(June 8, 2013 at 6:25 am)max-greece Wrote: Gilgamesh,

Why did it become the law?

Law becomes law when the majority 'think' something is right, usually.

Quote:Other than that it appears you are now massively climbing down from your position. That's a good thing.

My position has been the same all the way though. Only now does it seem different to you because I've made you aware that all the conclusions you jumped to aren't the position I necessarily hold.

(June 8, 2013 at 6:25 am)max-greece Wrote: Violet,

If your views are as you have, and are, stating then it is a statement of fact that we will never agree.

Because views never change, am I right?

Quote:I have no idea what my opinion of homosexuality would have been had I been borne at a different time in a different place. My entire moral structure would probably have been different. Are you so sure yours is fixed?

I've a good bloody opinion of what mine would have been had I been born at a different time in a different place: exactly the same. My entire moral structure cannot shift greatly without brainwashing or some other intelligence-impairing device. I am quite certain that my moral standpoint is fixed, regardless of what those morals entail (I will do whatever I believe needs be done, and my values will shift according to what is important in fulfilling my goals). In an overpopulated world: I encourage abortion... in an underpopulated world: I strongly encourage allowing as many babies to be born as possible.

In the case of homosexuality: there is never a case where I will consider it immoral. At best, when faced with underpopulation: I would encourage homosexuals to still have sex with the oposite sex... but they can continue to have sex with their own sex as much as they bleeding want.

Quote:Sadly it is not me that has trouble understanding, but I am a patient man and I will go slowly. If I give consent to something, as an adult, that is one thing. I may regret it later and regard my giving consent as a foolish thing to do. With a child however, things are rather different: "Darling - so you mind if I practice my lobotomy skills on you with my new scalpel?" "OK Daddy - what is a lobotomy." "Oh it won't matter in a few minutes." "OK".

Then it isn't how it appears, is it? I'll bet you will go slowly. Sure, it's you giving consent as an adult. And then after you regret having given consent, you call yourself a fool. Assuming you survive what you gave consent for, anyway. When a child gives consent to something, the exact same activity is undergone (being the giving of consent). And the same exact opportunity for regret is present.

Do you have a problem with the fact that consent is in the present?

Quote:According to you I now have the consent of my child to perform a lobotomy on her. The child, however, understood nothing but wants to please Daddy.

Only if that consent is maintained throughout the activity (you can read, right?). If her consent is broken while you perform the activity, then you have engaged in a nonconsensual activity. I'm pretty sure that every child that can feel pain understands that pain hurts, and most of them want pain to stop, but let's say you 'put her under' for the operation'.

Well... you'll just have to live with having lobotomized your own child. Congratulations. You know: I'm really against parents having total control over their property-sorry: children. For many reasons. This hypothetical is only one of them... your trust in anyone may well be misplaced (oops, now you've got a mental disorder. Might as well lobotomize you).

Quote:Give it a few minutes before replying - you never know - a little knowledge might slip in there during that time.

What, now you want me to make faith-based assumptions? Are you certain that you're not a theist?

Quote:Consent all the way through the activity is an interesting one: "Daddy - I am not enjoying this." Is that withdrawal of consent? "Oh it will get better darling," might appease it long enough for the act to end. Consent was not withdrawn throughout the duration - according to you. How traumatised might the child be thereafter? Apparently no concern of yours.

It is a statement that puts consent up in the air (acting as a temporary withdrawal of consent)... if gone unanswered, then it is a withdrawal of consent. If the person is then reassured, and reaffirms their consent: then the act may continue without being considered a withdrawal of consent.

Well, if the person is particularly traumatized, then you likely have an abuse case on your hands (abuse of trust, abuse of station, abuse of power... good stuff, lots of abuses)... and I absolutely am concerned about that You should listen to me, sometimes... I'm really quite concerned about abuse. I'm just not concerned at all about non-abuse.

That isn't to say that even parties mutually consenting to an activity at one time aren't able to press each other for damages, of course But that's a separate nuance, and one that I don't expect you to understand immediately.

Quote:As to the direct challenge see http://parenting.stackexchange.com/quest...t-of-lying which starts supporting your position but goes on to explain the world as a 7 year old see it. A child may lie but not to hide the truth as much as to get what it wants.

You know what's really frustrating? When scholarly articles are locked away by corporations who demand money for them. Oh well, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...etend.html

Of course it supports my position. If someone (of any age) does something that they realize they'll be punished for: their response is often to hide the truth, or to at least present it better. Didn't you know: lies are only tools that can assist in presenting things as <a being> would like them shown. Concealing, manipulating, omitting, bluffing, tonality, and all appearance-related goodness... all of that comes together to create an image, as young as babies, we recognize that by changing our image (laughing, crying): we can alter the perceptions and attentions of others. It's really quite fascinating.

