Delete the paedophilia threads

Should be delete the paedophilia threads?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 9 25.7%
  • No.

    Votes: 22 62.9%
  • Don't care/Don't want to vote

    Votes: 4 11.4%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.
And we couldn't allow anyone to deviate from established doctrine now, could we?

'doctrine'? It's not about doctrine, or your distrust for authority or real science, but about a pervert who thinksit's ok to fuck children. If you argree with Ancient Regime, speak up. Ifyou don't, say so, but don't snipe here because I've disagreed with you elsewhere, that's low.


You seem to think that with a word you should be able to silence all dissenting views. The scary thing is that in many places it actually works.

Do you think Ancient Regime's view has merit? I know you Americans love the idea of free speech, but please, don't justify this creep on a ideal. Thereis n excuse for his viewpoint.

I think he's allowing a dissenting viewpoint to be heard. If James view is right, then one would think that his arguments would sway people to this point of view. If, on the other hand, ancientregime's arguments are best, one would think that -his- arguments would sway people to this point of view. Or if they both have good points, then I would think that this would come across as well.

Are you the fence sitter James postulates the existence of? Do you find AncientRegimes arguments persuasive?
 
So you just support censorship in particular cases.

Do you think free speech has no limits?

Clearly not;

Ooooh.. ad hominem, how nice.

Here, you demonstrate there are things, 'ad homs' that I should not say. So there are limits on what we should post, and merely we differ where the bar is set. It's simple, if James thinks he can swing people against Ancient's argumets, he must accept that giving Ancient a voice may swing people towards Ancients point of view too. If you think using SF as a recruiting ground for paedophiles is OK, on some vague notion of 'free speech' then carry on. I have higher expectations however

You realize of course that your implicative statement here amounts to slander yes? Ground for banning??

I was asking if you were, not stating you were, so get off your high horse.

I suppose we should ban all discussion about racism as well, because that obviously exposes people to racism...

Apples to oranges. Metadiscussion is not the same as advocation and justification.

Go burn your torch elsewhere if you don't like it.

I find it odd when people say that. It's like people never fought a revolution or something.
 
Your intensely emotionalized response also indicates that it may be possible that reason may not prevail, and like the bad guys can actually win the argument.

You sound like the 'bad guy' to me. I am not being emotional either. I'm calm and rational. What you espouse is illegal, and deemed to be illegal based on the viewpoint of the majority. If you don't like that, quit the civilised world, and go live somewhere with no laws.


If you like censorship so much, you may want to try the Muslim world.

You are an American, yes? I find it odd when Americans bleat about free speech, when the nation participated in McCarthyist witch hunts. I would have thought Islam would suit you actually, you should perhaps go read about A’isha.
 
phlogistician, dont take this the wrong way. Im not in ANY way surporting his position but the fact that something is illegal doesnt mean it shouldnt be challanged.

For instance homosexuality was demed to be a sin, imoral, a psyciatric disorder AND illegal yet after challange it became accepted. I HOPE this never happens to true pedophillia but simply because its illegal doesnt make the discussion of it off limits. This is VERY important because there are other illegal things (canibus, euthanaisa ect) which are being vigiously challanged even though they are illegal and that debate should be had
 
Phlogistician, what laws do you think he is breaking? Yes, I would like a link to the necessary source to verify your answer, as, it seems to me at least, you are assuming he is committing a crime, when I see no evidence to suggest such. What he is saying may not be considered tasteful, but James is under no obligation to pass any of his information on, simply because of this.
 
Well said. Ancientregime is harming no one, nor is he breaking any laws, by daring to express an opinion that is viewed as abhorrent by many.

What I find so annoying is that the term pedophilia is so widespread that I'm sure that even ancientregime would say that defined a certain way, it's abhorent to him as well (as in, people who physically or emotionally harm a child). I think that society really has to stop using the term 'pedophilia' as a catch all term.
 
phlogistician, you do realise that in some eroupian countries its illegal to question ANYTHING which relates to the holocost. I could assume that in alot of small US country town questioning WHY a the atacks on sep 11 happened and if US actions contributed to it could get you beaten to death. I find fred phelp's opinions and actions to be VERY discusting but that doesnt mean i can kill him for his opinions. We live in a world which surposedly respects free speach and that means free debate. As distastefull as this topic is he has the right to put his argument just as you do

I think Fred Phelps is really on the border; if Fred Phelp's hate speech is determined to actually encourage people to do criminal acts against gays, I believe he could land himself in jail; basically, I think that seriously encouraging people to commit a crime can be seen as a crime. If I'm wrong here, by all means correct me (preferably with a link so I can verify for myself) but that's my understanding.
 
scott3x said:
And we couldn't allow anyone to deviate from established doctrine now, could we?

