Pedophilia; I can't accept it.

[Violet]

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.

"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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

"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).

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

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).

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.

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.

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.