Quote:"Am I ignoring the physical damage that might be done to them, and the psychological damage that could affect them their entire lives? Absolutely. But would I ignore physical damage done to them, and psychological damage that does affect them their entire lives? Absolutely not. " I have no idea what you are saying here. You appear to be contradicting yourself or stating that for this argument you don't care but in reality you do?

None of the above: I said that I don't give a rat's left ankle about what a person I trust MAY do... but I certainly do care about what they DO do. Obviously, if I find cause for particular suspicion about someone I do not trust: I'll be more watchful. But even then, I still won't have them stand trial for something they haven't yet done.

Quote:As for how we control what our kids wear you do it your way and I'll do it my way. As long as we both have kids outside playing in the snow properly dressed - who cares. My point is simply that the child demonstrates a lack of understanding as to the consequences of their actions. You are corroborating that point even if your method is different. We both have a child on our hands that was initially unable to understand that a summer dress is not suitable for winter conditions. That you think this child might be ready for sex, with an adult no less is astonishing.

Obviously, indeed: to teach you how to be a good parent would probably involve hitting you with a sledgehammer repeatedly, and that's just to get in through the skull! Well, I care. My point is simply that EVERYONE demonstrates a lack of understanding as to the consequences of their actions (even me).

I am corroborating only the point that I stand ready and willing to assist all of those who come to me for counsel... not but children alone. If a child doesn't come to me for shit: I may make a quip as they leave and have a laugh at their expense, but they aren't particularly my responsibility.

And on the contrary (take it from an alaskan): summer dresses are just fine for playing in the snow. But, just like t-shirts and jeans: they are not particularly warm, nor necessarily water resistent. The kid would figure this much out for themselves anyway, the only thing that you, or I, can do... is facilitate the process by which anyone learns.

That I think a child who declares themselves ready for sex (with whomever) is probably ready... is quite remarkably... bland.

Quote:Passing a driving test does not prove you can drive - it proves you can pass a test. Ask anyone whether they were as good a driver when they first past their test as they are now and I would be surprised if 1 in 100 answered affirmatively unless they are now incapable for other reasons.

If the driving test does not prove that you can drive, and proves only that they can pass a test, then there is no reason for the driving test to exist. Listen to yourself.

The question of that test is not whether the taker is a MASTER DRIVER OF NASCAR(!)... it's an observation that the individual who passes it can drive at the basic level required by law for their driving to be considered legal. What do I argue for? That's right: seriously amping up the difficulty of that test. Why? So that those who are legally driving are not <basically everyone>... but so that those who are legally driving are <the more safely-driving population>.

Quote:The person that put the 7 year old behind the wheel or allowed it to happen is responsible in my opinion.

Oh, they're partly responsible... just as an adult who takes the passenger seat instead of the driver seat is also partly responsible for whatever happens with that driver. Just as kids being loud in the backseat are partly responsible for whatever happens with that driver. As I said: we could play the blame game. Every case is different.

Quote:" I have no problem imprisoning that child for manslaughter. "

And it is to avoid getting into situations of this ilk that we restrict what children are allowed to do as much as it is whether they actually can or can not do a certain action.

??? If *anyone* loses control of a vehicle and it crashes into a person and kills them, it's manslaughter. If the law says that the person who accidentally killed the other is to be locked away: then that's probably what'll happen. I believe that prison is ineffective at best, and that there are better ways to go about justice... but if this is a question of what I'm comfortable with given crimes committed by anyone: yeah, I'm comfortable with having justice meted out. Whatever that is, even though I probably disagree with what it is

Well then, we should just lock all adults up, given that murder, rape, and some particularly nasty burglaries are committed primarily by them. After all: we want to avoid getting into situations of this ilk, don't we?

Violet,

Your first answer to my point that we will never agree is:

"Because views never change, am I right? "

Your second answer to my point that it is impossible to tell what my moral position on anything would be were I borne in a different time or place is to state how sure you are yours would be exactly the same.

See any contradiction there much? According to you your views don't change - even when your circumstances are massively different. Actually I think you are being incredibly naive but that's common throughout your entire argument.

Of the 2 of us which is taking the more theist position here. I am stating I regard morality as relative. You are stating yours as an absolute.

You are still willfully ignoring both the potential for abuse of a child by an adult and even when it is presented to you as actual abuse (lobotomy) where it is spelled out that the child has not understood enough to able to give anything resembling consent bar the words themselves you won't see it.