'doctrine'? It's not about doctrine, or your distrust for authority or real science

I think it is about doctrine. And while I definitely do distrust many authorities, I don't distrust real science.


phlogistician said:
but about a pervert who thinks it's ok to fuck children.

I don't recall him ever putting it quite that way. The term 'children' is also overly broad. Teens below 18 are labelled as children but this doesn't mean that they're incapable of enjoying sex. Whether they should have sexual intercourse or perhaps just do other sexual things is debateable, but as I've mentioned in the past, some have had sex in their early teens and found it to be an integral part of theirs lives, such as the case of Vili Fualaau.


phlogistician said:
If you agree with Ancient Regime, speak up. If you don't, say so, but don't snipe here because I've disagreed with you elsewhere, that's low.

Believe me phlogistician, I am -not- disagreeing with you here simply because we've disagreed elsewhere. I don't agree with ancientregime on everything, but I agree with him that the laws as they currently stand regarding sexuality are far too restrictive in some ways. In others, they may need more work (such as in determining when someone has been coerced or forced into having sex or being in a position where they were incapable of resisting).


phlogistician said:
scott3x said:
You seem to think that with a word you should be able to silence all dissenting views. The scary thing is that in many places it actually works.

Do you think Ancient Regime's view has merit?

I think that -some- of his views have merit. I've disagreed with him regarding what to do in cases where the truth is unknown (there's even a thread dedicated to the subject over in Ethics and morality). ancientregime has written a lot of stuff; to narrow all his writings to one particular view is, in my view, silly.

phlogisitcian said:
I know you Americans love the idea of free speech, but please, don't justify this creep on a ideal.

I believe that many americans do indeed love the idea of free speech. So do canadians such as myself. I may not always agree with ancientregime, but that doesn't mean I think he's a 'creep' either. -Real- sociopaths generally don't give one whit about what others think and just try to do whatever they want without anyone being the wiser. ancientregime is doing something completely different; he's trying to get others to see things the way he does and he's doing so in a relatively civilized manner (I know that at times he loses his temper somewhat; this issue is fairly emotionally charged and the guidelines against personal attacks isn't really enforced all that much so this tends to be the norm with controversial topics here).


phlogistician said:
scott3x said:
I think he's allowing a dissenting viewpoint to be heard. If James view is right, then one would think that his arguments would sway people to this point of view. If, on the other hand, ancientregime's arguments are best, one would think that -his- arguments would sway people to this point of view. Or if they both have good points, then I would think that this would come across as well.

Are you the fence sitter James postulates the existence of?

Perhaps in some ways. I was actually elected to be judge if they couldn't agree on the definition of a word (I'd have simply chosen wikipedia or an online dictionary to end the deadlock). In some ways, I think I already agree with ancientregime, in others I disagree and perhaps there are some where I'm not sure; I haven't actually been grappling with all the points made in the debate all that much as of yet as I've been rather busy responding to posts in other threads, but I have begun posting in the discussion thread there.
 
phlogistician, dont take this the wrong way. Im not in ANY way supporting his position but the fact that something is illegal doesnt mean it shouldnt be challanged.

For instance homosexuality was demed to be a sin, immoral, a psychiatric disorder AND illegal yet after being challenged it became accepted.

A very good point.


Asguard said:
I HOPE this never happens to true pedophillia

But what -is- true pedophilia? This is what I so dislike about the term. I feel 99% confident that ancientregime is -not- advocating that any child be harmed and yet people think that those who think that pedophilia isn't wrong are by default people who want to harm children. This is why I think that this is not just a debate of whether or not pedophilia is right or wrong but how we are defining pedophilia to begin with.


