Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 21:40:36 GMT
Brotherleroy, Jack Brock, Erjen 3, Lord Stark etc. Brother Leroy / Jack Brock got banned. He was a very very bad boy so the admins spanked him.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 2, 2018 21:43:03 GMT
I have a huge problem with it. Sexual relations between adults & children can be psychologically damaging for the latter. Relationships, and not just sexual relationships, can be psychologically damaging to some or all of the people in a relationship period. You have an answer for everything, don't you. Back when I was a kid, any adult male which came onto me, scared the living s--- out of me!!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2018 21:53:35 GMT
Relationships, and not just sexual relationships, can be psychologically damaging to some or all of the people in a relationship period. You have an answer for everything, don't you. Back when I was a kid, any adult male which came onto me, scared the living s--- out of me!! Just instinctually or something, or was there some other reason that scared you? (Just curious.)
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jun 2, 2018 22:08:22 GMT
How do you know he made that story up? He was defending your argument that sexual relations between adults & kids should be legal, if the kid consents. Anyhow, in case you didn't notice, I was being sarcastic when I responded to you. I was defending that, too, but I'm not a pedophile. I don't have any problem with pedophilia, but the conventional definition of pedophilia just doesn't fit me. You don't have a problem with pedophilia? How can anyone say that?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 2, 2018 22:09:22 GMT
You have an answer for everything, don't you. Back when I was a kid, any adult male which came onto me, scared the living s--- out of me!! Just instinctually or something, or was there some other reason that scared you? (Just curious.) The very idea of an adult man showing any sign of interest in me, in that kind of way, just creeped me out, as a kid (& the same with all other girls that I knew).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2018 22:13:52 GMT
I was defending that, too, but I'm not a pedophile. I don't have any problem with pedophilia, but the conventional definition of pedophilia just doesn't fit me. You don't have a problem with pedophilia? How can anyone say that? I don't have a problem with anyone feeling however they feel, having whatever attractions they have, having whatever beliefs they have, etc. I certainly don't want there to be thought police, and I don't want there to be speech police, either.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2018 22:14:45 GMT
Just instinctually or something, or was there some other reason that scared you? (Just curious.) The very idea of an adult man showing any sign of interest in me, in that kind of way, just creeped me out, as a kid (& the same with all other girls that I knew). Creeping you out = scaring you? (Again, I'm just curious; I wouldn't guess that someone is using both terms to refer to more or less the same thing.)
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 2, 2018 22:17:20 GMT
The very idea of an adult man showing any sign of interest in me, in that kind of way, just creeped me out, as a kid (& the same with all other girls that I knew). Creeping you out = scaring you? (Again, I'm just curious; I wouldn't guess that someone is using both terms to refer to more or less the same thing.) Yes. Creeped out; scared; intimidated, etc. As a kid, I would have become intimidated if a man who came on to me.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jun 3, 2018 10:46:57 GMT
You don't have a problem with pedophilia? How can anyone say that? I don't have a problem with anyone feeling however they feel, having whatever attractions they have, having whatever beliefs they have, etc. I certainly don't want there to be thought police, and I don't want there to be speech police, either. You should have a problem with it. It involves a child, who by definition, can't give consent to something they don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 3, 2018 11:40:45 GMT
I don't have a problem with anyone feeling however they feel, having whatever attractions they have, having whatever beliefs they have, etc. I certainly don't want there to be thought police, and I don't want there to be speech police, either. You should have a problem with it. It involves a child, who by definition, can't give consent to something they don't understand. Defining consent by age is ridiculous in my opinion. It's a completely ad hoc idea designed to simply exclude minors from consenting (to sex). The parenthetical is important there, because meanwhile we don't say that minors are categorically incapable of consent for many other issues. After all, we don't treat minors as if they're simply property, incapable of making any decision about what they would or wouldn't like to do. We don't even say that minors are incapable of consenting to sex with each other. We only say that they're incapable of consenting to sex with adults, or with people of a significantly different age. That's an ad hoc fiat that's incoherent from any other perspective. I define consent by abilities. Abilities that have to do with the intuitive concept of what consent is, which isn't at all based on age (with an upshot that someone can't necessarily consent to something just because they're 18+, either; again, my definition of consent isn't based on age). The objection to adult/minor sex is purely emotional, via whatever combo of psychological and social influences factor into it. I'd have a lot more respect for the "anti" side if folks would simply admit that it's an emotional objection and not try to bullshit (and there's a ton of very poorly reasoned ad hoc bullshit that people attempt) that it's based on anything rational and consistent with other attitudes that people have, other things they're fine with.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jun 3, 2018 11:57:21 GMT