The probability, if not certainty, that a sexual relationship between an adult and child is based on abuse is the main reason society reacts worse to it that it does to people of the same age having a sexual relationship.

Your theism then continues with your assumed right to judge my parenting skills (based on the slim evidence of this discussion).

Partly responsible and parenthood to not marry well together. If there is a couple bringing up one or more children then jointly responsible applies until such point as the child has developed sufficiently to make their own decisions and look after themselves. Should the child have developmental issues (severe mental disability for example) then that responsibility may be till death - unless they can get support (for example state support) that will act in their stead.

"None of the above: I said that I don't give a rat's left ankle about what a person I trust MAY do... but I certainly do care about what they DO do. "

A child walks up to a cliff edge on a windy day. You don't give a rats left ankle that they may fall off but you will be there to pick up the pieces when they do. Me? I won't wait till they do.

Consider in the above:

The child's judgement of the situation.
The child's ability to judge risk.
The experience the child can call on to make any and all of these decisions.

Apply to any and all of the above what growing up means. Is the transition from child to adult purely one of size? What is learning? What is experience? Is a child as socially adept as an adult (should be)? Can a child be expected to understand that someone who offers you sweets is not necessarily your friend? How easy is it to distract a child with a promise of puppies or kittens?

Try applying the above to the subject of paedophilia and come back to me (as undoubtedly you will).

(June 9, 2013 at 4:06 am)max-greece Wrote: Violet,

Your first answer to my point that we will never agree is:

"Because views never change, am I right? "

Your second answer to my point that it is impossible to tell what my moral position on anything would be were I borne in a different time or place is to state how sure you are yours would be exactly the same.

See any contradiction there much? According to you your views don't change - even when your circumstances are massively different. Actually I think you are being incredibly naive but that's common throughout your entire argument.

My moral structure, Max... my process. And that structure is something that only could be taken from anyone by something akin to brainwashing. The specifics of one's morals is based off OF their process. You've stated that your process is modifiable according to when and where you exist... that is to say: 'you'... are in flux. On the other hand, I state that mine are independent of which society I happen to live in (which is really pretty well evidenced, but I could get into it further if you want).

It's actually very fascinating psychologically that a being's moral processes are likely to remain very true to their nature regardless of nurture, and that while the lesser specifics might change with the times: to upset the whole paradigm is something you're likely only to see in cases of significant and long-term stressors (war, abuse, rape, accidents, serious mental illnesses, etc).

Another way of looking at it (and morals apply as such, FYI)... is that while I might value <a thing> more or less according to a situation: the system by which I achieve valuation is identical regardless of any situation which doesn't compromise that (and assuming I still possess this brain identically: it won't happen unless something is *seriously* impairing its function).

Quote:Of the 2 of us which is taking the more theist position here. I am stating I regard morality as relative. You are stating yours as an absolute.

And now you're jumping to conclusions and putting words in people's mouths

Quote:You are still willfully ignoring both the potential for abuse of a child by an adult and even when it is presented to you as actual abuse (lobotomy) where it is spelled out that the child has not understood enough to able to give anything resembling consent bar the words themselves you won't see it.

Get this straight: lobotomy is not an abuse because someone doesn't understand it and undergoes it (that would mean there's never been a morally just lobotomy)... lobotomy in this case is an abuse because it treats the recipient in such a way as to cause serious harm to another person, it is also a very specific medical procedure that was likely misused (unjust practice), further: the trust of a client/charge was broken by conceit (just saying: if she didn't consent, or if she or another person demanded damages afterwards: he's getting hit by a truck). Not that you asked me *any* of that, regarding this scenario. Guess what: if the child consents, and the consent of the being is what is in question, and NOTHING ELSE: doc's off the hook, easy.

I see plenty, Max. But I do not see ghosts in the shadows.

Quote:The probability, if not certainty, that a sexual relationship between an adult and child is based on abuse is the main reason society reacts worse to it that it does to people of the same age having a sexual relationship.

You mean the assumption? Yeah... well if you brand one thing illegal, and the person wishing to engage in the activity recognizes that it's illegal: why not do other illegal things while they are at it? The funniest thing about laws like these (drug laws too, if you are looking for a perfect parallel), is that they make for a self-fulfilling prophecy. Something fascinating about rapists? They're the common joe, in most cases... who get caught up in the moment. Sure, predators exist out there too... but these people would be such regardless of their bent.

