|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 0:22:08 GMT
that younger children's bodies are not ready for sex with an adult, so they 'ought' not do it.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 0:24:09 GMT
Why are using only emotion to argue this?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 0:32:22 GMT
Why are using only emotion to argue this? I don't know Vegas! I guess I was coy about consulting the medical information on the results of child sex abuse and paedophilia by adults and the physical and emotional damage it does on those kids. Medical evidence of such damage makes me emotional, butt the facts remain so I guess I would just have to suck it up and look at the hard factual evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 0:35:36 GMT
that younger children's bodies are not ready for sex with an adult, so they 'ought' not do it. What physical states amount to "ready"?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 0:40:31 GMT
that younger children's bodies are not ready for sex with an adult, so they 'ought' not do it. What physical states amount to "ready"? I am going to say this once and nicely. Accommodating size of sexual and other organs without damage. Don't even start me on the mental and emotional Even though this is my own thread I might run away in disgust if you start with the paedophilic garbage. I just wanted to get you off the other thread where you were a pollutant. You are full of high handed intellectual rhetoric and snobbery, and zero common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 0:42:47 GMT
What physical states amount to "ready"? I am going to say this once and nicely. Accommodating size of sexual and other organs without damage. Don't even start me on the mental and emotional Even though this is my own thread I might run away in disgust if you start with the paedophilic garbage. I just wanted to get you off the other thread where you were a pollutant. You are full of high handed intellectual rhetoric and snobbery, and zero common sense. Good way to get me to post a ton more on the other thread, by the way. Okay, so what exactly constitutes "damage"?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 0:46:35 GMT
I am going to say this once and nicely. Accommodating size of sexual and other organs without damage. Don't even start me on the mental and emotional Even though this is my own thread I might run away in disgust if you start with the paedophilic garbage. I just wanted to get you off the other thread where you were a pollutant. You are full of high handed intellectual rhetoric and snobbery, and zero common sense. Good way to get me to post a ton more on the other thread, by the way. Okay, so what exactly constitutes "damage"? I don't know....maybe bleeding bruising contusions ripping of flesh permanent damage future lack of fertility need for a colostomy bag death?...you know small things
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 0:51:16 GMT
Good way to get me to post a ton more on the other thread, by the way. Okay, so what exactly constitutes "damage"? I don't know....maybe bleeding bruising contusions ripping of flesh permanent damage future lack of fertility need for a colostomy bag death?...you know small things Are bleeding and bruising sufficient or do we need more than that to count as damage? Also, what age range are you talking about here? Surely not 13-year-olds, right? And obviously we're not talking about something like a hand job, right?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 0:54:02 GMT
I don't know....maybe bleeding bruising contusions ripping of flesh permanent damage future lack of fertility need for a colostomy bag death?...you know small things Are bleeding and bruising sufficient or do we need more than that to count as damage? Also, what are range are you talking about here? Surely not 13-year-olds, right? And obviously we're not talking about something like a hand job, right? Yes, of course...bleeding and bruising are not sufficient evidence and are only slight irritants to paedos!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 0:54:25 GMT
I don't know enough about anatomy to confirm agreement with that statement. But I would strongly agree that vulnerable people should not be placed in danger in order to satiate the selfish desires of someone who has more power; and I would take this rule to a further extreme than most (as you know). Yes, we ought not to be placing unconsenting people in positions of danger when the only need for that to occur exists in the mind of someone who has all the power.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 0:56:51 GMT
Are bleeding and bruising sufficient or do we need more than that to count as damage? Also, what are range are you talking about here? Surely not 13-year-olds, right? And obviously we're not talking about something like a hand job, right? Yes, of course...bleeding and bruising are only slight irritants to paedos! Aren't you trying to present a rational foundation that's coherent, consistent, etc. against a challenge whether that's possible, or is this just a charade to you?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 0:58:03 GMT
I don't know enough about anatomy to confirm agreement with that statement. But I would strongly agree that vulnerable people should not be placed in danger in order to satiate the selfish desires of someone who has more power; and I would take this rule to a further extreme than most (as you know). Yes, we ought not to be placing unconsenting people in positions of danger when the only need for that to occur exists in the mind of someone who has all the power. Would you get into the epistemology of how you're defining and quantifying power?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 0:58:57 GMT
Goz…. All you are going to get is stupid questions from this guy. Either he is really clueless as to reality and the meanings to words and phrases.. or he is just pulling his chain as he thinks that he's pulling yours. See? How the hell does he not know what you are referring to? (A QUESTION!! )
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 1:00:07 GMT
Yes, of course...bleeding and bruising are only slight irritants to paedos! Aren't you trying to present a rational foundation that's coherent, consistent, etc. against a challenge whether that's possible, or is this just a charade to you? No. I am pointing out exactly what I said on the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:02:17 GMT
Aren't you trying to present a rational foundation that's coherent, consistent, etc. against a challenge whether that's possible, or is this just a charade to you? No. I am pointing out exactly what I said on the other thread. Okay, but if you're not bothering, it's hardly going to persuade anyone that it can indeed be coherently, consistently supported. Maybe you just want to preach to the choir, though.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:02:54 GMT
Goz…. All you are going to get is stupid questions from this guy. Either he is really clueless as to reality and the meanings to words and phrases.. or he is just pulling his chain as he thinks that he's pulling yours. See? How the hell does he not know what you are referring to? (A QUESTION!! )
Meaning is subjective for one.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 1:03:30 GMT
Goz…. All you are going to get is stupid questions from this guy. Either he is really clueless as to reality and the meanings to words and phrases.. or he is just pulling his chain as he thinks that he's pulling yours. See? How the hell does he not know what you are referring to? (A QUESTION!! )
I think that these people NEED challenging with a combination of factual information, logical argument, common sense and a degree of grounding as to what is the current moral, sociological and legal status in our modern western societies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 1:03:58 GMT
I don't know enough about anatomy to confirm agreement with that statement. But I would strongly agree that vulnerable people should not be placed in danger in order to satiate the selfish desires of someone who has more power; and I would take this rule to a further extreme than most (as you know). Yes, we ought not to be placing unconsenting people in positions of danger when the only need for that to occur exists in the mind of someone who has all the power. Would you get into the epistemology of how you're defining and quantifying power? The actor that has the ability to make the action happen has power over the victim who is defenseless to prevent the action from happening. In the context of child molestation, there's physical power in the sense of a greater ability to exercise physical force in order to impose their will, psychological power of persuasion. So the victim of child molestation only has ineffectual power in the face of a stronger and more intelligent adult authority. For bringing the child into existence in the first place, the power would be capability and the fact that the person who is going to be the victim doesn't exist yet and therefore cannot take any action (no matter how ineffectual) to prevent the action from taking place.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 1:04:18 GMT
No. I am pointing out exactly what I said on the other thread. Okay, but if you're not bothering, it's hardly going to persuade anyone that it can indeed be coherently, consistently supported. Maybe you just want to preach to the choir, though. Not bothering to what?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:07:20 GMT
Okay, but if you're not bothering, it's hardly going to persuade anyone that it can indeed be coherently, consistently supported. Maybe you just want to preach to the choir, though. Not bothering to what? I asked you a question (re "Aren't you trying . . .") that you answered "No" to. Obviously I'm referring to that .
|
|