ok orleander, let her wait till she turns 18 right?
again, I'm speechless. SHE'S 9!!!!
Delete the paedophilia threads
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
- Status
again, I'm speechless. SHE'S 9!!!!um enmos we are talking about a kid who will be dead with in the year. That was my actual point, even if she WANTED to consumate her "weding" who the hell are the likes of orleander to critisise. This girl has ZERO control over her life, she will NEVER see her children because she wont live long enough to have any. She will NEVER get drunk because she will be dead by the end of the year ect. What right has ANYONE got to judge what she wants to do?
There is a great episode of house which examins my point, a 14 year old girl who has never been kissed and will die before she ever leaves the hospital asks jessie spence's caricter to kiss her. Was it right or wrong to grant that wish? more importantly what right has another person got to judge it?
to many people around here need to pull there heads out of there collective asses and realise that just because the only problem they have in there life is wether the internet conection is working or not does NOT give them the right to judge others
There is a great episode of house which examins my point, a 14 year old girl who has never been kissed and will die before she ever leaves the hospital asks jessie spence's caricter to kiss her. Was it right or wrong to grant that wish? more importantly what right has another person got to judge it?
to many people around here need to pull there heads out of there collective asses and realise that just because the only problem they have in there life is wether the internet conection is working or not does NOT give them the right to judge others
a 14 yr old ACTRESS getting a chaste closed mouthed kiss on a TV SHOW is a hell of a lot different than a 9 yr old having sex in real life.
orleander did you get kicked in the head by a horse or are you always this stupid?
what if she asked if she could smoke because its not like she will die of lung cancer?
or maybe she asked to have a drink because she sees mummy and dady doing it and wants to try THAT before she dies?
You do realise that those 2 are illegal but if the 2 of them had sex under australian law it ISNT illegal dont you? The law is VERY clear on ages of concent, below 8 years old no one can have sex period no matter the age of the other person, from 8 to 16 the person must be within 2 years of you in age, between 16 and 18 the person must not be in your care (like a teacher or step parent) above 18 its open slather. So as you can see im not even advocating breaking the law. I belive that a dying PERSON of whatever age has the right to decide for themselves what they do before they die no matter what it is.
what if she asked if she could smoke because its not like she will die of lung cancer?
or maybe she asked to have a drink because she sees mummy and dady doing it and wants to try THAT before she dies?
You do realise that those 2 are illegal but if the 2 of them had sex under australian law it ISNT illegal dont you? The law is VERY clear on ages of concent, below 8 years old no one can have sex period no matter the age of the other person, from 8 to 16 the person must be within 2 years of you in age, between 16 and 18 the person must not be in your care (like a teacher or step parent) above 18 its open slather. So as you can see im not even advocating breaking the law. I belive that a dying PERSON of whatever age has the right to decide for themselves what they do before they die no matter what it is.
:roflmao:
I haven't said a personal thing against you, but here you go again. What part of 'she's 9' don't you understand? She's in 3rd grade.
And you claimed that you weren't getting personal? BULLSHIT!
Just to play devil's advocate...
Orly, 9 year old's are reported to occasionally have sex in real life without being under a death sentence. I'm not advocating the practice. However, in this case, the girl is dying! What are the consequences if she did have sex? What are you concerned about? Long term psychological damage?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The same right anyone has to judge people that are not sick.
I'm not in any way judging the kid though, but I think the parents should have known better.
You're not telling me that the kid has completely come up with this herself..
Fourteen isn't the same as nine.. besides, kids kiss each other all the time..
Why not ? You're judging us as well right now :shrug:
Marriage is an institution meant for adults not kids. And I can't believe the kid has completely come up with it herself. The parents must have had something to do with it.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Uhm you're not making a very strong case here Rand.
By your reasoning it wouldn't matter if they sold her as a child prostitute either.
Besides, everyone is dying.
Ummm.. Enmos, I doubt that she would want to do that. I think my question was predicated on the presumption that she might want to have sex. That seemed to be the premise of Asguard's original comment that sparked Orly's reply. Mainly, I am trying to defray the attack on Asguard. Plus, I am curious as to what lengths we think appropriate to satisfy a dying person's last wish. kind of like a "last meal". (Pardon the analogy)
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
But if that would be the rule (granting dying wishes), you might get surprised.
What if a kids dying wish would be that the kid that always bullied her be killed ?
I don't think it should matter whether a kid is dying or not, you keep true to the morality and ethics of the society you live in.
There are plenty of fun things to ask for. They could have just 'gone steady' and have a huge party to celebrate it. They could even swear true to each other for life, or whatever they want that is still within the boundaries of the law.
That's the topic I find interesting in this situation. How far will we "bend" the rules to accommodate a dying person's wishes? (Imminent death, just to clarify)
For example, I don't think Asguard advocates that every 9 year old has sex, yet under these circumstances it seems like a permissible idea, at least to some people. Maybe I will start a thread on this issue...
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well, I think my point of view is clear enough
You can make lots of exceptions for a dying kid within the law.
It just strikes me as odd that a nine year olds dying wish would be to marry.. :shrug:
Well, I think my point of view is clear enough
You can make lots of exceptions for a dying kid within the law.
Careful there, because I don't think any laws would be broken in the case of these two kids shagging. Are you reversing your earlier stance? :scratchin:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
He was being sarcastic, that I am sure.
phlogistician is upset in particular about the formal debate between myself and ancientregime, in which ancientregime is attempting to argue that pedophilia doesn't actually harm the child victims.
The thread is [thread=90901]here[/thread].
I repost here part of a PM I sent to phlogistician about this:
I can understand that you find the current debate about pedophilia distasteful. However, arguments of the type being put by ancientregime are not uncommon on the internet. There is a whole pedophile apologist movement out there spreading around just the kind of crap ancientregime is peddling.
You argue that such a debate is inappropriate for sciforums. But if people like ancientregime are not called on their bullshit, then what? Surely their offensive and disgusting rationalisations of pedophilia demand a reasoned and disinterested response. Merely condemning such people, or sweeping the issue under the carpet, invites the accusation that their views are being censored because they are correct, although unpalatable to many. I think there is value in showing that there is a reasoned response to their nonsense, and that they really aren't succeeding in the pulling the wool over the eyes of thinking and caring people.
I hope you understand my position.
You argue that such a debate is inappropriate for sciforums. But if people like ancientregime are not called on their bullshit, then what? Surely their offensive and disgusting rationalisations of pedophilia demand a reasoned and disinterested response. Merely condemning such people, or sweeping the issue under the carpet, invites the accusation that their views are being censored because they are correct, although unpalatable to many. I think there is value in showing that there is a reasoned response to their nonsense, and that they really aren't succeeding in the pulling the wool over the eyes of thinking and caring people.
I hope you understand my position.
phlogistician replied:
My response:
And then what? He goes to the next forum and spouts the same shit all over again, with the added bonus that he can rightly claim he was censored here, with the added implication that we censored him because we couldn't respond to his arguments.
---
I am interested to hear members' views on this, though. Do you agree with phlogistician, or myself, or do you have some other opinion on such material being posted on sciforums, and in particular in the Formal Debates forum?
- Status