You want to end abuses in the world? Law is clearly not a very effective method. I'd love to tell you a whole swath of more effective methods, and also a whole bunch of seemingly evident realities as to 'what causes a person to commit <a crime> (or really, to do anything)'... but I'd like to test them myself, first Do you know how society should act when *anyone* gets abused? Exactly like they act when a child is abused.

I don't buy it: owning a thousand jewelry shops across a country allows for the probability, if not certainty, that someone is going to come up one day and swipe something. Should I not react with sadness for my fellow man when his garage sale is stolen from? That's less ridiculous than special pleading with children, and it's still pathetic.

Quote:Your theism then continues with your assumed right to judge my parenting skills (based on the slim evidence of this discussion).

Theism and assumptions of rightness? Different things entirely, regardless of how they sometimes go hand-in-hand. Everyone has the right to judge everyone (or really, there are no rights for anything, but you don't want to hear how things work)... you judge me for some things, and I judge you for other things, and the woman looking out her window thinks we should both get off her lawn and judges us as urchins and drug dealers.

But your parenting skills are shit, just so you know.

Quote:Partly responsible and parenthood to not marry well together. If there is a couple bringing up one or more children then jointly responsible applies until such point as the child has developed sufficiently to make their own decisions and look after themselves. Should the child have developmental issues (severe mental disability for example) then that responsibility may be till death - unless they can get support (for example state support) that will act in their stead.

Sure they do. That only takes them to about four... what then? Not my problem, but they should probably go with the whole state bit, if they don't want to take care of a drooling mess of worthlessness

Quote:"None of the above: I said that I don't give a rat's left ankle about what a person I trust MAY do... but I certainly do care about what they DO do. "

A child walks up to a cliff edge on a windy day. You don't give a rats left ankle that they may fall off but you will be there to pick up the pieces when they do. Me? I won't wait till they do.

Consider in the above:

The child's judgement of the situation.
The child's ability to judge risk.
The experience the child can call on to make any and all of these decisions.

Me? I try to keep my children away from cliffs if I think they're retarded enough that they might saunter off of them. Streets are the same way. Why must mentally retarded children roam this Earth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

That said, if I see someone in immediate danger, I will usually intervene. Has nothing to do with my responsibilities to the person at all... it's just who I am. Oh well, let's ignore your ridiculous insinuation, and get to your shit.

*It's a cliff, and they are heading over to stand on it. If they've never fallen before, I could see it being a problem, but surely they've taken at least one spill. Over-protective parents don't seem to understand that pain is one of the first messages anybody receives.
*Should be fine... what, are we saying that this kid's a mental cripple? Gotta love cripples, everyone's gotta work extra just for them.
*Just how many times have you taken this fucker to the cliff's edge without giving him secondhand experience? Are you sure that you should have that kid?

Quote:Apply to any and all of the above what growing up means. Is the transition from child to adult purely one of size? What is learning? What is experience? Is a child as socially adept as an adult (should be)? Can a child be expected to understand that someone who offers you sweets is not necessarily your friend? How easy is it to distract a child with a promise of puppies or kittens?

Try applying the above to the subject of paedophilia and come back to me (as undoubtedly you will).

Oh dearie me... I don't know what growing up means. What does growing up mean? Heavens if I know.

Using 'purely' in that question forces 'no', because it's only mostly so (the other bit is that they're hopefully just that much less stupid, but you know how that turns out).

If you really wanted me to tell you what learning and experience are: you'd actually be getting somewhere. Not where you want to be... but hey, it's better than where you are.

Depends on the child... what I find is that 'social adeptness' is really quite arbitrary and changes with the hour.

Yes.

Depends on the child, probably about as easy as it is to distract anyone else who likes puppies and kittens. Ever seen a magic show? Them magicians could show you a thing or two about distraction.

Umm, I'm not feeling anything here, Puss... are your boots on too tight?

Violet,

For someone who obviously holds herself in such high esteem you appear not to be able to understand the written word too well when it is laid out before you. This may be deliberate on your part of course, in order to further your argument, but it is getting very noticeable.

"Theism and assumptions of rightness?"

Not what I said. Not even close. Theism and the assumption of the "right to judge" is what I said. How could you miss that? You're so intelligent. Oh look - you picked it up later claiming everyone has the right to judge. This leads us to ask what the value of that judgement might be?

Moral structures and processes, as in any structures and processes have to be populated by inputs. In the moral equation time and place are huge determinants in what those inputs might be. The same process and or structure can therefore yield massively different results. Again for such an intelligent person to miss this....

That you do not see any of this insulates me against your accusations of my parenting skills.

"Sure they do. That only takes them to about four.."

Based on? Violet's view of the universe? Forgive me if I don't immediately see the light oh divinity.