Asguard said:
but simply because its illegal doesn't make the discussion of it off limits. This is VERY important because there are other illegal things (canibus, euthanaisa ect) which are being vigorously challanged even though they are illegal and that debate should be had

I agree with you there; my position is that cannibus should be treated like other legal drugs, such as alcohol; California is considering doing just that. I also believe that euthanasia should be allowed in some cases; at the very least when someone is terminally ill and they're in constant pain and humiliating circumstances.
 
What I find so annoying is that the term pedophilia is so widespread that I'm sure that even ancientregime would say that defined a certain way, it's abhorent to him as well (as in, people who physically or emotionally harm a child). I think that society really has to stop using the term 'pedophilia' as a catch all term.

That's the thing. I don't know about that.

I've gotten the opposite from him in his responses on the matter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have said before, I can fully understand exactly where phlog is coming from. I feel a sense of revulsion when I see ancient spout some of what he has spouted on this subject matter. I too get the feeling that he is trying to justify it, by claiming it is a pseudo-science, that no harm can come to a child who has sex with an adult because the child may derive some pleasure out of having their genitals manipulated by the adult and therefore cannot have suffered harm from that pleasure, completely ignoring any psychological harm that the child may have suffered and calling that a pseudo-science.. That a child cannot be raped if no force is involved.. I'll be honest, it makes my blood run cold. His anger that his friend was labeled a paedophile because he had sex with an 11 year old who then ratted him out after she invited/blackmailed him to do it.. apparently the friend shouldn't have been jailed because she wanted it and thus consented.. After much debate, he admitted that the friend wanted to have sex with the 11 year old and that it shouldn't be a crime, because to him, no harm was caused. Can an 11 year old consent to sex with an adult? Is it right for his friend to have done what he did when he was placed in a position to care for and look after the girl as her babysitter. To him the answer is yes? What about an 8 year old? 5 year old? Babies play with themselves and explore their genitals every chance their get. Does that mean a baby boy or toddler who gets an erection from touching himself is thereby ready or able to consent or have sex?

The desire to silence him is strong. As a parent I actually feel nauseous when I read what he has posted on this forum. I have met people like ancient in my time and their attempts to justify paedophilia is not new, nor is it original. We don't know if ancient is a paedophile. If he ever did make such a claim or described an experience he may have had with a child, I'd probably be the first person to report him to the authorities. If that goes beyond my scope as a moderator, then so be it and if I lose my position as a moderator as a result, so be it. I don't think I would be the only one who would be reporting him.

Should we silence him? Maybe. But it won't solve anything. I would rather know than not know. And I would rather be able to repudiate and refute his claims than not be able to. Maybe that is just my argumentative side showing itself. We know the difference between right and wrong. He may or may not know the same. So we debate and discuss the issue and hope like hell some of it sinks into the gray matter in his skull.
 
I wish Lucifer's Angel would chime in on this thread. Maybe a dose of real world experience might awaken some of these people from their hypothetical, academic views on the subject.
 
ancientregime said:
Your intensely emotionalized response also indicates that it may be possible that reason may not prevail, and like the bad guys can actually win the argument.

You sound like the 'bad guy' to me.

Why though?


phlogistician said:
What you espouse is illegal

No, it's not. He's espousing challenging the basis for the current laws regarding youth sexuality, not in actually breaking the law.


phlogistician said:
ancientregime said:
If you like censorship so much, you may want to try the Muslim world.

You are an American, yes? I find it odd when Americans bleat about free speech, when the nation participated in McCarthyist witch hunts.

Don't label the tree bad just because it has a few bad apples. The McCarthyist witch hunts passed a while ago as well.


phlogistician said:
I would have thought Islam would suit you actually, you should perhaps go read about A’isha.

Actually I'm happy you bring her up. Islam -definitely- has different views concerning when a minor is allowed to marry and I believe a great deal of it has to do with A'isha, who was the second wife of Muhammed, islam's prophet. Wikipedia article on her says this:
Aisha was initially betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im, a Muslim whose father, though pagan, was friendly to the Muslims. When Khawla bint Hakim suggested that Muhammad marry Aisha after the death of Muhammad's first wife (Khadijah bint Khuwaylid), the previous agreement regarding marriage of Aisha with ibn Mut'im was put aside by common consent.[1] British historian William Montgomery Watt suggests that Muhammad hoped to strengthen his ties with Abu Bakr;[1] the strengthening of ties commonly served as a basis for marriage in Arabian culture.[2]

