NationStates Jolt Archive

You're sick.

Aside from the fact that you're sick, the brain of a human is not even completely grown until around age 18. The law is actually pushing it by allowing age of consent to be 16. And if there weren't so many pervs wanting to do it, then we wouldn't have this problem at all. And an older man should not be allowed to be with a girl under 16, because it's much easier for an older man to seduce a young girl who just craves attention, and feels vulnerable to him. The same thing for older women and younger men.

And do you know why most of these people end up being 30-something and wanting to touch little kids? because they were involved with sexual activity at such a young age, and were raped or molested themselves. The fact is, once you wait until you're older to do it, it doesn't become such a norm that you have to go out fucking with little kids. So if anything, they should be stricter on these freakshows.

I don't think gay people like to be compared to pedophiles either...

I know. It seriously pisses me off... i'm 20 and my boyfriend is 19.. we are two consenting adults.

Jesus christ.

Girls don't fully develop thier... "bits" untill they're 18 anyway. so raise the age of consent to 18.

The whole age of consent thing is screwed up anyway. I mean, at 16 i can have sex with someone and bring a child into the world but i can't drink in a bar or pub? Bullshit!

I know...I'm sure 100% of the guys who are going to impregnate kids are going to marry them and be around when they give birth to their children. This is surely the most responsible option, especially when we know 11 year olds are perfectly capable of supporting themselves and entering legal agreements. :rolleyes:

NOT TO MENTION SUPPORT THE CHILD!
Wow, this is such a GREAT idea.

NOT TO MENTION SUPPORT THE CHILD!
Wow, this is such a GREAT idea.

Yes, this could only turn out well.

:confused: :confused: you need to rewrite your post...its difficult to understand whatever you are trying to say

It makes perfect sense. Not his fault if you're too stupid to understand.

It makes perfect sense. Not his fault if you're too stupid to understand.

Wait, does this mean he consents....?

It makes perfect sense. Not his fault if you're too stupid to understand.

Hey now, it isn't good to flame other people.

Hey now, it isn't good to flame other people.

Isn't good to be a sicko either, is it?

I was molested by sickos like that when I was little. I struggled to deal with it all of my life. This is personal.

Isn't good to be a sicko either, is it?

I was molested by sickos like that when I was little. I struggled to deal with it all of my life. This is personal.

Hey, I'm not saying that your views are wrong (I actually agree with you) but I don't think OceanDrive is a sicko.

Hey, I'm not saying that your views are wrong (I actually agree with you) but I don't think OceanDrive is a sicko.

Maybe not. But being so defensive and angry is actually a side effect of sickos touching me. Sorry to OceanDrive if he's not a pervert. It's just too personal for me not to get pissed off about it.

Yeah, I don't think OD is a paedophile(?).

I agree entirelly as well, but the people who fully support this movement do not listen to personal experience. They only believe scientific studies.

Either way they are wrong.

I'm pretty sure this discussion has come to a close. Most points have been settled, any new topics deserve their own threads.

Let's let this thread die and return to the depths from whence it came (unless anyone else needs to say something more)

Close This Thrad; People Who Suppert This Outh To Be Killed By The State; If The Law Doesnt Stop Them God Will:::

To All Of You Who Support Fucking Children

You Will Get Your Punishment

In This Life Or The Next

Close This Thrad; People Who Suppert This Outh To Be Killed By The State; If The Law Doesnt Stop Them God Will:::

To All Of You Who Support Fucking Children

You Will Get Your Punishment

In This Life Or The Next

God Hates Those Who Capitalise Every Word In A Sentence.

Just So You Know.

God Hates Those Who Capitalise Every Word In A Sentence.

Just So You Know. God Hates Fags.
God Hates America.
God Hates Sweden.

Hmm, I don't think we've got anything left to say. A thread has actually reached its logical conclusion. Get the mods to close it and make a note of this historic event.

Well, once again this thread has degraded into the usual paranoia and proud exclamations of violence. It's sad how people aren't at all bothered by the idea of murder, but child sexuality is unspeakable.

Yes, when a homosexual, an antidemocratic- aristocrat, and an uberconservative american military man(I think) all agree, I think we have reached a logical conclusion.

The coup de' grace, please.

