Pedophilia; I can't accept it.

[Gilgamesh]

Gilgamesh,

Why did it become the law?

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

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.

[Violet]

[max-greece]

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).

[Violet]

[max-greece]

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.

[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.

[max-greece]

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.

[Violet]

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.

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.

[Aractus]

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.

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.

[Arellius]