Labeling children as retarded merely because they don't appear to have the level of development (experience) the great god Violet thinks they should have is extremely useful to society as a whole. A child that makes an error of judgement obviously shows how retarded they are.

"Over-protective parents." You do so love your derogatory labels don't you. Notice how all encompassing a phrase it is too. In the world according to Violet a parent that tries to pull their child away from a cliff edge on a windy day is over-protective. Gee - wait till you meet some of the Jewish and Greek mothers I know. All bad parents, obviously, total failures on the Violet parental rating system.

"Oh dearie me... I don't know what growing up means."

Obviously - but that's nothing compared to your lack of understanding as to what being a parent is all about.

Thus far you have felt free to judge me throughout the discussion. I have desisted reversing the process until this thread.

From what you have written I would surmise that you were sexualized at an early age. Probably too early and this has affected your life as you have rationalized your experiences and become the person you are. There have been several references that draw me to this conclusion but I will pick up on just one.

During the discussion when we were talking about a 6 year old you suggested that said child might want to use a strap-on. Whilst I know this was your attempt to shock me it is telling that you do not see how absolutely bizarre such an event would be. For a 6 year old to want to use a strap-on means that they must have seen one and had its use either explained or demonstrated. It would be a very strange scenario that this would happen. There is no need for a 6 year old to have any knowledge of such things - particularly in the light of there being so many more relevant things for them to learn about. My point is no child would imagine a strap-on.

A child that is being exposed to such graphic sexuality is a child that is being groomed, as, I would guess, you were. In fact this is one of the ways that investigations can tell where adults have sought to abuse children. Take a 6 year old child and give them 2 dolls. Watch them play. The vast majority of children will have them doing routine, day to day activity that is remarkably non-sexual. A sexualised child will play very differently - putting the dolls in sexual positions. This is learned behaviour. It is evidence of abuse that is routinely used in courts.

Of course you will immediately argue how wrong they are to do so. Why?

Because you are a theist. The only different thing is that you see yourself as the deity in question.

(June 9, 2013 at 5:54 am)max-greece Wrote: Violet,

For someone who obviously holds herself in such high esteem you appear not to be able to understand the written word too well when it is laid out before you. This may be deliberate on your part of course, in order to further your argument, but it is getting very noticeable.

I obviously hold myself in high esteem? Oh, I get it: sarcasm. Gotcha.

Would be nice if you learned to use quote tags, makes fact checking and context observing about 500 times easier... also: if you want to be telling someone that they don't understand 'the written word', maybe you shouldn't be speaking to literary genius. Because the only way to go... is down.

Quote:"Theism and assumptions of rightness?"

Not what I said. Not even close. Theism and the assumption of the "right to judge" is what I said. How could you miss that? You're so intelligent. Oh look - you picked it up later claiming everyone has the right to judge. This leads us to ask what the value of that judgement might be?

Actually, it is what you said. Also, it is everything but the qualifier at the end (a qualifier I then touched upon after meeting the head of the argument (even if you didn't realize that it was the head of the argument)). I most clearly did not miss that... maybe it would do you well to read what a person writes in *full* response, instead of accusing them of having pathetic reading talents. Because to do that last, and then commit your own failures... is ironic (were you surprised? I was surprised). Some might even find it somewhat humorous... I know that I laughed.

Are you the 'they' in 'that's what they say'? Just who is this ambiguous 'us'? Do I know them? Are they French? Is this another irrelevant question?

Quote:Moral structures and processes, as in any structures and processes have to be populated by inputs. In the moral equation time and place are huge determinants in what those inputs might be. The same process and or structure can therefore yield massively different results. Again for such an intelligent person to miss this....

Depends on the structure... again: parrot of the people will always be parrot of the people regardless of the people the person parrots. Other structures and processes may interlap with <the people> or <the environment> in some facet... a couple of these are entirely independent of <people> or <environment>, but are impacted by <impediment/facilitation>. The majority of my processes are of this third category. A small number of them are of the 'some interlap with <people/environment>'. I don't have a process for parrot of the people.

Not that you'll understand, since you're lost in a the forest of 'well this output is different!': you cannot see that it is the trees what built that forest.

Quote:That you do not see any of this insulates me against your accusations of my parenting skills.

Self-righteousness is a kicker, isn't it?

Quote:Based on? Violet's view of the universe? Forgive me if I don't immediately see the light oh divinity.

Street urchins, children surviving child-neglect, understanding that a 4-year old can walk (at minimum: crawl), observations of human behavior when the elements are upon them and an escape from them is sighted, and more... if this constitutes Violet's view of the universe: I'll go with her every time.

