Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

I advocate that people think. A minor is someone younger then 18. An adult is someone 18 or older. There are many possible cases of adult/minor sexual interactions, some of which are legal, even in the U.S.

In some states, the age of consent for adult/minor interactions is 16, in others 18. Laws actually have some power to change the morality of a situation. If you don't want to put a lover through hardship, whether you're and adult or a minor, if the age of consent where you're at is 18 and your lover is 16, I can easily imagine that the -morally- right thing to do may well be to wait 2 years.

But it brings up the question: is the -law- morally right? How do we even know when someone is ready to engage in a sexual activity? It's not like we've actually got any official testing scheme for this, just laws that specify various ages, depending on what part of the world you're in; in atleast one country, Saudi Arabia, parental consent is involved for people below a certain age I believe, which further complicates things; are parents necessarily the best arbiters of what's right for a child? I don't think this is always the case, but I certainly don't think that discounting them is the right approach either.

This is the type of thing that I've been delving into. James decided to lower the bar to very low ages and -that's- what got the controversy rolling. I'd never intended to lower it so far in this forum, but I'm willing to theorize on a lot more then is politically correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually scott adult minor sex is illegal, period.
the concept of justice allows for the leeway you mentioned.

well move there then scott, all that young pushy is screaming your name.

yes.
now whip out a few oddballs to haggle over.

yes, james decided to lower the bar.
he found your responses to his posts disturbing remember?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you think an army is? Just switch food with resources.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescents. There are doubtless many pedophiles who have never acted on their attraction to pre-pubescents, in much the same way I have never acted on my desire to hunt down some of the nutters on this forum and beat the shit out of them. Adult-minor sex is thus quite a different thing from pedophilia.
In the UK I could quite legally have sexual intercourse with a seventeen year old. In the US, by your logic, I would be a pedophile. The truth is, in either case, I would simply be a dirty old man.
Now stop talking witch hunt nonsense and get back on topic.

 

in scotland maybe.

http://family.findlaw.com/adoption/same-sex-adoption/same-sex-parent-issues.html

i can't help it if scott is pro pedophilia now can i?
on topic? i think it's absurd for scott to be asking for "civility" while peddling pedophilia don't you?

 

In any scholarly discussion, anywhere on the planet. I understand you are not well versed in scholarly discussions. I'm giving you an opportunity to learn.

Tell me which post Scott 'peddles pedophilia' in please. I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just looking for a short cut to save me reading all this crap.

 

this is in response to james asking scott about sex with a 4 year old.*

this is just one of many.
the above post implies that scott feels it okay to have sex with a 4 year old as long as the guys dick "isn't too big".
now ophiolite what does this make scott?

* post 318, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90940&page=16

 

A pedophile, or at least a pedophilia advocate.

 

No, it doesn't. Context is important and you didn't add it. I was agreeing with James that he may well be right that in -all- cases involving 4 year old females and male adults, penetrative sex may be harmful purely from a -physical perspective-. However, being the type of person who doesn't want to miss possibilities, I thought of rare cases (such as a man having a very small sexual organ) or not using said sexual organ at all, but instead a finger or something to that effect.

In that post I didn't get into -other- possible harmful effects, such as legal and social issues, but that doesn't mean I don't consider them; I have considered those very issues in this thread and I considered in previous threads as well. Here's an example concerning the very same 4 year old benchmark, from another closed down thread, post 24 in Research concerning adult/minor sexual interactions:
If the 4 year old were a male, all of the above might be acceptable, again in a socio-legal environment where this type of thing was supported. In the case of the female, I'm almost sure that sexual intercourse would be ruled out but I think the others could still work out in the aforementioned environment.

Again, James is the one who brought up the 4 year old benchmark. I really never intended to go so low, but I decided not to shy away from the question either. Perhaps this was a mistake on my part.

Anyway, I think that I'll end this post with S.A.M.'s last post in the Is pedophilia pseudoscience? thread that you quoted from (post 320), before it was closed down:
I should explain that I am not endorsing pedophilia. As someone who has lived in three different cultures with varying distinct and contradictory notions of sexuality, I am aware of the dominant role of society in defining sexual norms.

After spending some time last year on the emergence of homosexuality in Eastern culture as a separate and distinct expression of sexual preference, I have become interested in the extent to which society determines not only our sexual behaviour, but also our bias against sexual behaviour.

I haven't lived in any eastern culture, but I definitely think that I know something about other cultures concerning this issue and I found that S.A.M.'s words essentially express my own view on the matter.

 

Actually, we do both; that is, we kill for both food -and- resources, and on a much larger scale then any other animal by far. Killing animals for food doesn't sound nearly as bad as killing them for resources though; especially when you consider that the ones behind those killing for resources generally don't need them.

 

i could have swore i sourced my material.

i think it's you that isn't including things, like the link you left out of the above post.

i'm through with this issue, i only brought it up because of the irony involved, now i wished i hadn't.

 

Whoever talks about UFO would be aliens; And a doctor who writes a book about psychopaths should be a psychopath as per your above logic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can't believe that am reading such brainless replies in a scientific forum where i expected some standard in logic and thoughts. Expectation leads to disappointment... i guess i keep forgetting that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When 9/11 gets closed, it could be because of threats from CIA or other govt. bodies. Am sure you dont want to end up getting killed for searching truth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To be blunt and honest, i only found 3 mods/admins to be worth being in that position - Fraggle Rocker, Tiassa and James. I guess humans always get it wrong when they pick who must be ruling them. Usually 30% turn out to be sensible and 70% end up being occasional morons. It happens in terms of presidents and prime ministers across the world as well. So i don't think it can be changed.

 

Not if you had read the previous posts and find out why scott posted what he posted. He was only replying to James. Like he said, context is important. Leopold is only using cheap tricks to portray scott in a negative light and he should be banned.

 

huh?

i can't find anything "brainless" about my response, although i should have said confused instead of deranged.

omg:roflmao:

of course this never happens on your side of the table does it?

i'm in good company.

 

observer, I'm beginning to wonder if this is really the right forum to even try to persuade bystanders the truth. We're no longer on the subject of this thread and the last time I created a new thread in response to some of Bell's points, James closed it down after my very first post. I'm actually -expecting- this thread to be closed off at any time because we're talking about all of this and we seem to have gotten off the original topic, perhaps permanently now.

Anyway, I think I made my point concerning the rules; if the admins want to follow suit and adopt the SF Open Government terms and perhaps expand on them, they can do so.

 

Take your time digesting what observer said there...

For your sake, I'm going to assume that you meant to imply something other then what you just said there; you can't seriously be thinking that it's good to use cheap tricks to malign someone?

 

I personally believe there are worse things then death. But I also don't think I've made much of an impact in regards to the 9/11 discussion; there are certainly more well known voices then mine; Tony Szamboti is one and he's worked with even more well known people, such as Steven Jones. The fact that Steven Jones is still going speaks favourably of U.S. democracy I believe.

I don't think anyone should be labelled as a 'moron'; I just don't feel it's a very good description of anyone. I think it would be closer to say that for many, they have been taught to see things in a certain way and it can be very difficult indeed to change their minds.

 

You did. But come on leopold, do you honestly think that most people are going to look at the source material?

What link do you believe I left out?

Or atleast of your perceiving it as ironical...

Well that's progress anyway.

 

Not true. Scott3x is advocating paedophilia. Tell me where Scott3x makes a definitive statement about an age limit below which he thinks sexual contact should not be made, and you might be able to claw back some credibility.

I wish everyone would just put Scott on ignore, and stop feeding the monkey.