any other prophets.

(May 25, 2011 at 1:45 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Type in the words "9 year old girl" (nothing more) into Google Images and you'll notice TWO interesting things on the resulting page.

Yeah, I just typed "9 year old girl" in google images, and I see the results. BUT, you can't really form an argument by making me look at pictures of random 9-year-olds.

(May 25, 2011 at 1:45 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: And as a final thought from a father ... CLEARLY, the actions of your "prophet" are ok with you, and in my mind, that makes you highly worthy of careful and diligent observation around children. Something you may want to consider the next time you defend pedophilia.

Yes, the actions of the prophet are okay with me. But I'm pretty sure I'm not pedophiliac. But if you think so, that's fine.

(May 24, 2011 at 9:07 pm)Skipper Wrote: Lets be honest, Rayaan, Muhammed could have done ANYTHING in the koran, and no matter how evil, you and the rest of the followers of your particular brand of bullshit would find ways to justify it.

That is incorrect, because me and the rest of the Muslims are not the only ones who are justifying these things.
There are many non-Muslim scholars and intellectuals as well - who believe in Muhammad's great character and his humility - it's not only the Muslims.

If you want to see the proof, see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOs3uDMUDsk

(May 24, 2011 at 8:59 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Min has been CONSISTENTLY accurate on the topic of religion, including Islam.

*Borrows RevJ's pink sunglasses* Oh yeah you're right!

(May 25, 2011 at 2:49 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(May 25, 2011 at 1:45 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Type in the words "9 year old girl" (nothing more) into Google Images and you'll notice TWO interesting things on the resulting page.

Yeah, I just typed "9 year old girl" in google images, and I see the results. BUT, you can't really form an argument by making me look at pictures of random 9-year-olds.

Actually I can. This is the HORRIBLY RIDICULOUS point you made in Post #13: YOU WROTE: As I said earlier, she was considered to be a woman when she was married since Islam does not allow marriage before puberty (which is the time of womanhood for a Muslim). Nine years of age might seem like a small child to you, but some people mature at different rates, and thus they enter womanhood much earlier than others

You see Rayaan, my referral to pictures on Google Images is to assist people in seeing how STUPID it was to claim that a 9 year old girl could be considered a woman. In addition, lets not forget my 2nd point ... the known pedophiles who appeared on the same page.

(May 25, 2011 at 2:49 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(May 25, 2011 at 1:45 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: And as a final thought from a father ... CLEARLY, the actions of your "prophet" are ok with you, and in my mind, that makes you highly worthy of careful and diligent observation around children. Something you may want to consider the next time you defend pedophilia.

Yes, the actions of the prophet are okay with me. But I'm pretty sure I'm not pedophiliac. But if you think so, that's fine.

Wait wait .... you're PRETTY sure!??! I never said that you actually ARE, rather that you warranted observation ........... but damn!!

This is a "woman" according to Rayaan

@ Rev

Unbelievable right. keep rayaan away from my kids!

(May 25, 2011 at 7:09 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

This is a "woman" according to Rayaan

Has she undergone puberty yet?

I've been on Rayaan's side for most of this. I kudos him for his guts and his level headed responses. My daughter is 8, and she's a million miles away from maturity. Where I grew up there were lots of Indian people and the children do mature a lot earlier. That said.. I can't see how it wouldn't be seriously emotionally damaging to have an adult sexual encounter at that age. Do we know this is the case? Do we know what actually happened?

And if we're saying that this societal morality is unacceptable, isn't that also saying a secular morality can fail sometimes?

(May 26, 2011 at 2:20 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I've been on Rayaan's side for most of this. I kudos him for his guts and his level headed responses. My daughter is 8, and she's a million miles away from maturity. Where I grew up there were lots of Indian people and the children do mature a lot earlier. That said.. I can't see how it wouldn't be seriously emotionally damaging to have an adult sexual encounter at that age. Do we know this is the case? Do we know what actually happened?

And if we're saying that this societal morality is unacceptable, isn't that also saying a secular morality can fail sometimes?

So if someone wanted to have sex with your daughter, would you allow it since you can't see how a person could be emotionally damaged at that age?