Anyway... are you willing to demonstrate that the median 4-year old human being is incapable of finding shelter, finding and eating food, and finding and drinking water? If so: what are your basis for this? I'd certainly like to know.

Quote:Labeling children as retarded merely because they don't appear to have the level of development (experience) the great god Violet thinks they should have is extremely useful to society as a whole. A child that makes an error of judgement obviously shows how retarded they are.

I call them as I see them. If we do not base our understanding of people being stupid off of examples of people being stupid... does that mean retardation is then a magical label that we stick onto people without any evidence?

But hey... you're not very good at picking up sarcasm, as I had this beautiful emoticon waiting right there for you: "" Did you miss it? Maybe you don't get smilies in your country.

Quote:"Over-protective parents." You do so love your derogatory labels don't you. Notice how all encompassing a phrase it is too. In the world according to Violet a parent that tries to pull their child away from a cliff edge on a windy day is over-protective. Gee - wait till you meet some of the Jewish and Greek mothers I know. All bad parents, obviously, total failures on the Violet parental rating system.

Not particularly, and really: I could do a whole lot better than honesty if I was actually attempting to derogate and deride somebody.

I don't notice that it's particularly all-encompassing... are all parents over-protective parents? Well if they are, then I suppose it would be.

Anyway, it's time for a good and proper lesson: context. Here, I shall show you what I wrote: "*It's a cliff, and they are heading over to stand on it. If they've never fallen before, I could see it being a problem, but surely they've taken at least one spill. Over-protective parents don't seem to understand that pain is one of the first messages anybody receives." That is to say... if you have NEVER allowed your child to fall NOT ONCE (even to trip over their own feet and TAKE A SPILL): then you're an overprotective parent.

If a child never feels any pain: I should certainly think that they wouldn't think anything over popping over a cliff and landing in the drink.

Quote:"Oh dearie me... I don't know what growing up means."

Obviously - but that's nothing compared to your lack of understanding as to what being a parent is all about.

Do you know what 'growing up' means? It's not much of a laugh if you're going to have to turn around and laugh at yourself immediately afterwards (although, I would call that healthy).

Quote:Thus far you have felt free to judge me throughout the discussion. I have desisted reversing the process until this thread.

Go for it, cupcake

Quote:From what you have written I would surmise that you were sexualized at an early age. Probably too early and this has affected your life as you have rationalized your experiences and become the person you are. There have been several references that draw me to this conclusion but I will pick up on just one.

Sexualized? What is sexualization: the having of sex, the initialization of a being's sexual attributes, being sexually attacked... or something else entirely?

I don't think that the issue was 'what age it happened at'... but how extensive and horrific it was, and for how long it went on, and for how it consumed my hopes and dreams and the slightest care as to what happened to me. But then, maybe an adult in their 40s wouldn't be grossly affected by it (I doubt it, but you know: they have started to lose their feeling by then, so the tortures would probably be just a little less acute). I would still never wish such upon anybody, not even the man I hate most (hate's a pretty strong word that I don't have for anyone, I wonder that I shouldn't replace it with fear, though it lose the effect of the phrase).

Quote:During the discussion when we were talking about a 6 year old you suggested that said child might want to use a strap-on. Whilst I know this was your attempt to shock me it is telling that you do not see how absolutely bizarre such an event would be. For a 6 year old to want to use a strap-on means that they must have seen one and had its use either explained or demonstrated. It would be a very strange scenario that this would happen. There is no need for a 6 year old to have any knowledge of such things - particularly in the light of there being so many more relevant things for them to learn about. My point is no child would imagine a strap-on.

Shock you? No, that was my attempt to humor you. But then, stranger things have happened. I don't know that I'd say that they *must* have seen one and had its use explained/demonstrated... but it isn't likely that a person picks up a tool they've no experience with and use it properly at their first attempt. Further, it's not very likely that a 6 year old of any type is going to overpower a fully grown man (though there are ways around this). The most conclusive method, IMO, is that the 6 year old blackmails the adult character into being their bitch, and finds the strap on dildo after stripping the adult man down, and has a great deal of curiosity (take that wherever you like).

More relevant? If you're in the position where you have someone completely under your thumb with blackmail: that's suddenly one of the most relevant things in your world. By the time someone's 6... they're really starting to understand how to negotiate and, yes, blackmail... and it's probably about as early as something like that could happen.