You should have a problem with it. It involves a child, who by definition, can't give consent to something they don't understand. Defining consent by age is ridiculous in my opinion. It's a completely ad hoc idea designed to simply exclude minors from consenting (to sex). The parenthetical is important there, because meanwhile we don't say that minors are categorically incapable of consent for many other issues. After all, we don't treat minors as if they're simply property, incapable of making any decision about what they would or wouldn't like to do. We don't even say that minors are incapable of consenting to sex with each other. We only say that they're incapable of consenting to sex with adults, or with people of a significantly different age. That's an ad hoc fiat that's incoherent from any other perspective. I define consent by abilities. Abilities that have to do with the intuitive concept of what consent is, which isn't at all based on age (with an upshot that someone can't necessarily consent to something just because they're 18+, either; again, my definition of consent isn't based on age). The objection to adult/minor sex is purely emotional, via whatever combo of psychological and social influences factor into it. I'd have a lot more respect for the "anti" side if folks would simply admit that it's an emotional objection and not try to bullshit (and there's a ton of very poorly reasoned ad hoc bullshit that people attempt) that it's based on anything rational and consistent with other attitudes that people have, other things they're fine with. Okay, I know who you are, now, though I've forgotten your previous name. We've had this same argument before. Children cannot give consent to something they don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 3, 2018 13:03:19 GMT
Defining consent by age is ridiculous in my opinion. It's a completely ad hoc idea designed to simply exclude minors from consenting (to sex). The parenthetical is important there, because meanwhile we don't say that minors are categorically incapable of consent for many other issues. After all, we don't treat minors as if they're simply property, incapable of making any decision about what they would or wouldn't like to do. We don't even say that minors are incapable of consenting to sex with each other. We only say that they're incapable of consenting to sex with adults, or with people of a significantly different age. That's an ad hoc fiat that's incoherent from any other perspective. I define consent by abilities. Abilities that have to do with the intuitive concept of what consent is, which isn't at all based on age (with an upshot that someone can't necessarily consent to something just because they're 18+, either; again, my definition of consent isn't based on age). The objection to adult/minor sex is purely emotional, via whatever combo of psychological and social influences factor into it. I'd have a lot more respect for the "anti" side if folks would simply admit that it's an emotional objection and not try to bullshit (and there's a ton of very poorly reasoned ad hoc bullshit that people attempt) that it's based on anything rational and consistent with other attitudes that people have, other things they're fine with. Okay, I know who you are, now, though I've forgotten your previous name. We've had this same argument before. Children cannot give consent to something they don't understand. And there are few claims more idiotic than the notion that children can understand how to play a musical instrument, how to do algebra or geometry, how to play football, how to read Melville, etc., but not sex. Again, don't try to make a rational argument for it. Just admit that it's a purely emotional objection and you'd earn more respect.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jun 3, 2018 13:31:40 GMT
Okay, I know who you are, now, though I've forgotten your previous name. We've had this same argument before. Children cannot give consent to something they don't understand. And there are few claims more idiotic than the notion that children can understand how to play a musical instrument, how to do algebra or geometry, how to play football, how to read Melville, etc., but not sex. Again, don't try to make a rational argument for it. Just admit that it's a purely emotional objection and you'd earn more respect. What makes you think I want the respect of a person that thinks the way you do? I would rather have my emotional reaction to pedophilia, than your so called 'rational' one, any day.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 3, 2018 13:52:01 GMT
And there are few claims more idiotic than the notion that children can understand how to play a musical instrument, how to do algebra or geometry, how to play football, how to read Melville, etc., but not sex. Again, don't try to make a rational argument for it. Just admit that it's a purely emotional objection and you'd earn more respect. What makes you think I want the respect of a person that thinks the way you do? I would rather have my emotional reaction to pedophilia, than your so called 'rational' one, any day. At least you're admitting that it's purely emotional there.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 3, 2018 14:19:08 GMT
