Pedophilia; I can't accept it.

[Violet]

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?

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.

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?

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).

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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>.

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.

" 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?