Quote:A child that is being exposed to such graphic sexuality is a child that is being groomed, as, I would guess, you were. In fact this is one of the ways that investigations can tell where adults have sought to abuse children. Take a 6 year old child and give them 2 dolls. Watch them play. The vast majority of children will have them doing routine, day to day activity that is remarkably non-sexual. A sexualised child will play very differently - putting the dolls in sexual positions. This is learned behaviour. It is evidence of abuse that is routinely used in courts.

Being groomed? Children are horses! I always wanted a pony.

Another great way to abuse children is to have some. Most children are not abused by strangers... they are abused mostly by family and by trusted friends. Infact, that mirrors all abuse statistics of every kind.

Well, when me and my sister were like, 4 and 5, we had barbies. We were changing them, and then really noticed that ken barbie was quite a bit different than the other ones. We symbolically cut off his dick (with the sword he came with), and stuck him in a dress. Then mom came in and was angry with us.

That was before any abuse that I could possibly remember... so I'm inclined to say that if they used this evidence to convict *anyone* in courts: the person they convicted has a good chance of being innocent. It's like pour patterns: used all over the place... recently found to not be that way. Hope that tool goes the way of the Dodo too.

ITT: you underestimate just how depraved children are.

Quote:Of course you will immediately argue how wrong they are to do so. Why?

Because you are a theist. The only different thing is that you see yourself as the deity in question.

Of course: because it's ridiculous.

I'm not a theist, and if I was a god: shouldn't I be taller?

---

Just wanted to say: Ken barbie ruined that dress. But I think I had some sexual interests in the matter.

Can't imagine why.

As the Tin man and the Lion are now so massively outnumbered and we are reduced to merely gainsaying anything the other has to offer I think this thread has run its course.

I have to say though "maybe you shouldn't be speaking to literary genius." made me laugh loud enough to attract a pack of Hyena's from the African plains.

Thanks for that.

(June 9, 2013 at 3:22 pm)max-greece Wrote: As the Tin man and the Lion are now so massively outnumbered and we are reduced to merely gainsaying anything the other has to offer I think this thread has run its course.

I'm not 'reduced to merely gainsaying' anything... I stand ready, as always, to rip through your largely emotional arguments of special pleading like the soft butter they are. You ran your course with the first post, and you've yet to provide anything of substance.

Heck, even when you said you were going to reciprocate judgement: all you've managed is to demonstrate yourself the fool.

Quote:I have to say though "maybe you shouldn't be speaking to literary genius." made me laugh loud enough to attract a pack of Hyena's from the African plains.

Thanks for that.

The truth's a funny thing, isn't it? I'm not sure what makes you feel comfortable in challenging my assertion, given that your hysterics would have you slew by the great beasts what you have neither the talent nor the weaponry to confront.

Yet another completely useless quip... you're full of it.

(June 7, 2013 at 6:07 am)Arellius Wrote: Aractus

YES, That's me!

• My argument is simple;
  
  1. Joseph was an adult and Maria barely a teenager, they were married, it is said that Jesus had brothers and sisters, so they had intercourse.

Arellius, I don't know how many times I can repeat the same thing to you. If this is your argument, then your argument is wrong. I've told you again, and again, and again that 1. we do not know how old either of them were, and 2. it is most likely that they are aged 1-3 years apart. You never produced your source that says Joseph is older than 30 or older than 40, and in any case I'm telling you: we don't know how old they were.

• So fad I haven't heard any churches combine today's laws with what is being said in the Bible, example; ''Joseph was older than Maria, but now that's a no-no, times change and we too must adapt.'' But it is overlooked, people use 2000 year old laws and rules to live in today's world, strange...

I don't have a moral, or an ethical problem with it to begin with. What I think I should say is that I think - and I'm saying this as a single 29 year old - is that in our society the paradigm is wrong: we are leaving it too late to get married and start families.

I do have a problem, in today's society, if girls aged 16-18 leave home and move in with their boyfriends. And the reason for that is: education. No one should have their education cut short, and I think that's the key here.

Quote:2. I started this topic because I read that Aisha from the Koran was....only.....9...when the Prophet Muhammad married her. Intercourse? I'm not sure, but getting married to a little girl is still pretty fuckin' weird to me. I read somewhere it might have been to save her from the clutches of other dangerous sexual predators, but really ? Was that the ONLY way you could save a little kid from being raped ?

This is completely different to Jewish society in the first century. The Jews wouldn't dream of it. No Jewish boy would be betrothed before his Bar Mitzvah, and no Jewish girl before her Bat Mitzvah. That is the age at which they were (and in fact still are) considered adults. It's really that simple. Then there's the fact that the betrothal (ie the engagement) would typically last 1-2 years before the marriage took place. The marriage - as you know - has to be consummated. Thus Mary gave birth to Jesus while she was still betrothed to Joseph and before the marriage itself. The betrothal, however, is the legal side of it - hence why in the Bible you read that Joseph had it in his mind to "divorce her quietly" (see Matt 1:19).