What makes you think I want the respect of a person that thinks the way you do? I would rather have my emotional reaction to pedophilia, than your so called 'rational' one, any day. At least you're admitting that it's purely emotional there. You're taking a most unpopular stance again. This reminds me of the time I started the thread about slavery in the present day and you did your best to argue that a person is not enslaved as long as he or she is free by the legal definition and getting paid a wage, and never mind if that person is weighted down with an insurmountable debt. Wow. Think about it. If the Confederacy had freed the slaves and paid them a penny a day the American Civil War could have been avoided, right? You even went so far as to imply that I was giving an okay to Communist doctrine, when in fact Communism is despicable to my mind. Like Morgana, my emotional reaction to pedophilia is also one of disgust, because my conscience tells me it is wrong, like murder is wrong. I don't see why anyone has to look for a reason more rational than that.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 3, 2018 15:47:36 GMT
Okay, I know who you are, now, though I've forgotten your previous name. We've had this same argument before. Children cannot give consent to something they don't understand. And there are few claims more idiotic than the notion that children can understand how to play a musical instrument, how to do algebra or geometry, how to play football, how to read Melville, etc., but not sex.Again, don't try to make a rational argument for it. Just admit that it's a purely emotional objection and you'd earn more respect. Holy shit. This is one of the dumbest arguments ever. It's not just emotional.... There are life-changing consequences - both physical and emotional - to sex that those other actions you listed don't have. How can you expect a child who has no concept of the price of living as an adult to understand the consequences of a pre-teen pregnancy, for just one example?
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jun 3, 2018 16:18:45 GMT
dear lord, is the pro-pedo pontificator at it again?
i imagine this will go on for sixty or seventy posts until someone gets a semi and walks off cock in hand.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 3, 2018 22:25:21 GMT
And there are few claims more idiotic than the notion that children can understand how to play a musical instrument, how to do algebra or geometry, how to play football, how to read Melville, etc., but not sex.Again, don't try to make a rational argument for it. Just admit that it's a purely emotional objection and you'd earn more respect. Holy shit. This is one of the dumbest arguments ever. It's not just emotional.... There are life-changing consequences - both physical and emotional - to sex that those other actions you listed don't have. How can you expect a child who has no concept of the price of living as an adult to understand the consequences of a pre-teen pregnancy, for just one example? So for one, apparently you're unfamiliar with CTE.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 3, 2018 22:29:38 GMT
At least you're admitting that it's purely emotional there. You're taking a most unpopular stance again. This reminds me of the time I started the thread about slavery in the present day and you did your best to argue that a person is not enslaved as long as he or she is free by the legal definition and getting paid a wage, and never mind if that person is weighted down with an insurmountable debt. Wow. Think about it. If the Confederacy had freed the slaves and paid them a penny a day the American Civil War could have been avoided, right? You even went so far as to imply that I was giving an okay to Communist doctrine, when in fact Communism is despicable to my mind. Like Morgana, my emotional reaction to pedophilia is also one of disgust, because my conscience tells me it is wrong, like murder is wrong. I don't see why anyone has to look for a reason more rational than that. Re slavery, you got the first part of that right (re my comments) but with the communist stuff, you must be confusing me with someone else. Moral stances are ultimately emotional in nature. And obviously they're subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 3, 2018 22:39:07 GMT
Holy shit. This is one of the dumbest arguments ever. It's not just emotional.... There are life-changing consequences - both physical and emotional - to sex that those other actions you listed don't have. How can you expect a child who has no concept of the price of living as an adult to understand the consequences of a pre-teen pregnancy, for just one example? So for one, apparently you're unfamiliar with CTE.Y'know... I almost put in a clause for the football bit.... but, I will point out that whether or not a child plays football and its risk of head injury does rely on the approval of parents that hopefully has the child's best interest in mind. And the chances of a life changing injury on a child playing football are far less likely than the chances of getting pregnant after sex. It would seem that your arguments are a direct result of CTE..... Did you play football as a child?
|
|