According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.[1][3][4] American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[3] She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated.[1][3][4][5][6][7] The marriage was delayed until after the Hijra, or migration to Medina, in 622; Aisha and her older sister Asma bint Abi Bakr only moved to Medina after Muhammad had already migrated there. After this, the wedding was celebrated very simply. The sources do not offer much more information about Aisha's childhood years, but mention that after the wedding, she continued to play with her toys, and Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games.[8]

Status as "favorite wife"

Most early accounts say that Muhammad and Aisha became sincerely fond of each other. Aisha is usually described as Muhammad's favorite wife, and it was in her company that Muhammad reportedly received the most revelations.[9] Some accounts claim it was the curtain from her tent that Muhammad used as his battle standard.[10]

Muhammad has certainly been criticized for marrying a girl so early, as can be seen in the Aisha section of wikipedia's article Criticism of Muhammad; however, many have argued that times were different back then:
Aisha

From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who might have been six or seven at the time of her marriage. [17] American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce A'isha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[17]

The age of Aisha is cited by some critics who denounce Muhammad for having sexual relations with her. American Baptist pastor Jerry Vines called him a "demon-possessed pedophile".[18] Jewish leaders and mainstream Protestant groups joined Muslims in denouncing the comments made by Vines. Abraham Foxman from the Anti-Defamation League described Vines' comments as "deplorable", adding that they were "not surprising coming from the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, which has a track record of denigrating and delegitimizing other religions."[18]

Colin Turner, a professor of Persian language and Islamic history, states that Muhammad's marriage, in its historical context, would not have been considered the least improper. Such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among Bedouins. Turner further writes that Arabs in the 7th century tended to reach adulthood at an earlier age.[19]​

I'm not sure if there was so much biological difference, but the culture was certainly different. I'm pretty leery of the idea of a girl of 9 having sex; I have heard from an anonymous woman who claimed to have had sex at around that age that if done -very- carefully it can be ok, but I think it's safe to say that in our society in virtually all cases it's best to wait for that type of thing until it's actually legal to do so.

Islamic cultures are definitely different; there are still cases where girls are married at 9. However, if the girls protest, the marriages have been known to be annulled. I definitely do -not- believe in -anyone- being forced to marry anyone else or to do anything sexual with anyone else if they don't wish to.
 
phlogistician, dont take this the wrong way. Im not in ANY way surporting his position but the fact that something is illegal doesnt mean it shouldnt be challanged.

For instance homosexuality

That is a different set of circumstances, about what consenting ADULTS choose to do.

Don't use one case to try and defend another, that is fallacious.

There is no defense for Ancient's position. There is no debate. We need not host his views, therefore.
 
I think it is about doctrine. And while I definitely do distrust many authorities,

No, it's about accepted standards in a civilised society. The standard is not about punishing the precocious, but protecting the weak. Our legal system means that each case can be tried on it's own merit, and charges, if applicable made, or not, depending o the circumstances. But we do need laws to protect children. Oh, and your petty biccering about the definition of 'child' was not productive, in context if was fuckng obvious what I meant, so get your head out of your arse.

Meanwhile, some of the other things you said make me feel uncomfortable conversing with you any further. I think you are one of James' fence sitters, and have some dangerous psychology. I don't know why you refuse to accept society, and don't want to fit in, but siding with a pervert isn't the way forward.
 
Phlogistician, what laws do you think he is breaking? Yes, I would like a link to the necessary source to verify your answer, as, it seems to me at least, you are assuming he is committing a crime, when I see no evidence to suggest such. What he is saying may not be considered tasteful, but James is under no obligation to pass any of his information on, simply because of this.

Sock puppet, go away.
 
scott3x said:
What I find so annoying is that the term pedophilia is so widespread that I'm sure that even ancientregime would say that defined a certain way, it's abhorent to him as well (as in, people who physically or emotionally harm a child). I think that society really has to stop using the term 'pedophilia' as a catch all term.

That's the thing. I don't know about that.