This is the reason why we say vows that in fact have their antiquity in the Jewish custom:

• MINISTER: (GROOM), WILL YOU TAKE (BRIDE) TO BE YOUR WIFE? WILL YOU LOVE HER, COMFORT HER, HONOUR AND PROTECT HER, AND, FORSAKING ALL OTHERS, BE FAITHFUL TO HER AS LONG AS YOU BOTH SHALL LIVE?
  
  GROOM: I WILL.
  
  MINISTER: (BRIDE), WILL YOU TAKE (GROOM) TO BE YOUR HUSBAND? WILL YOU LOVE HIM, COMFORT HIM, HONOUR AND PROTECT HIM, AND, FORSAKING ALL OTHERS, BE FAITHFUL TO HIM AS LONG AS YOU BOTH SHALL LIVE?
  
  BRIDE: I WILL.

Will you. This is exactly how the traditional Jewish betrothal worked - the vows were understood to be made at the time of betrothal - to be fulfilled later. We on the other hand, say our vows at the wedding, not at the engagement. But the principle remains the same - we are making a promise for the future. And what I find somewhat ironic is that the contemporary Jewish vows are "do you ... I do" and not "will you ... I will".

• 3. The fact that these two points are overlooked is strange to me, and my guess is if the church still had the authority like it had a long time ago? Grown men would still be marrying and bedding little kids, all in the name of...Whom ever you believe in.

• Furthermore;
  Congratulations on leaving the Catholic Church 500 years ago, however I guess you still read from the same book as the Catholic and Christian Church's do. The fact that you interpret the book differently, the fact that 2 different religions read from the same bloody book and have the same bloody commandments is a little bit proof to me that: Religion is man made.

The whole idea of celibate priests, for instance, directly contradicts 1 Timothy 3. So don't go pretending that the RCC is the same and gets all its doctrine from the Bible. Like many of their doctrines, it's something you won't find anywhere in the Bible.

• If it wasn't for people with a good sense of logic and reason [secular], my guess is it would've still been oke by Religion (like I said before) for churches to let grown men in their 30's and 40's wed & bed girls under 16. Nasty. It's a shame that religion is run by far too many complete and utter [perverse] morons. But hey, you're a theist I presume, big man in the sky works in mysterious ways huh ?

And this brings me back to my other point: this had nothing to do with religion in the first place. End of story.

This is one of the first sources I came across. > http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...313AAc2kUl
You say that the ages of the holy couple are stated nowhere, however you insist on the notion that they were only 1-3 years apart ? How do you make that claim without showing me evidence first ? You might go browsing for an article somewhere where they argue the ages of the holy couple, however there are arguments about it everywhere from people just like you who believe that they were either 1-3 years apart or 10-30 years apart.

I don't think you get my issue, once again my issue is; Some sicko's in Religion think it's okay to have a sexual relationship with A CHILD ! I'm sure I don't need to remind a intellect such as yourself that it's, ehm, wrong ? All I am saying is, Joseph might of been a pervert. Arguable not a conscious one because in that time, indeed they didn't know any better, and neither did any of them in that time.

However 2000 years later (in today's world) a person is sick to think that it's okay for a grown man to marry/bed a child in the name of....whichever deity.

Joseph Smith; Married a 14 year old whilst having other wives, too. And he was in his 30's.
The Prophet Muhammad; Married a 9 year old girl.
Jewish Community; Had a ritual of sucking off a baby's penis and spitting out the flesh, aka most likely and old way of circumcision which is now abolished I guess or which was abandoned because it wasn't hygienic. I wonder how many baby's they went through to figure that one out.
FGM in the name of... : Mutilating a little girls organs to sustain her natural sexual needs later on.

I agree that the title of the topic has little to do with what is said here, however, what about all those trusted Catholics, men of God who defiled little boys and has now been a mainstream joke for many years?

You can argue all you want about scriptures, history and make attempts to school me however you cannot deny the fact that various religions have done equally detestable things as any psychopath you've ever heard of. A psychopath has no remorse and finds great pleasure in hurting people, but a religious person? Is sane and conscious of their actions and what do they do it for? To worship a deity of their choice, because it is the will of the big man in the sky.

I'll change the title of the topic to; ''Religion's abuse to children; Intolerable.'' [moderator ?] That would indeed be a much more fitting title. And this, you will not be able to deny.