I've gotten the opposite from him in his responses on the matter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have said before, I can fully understand exactly where phlog is coming from. I feel a sense of revulsion when I see ancient spout some of what he has spouted on this subject matter. I too get the feeling that he is trying to justify it, by claiming it is a pseudo-science, that no harm can come to a child who has sex with an adult because the child may derive some pleasure out of having their genitals manipulated by the adult and therefore cannot have suffered harm from that pleasure

That statement actually confirms what I said, but you raise a good point; while ancientregime may -believe- that no harm can come to a child who has sex with an adult simply because the child may derive some pleasure doesn't make it so. Beliefs are not necessarily the same thing as reality.


Bells said:
completely ignoring any psychological harm that the child may have suffered and calling that a pseudo-science..

You may be right here.


Bells said:
That a child cannot be raped if no force is involved.. I'll be honest, it makes my blood run cold.

I think ancientregime simply hasn't thought some things through. I certainly agree that not using force doesn't mean that consent has been given or that a child understands what they are consenting to.


Bells said:
His anger that his friend was labeled a paedophile because he had sex with an 11 year old who then ratted him out after she invited/blackmailed him to do it.. apparently the friend shouldn't have been jailed because she wanted it and thus consented..

In her particular case, I may well agree; she apparently -did- want it and not just with him. But most importantly, she blackmailed him and then (apparently) lied about what actually happened. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I would -not- have capitulated to the blackmail, but again, I think some people simply don't think these things through enough; some people pay dearly for not doing so.


Bells said:
After much debate, he admitted that the friend wanted to have sex with the 11 year old and that it shouldn't be a crime, because to him, no harm was caused. Can an 11 year old consent to sex with an adult?

I believe they can, but that doesn't mean it's legal to do so.


Bells said:
Is it right for his friend to have done what he did when he was placed in a position to care for and look after the girl as her babysitter.

We're in agreement here. However, I think it's only fair to remember that his friend was apparently blackmailed into doing it.


Bells said:
To him the answer is yes? What about an 8 year old? 5 year old? Babies play with themselves and explore their genitals every chance they get. Does that mean a baby boy or toddler who gets an erection from touching himself is thereby ready or able to consent or have sex?

Aside from issues of consent and informed consent, as we go younger and younger, aside from legality we must also consider the issue of sizes; while a male never has to worry about this issue, it's quite different for a female.


Bells said:
The desire to silence him is strong. As a parent I actually feel nauseous when I read what he has posted on this forum. I have met people like ancient in my time and their attempts to justify paedophilia is not new, nor is it original. We don't know if ancient is a paedophile. If he ever did make such a claim or described an experience he may have had with a child, I'd probably be the first person to report him to the authorities. If that goes beyond my scope as a moderator, then so be it and if I lose my position as a moderator as a result, so be it. I don't think I would be the only one who would be reporting him.

I understand Bells. I don't think you'd lose your moderator position for reporting an alleged crime, but I think James could elaborate more on this type of thing.


Bell said:
Should we silence him? Maybe. But it won't solve anything. I would rather know than not know. And I would rather be able to repudiate and refute his claims than not be able to. Maybe that is just my argumentative side showing itself. We know the difference between right and wrong. He may or may not know the same. So we debate and discuss the issue and hope like hell some of it sinks into the gray matter in his skull.

This is what I believe Bells. Regardless of who is right or wrong, I think that discussion helps determine this much better then silence. If ancientregime was -encouraging- people to break the law, that would, in my view, be illegal. But he's only challenging the legitimacy of the law and that, I think, should be perfectly acceptable. If he's wrong on some or all things, I think we should be able to demonstrate this. If he's right on some things, I think we should learn. In any case, I think discussion is the only way this global controversy will ever be resolved.
 
Clucky said:
Phlogistician, what laws do you think he is breaking? Yes, I would like a link to the necessary source to verify your answer, as, it seems to me at least, you are assuming he is committing a crime, when I see no evidence to suggest such. What he is saying may not be considered tasteful, but James is under no obligation to pass any of his information on, simply because of this.

Sock puppet, go away.

Clucky may be a sock puppet, but I believe that his point is a valid one.
 
I'm pretty leery of the idea of a girl of 9 having sex; I have heard from an anonymous woman who claimed to have had sex at around that age that if done -very- carefully it can be ok, but I think it's safe to say that in our society in virtually all cases it's best to wait for that type of thing until it's actually legal to do so.
yeah, heaven forbid you might rip up that tiny pussy eh scott?
you're as sick as ancient regime is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top