God Hates Fags.
God Hates America.
God Hates Sweden.

Hmm, I don't think we've got anything left to say. A thread has actually reached its logical conclusion. Get the mods to close it and make a note of this historic event.

God hates those who wake him up on Sundays with their insesant whining. This is why he takes it out on trailer parks.

Wait, that's convection heating. Nevermind.

Yes I do think we should close this thread. It talks about defending illegal activities, and this forum should not condone it. I don't ever talk on religious terms as I'm atheist. But I'm a person who defends the law.

It is entirely possible that all the psychological harm done to someone by being sexualized at a young age stems from social taboos against it.

For most of human history people married much muhc younger than they do today.

It is entirely possible that all the psychological harm done to someone by being sexualized at a young age stems from social taboos against it.


No. Children just aren't developed fully. It has nothing to do with social taboos.

No. Children just aren't developed fully. It has nothing to do with social taboos.

Just like men used to get traumatised and turned insane when they had sex with other men, or like innocent white ladies being forever traumatised after being defiled by evil black men, or how teenagers who masturbated used to go insane?

It has everything to do with social taboos.

Just like men used to get traumatised and turned insane when they had sex with other men, or like innocent white ladies being forever traumatised after being defiled by evil black men, or how teenagers who masturbated used to go insane?

It has everything to do with social taboos.

Then make a new thread called "Social Taboos" and let this damned thing die already.

Wow did that post ever freak me out...

Just like men used to get traumatised and turned insane when they had sex with other men, or like innocent white ladies being forever traumatised after being defiled by evil black men, or how teenagers who masturbated used to go insane?

It has everything to do with social taboos.

That's total nonsense. It has nothing to do with social taboos. Children are not fully developed yet. You understand scientific concepts? Human biology perhaps? I guess not.

That's total nonsense. It has nothing to do with social taboos. Children are not fully developed yet. You understand scientific concepts? Human biology perhaps? I guess not.

He only listens to the science that supports him, don't try reasoning.

He only listens to the science that supports him, don't try reasoning.
Please troll elsewhere.



Mesatecala, you speak as if there was something inherent in sexuality that is guilt-inducing, traumatising and destructive. Human biology? Development? Pretending a two year old is mentally equal to a ten year old is just silly, and pretending sexuality is nonexistent until puberty is equally laughable. Ignoring the obvious doesn't work anymore.

Same here, or I would start a rebel movement targeting everyone who supports it.

Wow! Great idea! Cos violence solves everything, after all! :rolleyes:

Mesatecala, you speak as if there was something inherent in sexuality that is guilt-inducing, traumatising and destructive. Human biology? Development? Pretending a two year old is mentally equal to a ten year old is just silly, and pretending sexuality is nonexistent until puberty is equally laughable. Ignoring the obvious doesn't work anymore.

You have virtually no concept of the facts. And you don't even know what you are talking about. Human biology and development has all to do with this. The idea that sexuality exists in children before puberty is a crock of shit and it has been proven as such. You essentially sound like you yourself have something to hide.

No. Children just aren't developed fully. It has nothing to do with social taboos.


I am of course referring to people who are past puberty.

I am of course referring to people who are past puberty.

Yep, that's why I'm for age of consent at 16 or 18.

You have virtually no concept of the facts. And you don't even know what you are talking about. Human biology and development has all to do with this. The idea that sexuality exists in children before puberty is a crock of shit and it has been proven as such. You essentially sound like you yourself have something to hide.
Uh, what? There is overwhelming research that makes it absolutely obvious that child sexuality exists; it's practically one of the fundamental pillars of developmental psychology. Your views only serve to indicate you have no knowledge of the issues involved, or of much of psychology, not to mention it doesn't sound like you have much experience in dealing with children. What's with throwing accusations around? I'd prefer to have a serious argument here, not an emotional flame war; surely you would agree.

To be blunt, why do you want to have sex with little boys, Not4chan? What is so important about it to you?

Yep, that's why I'm for age of consent at 16 or 18.


I think 16 is entirely reasonable for sex, 18 for legal matters like voting, contracts &c.

Uh, what? There is overwhelming research that makes it absolutely obvious that child sexuality exists; it's practically one of the fundamental pillars of developmental psychology. Your views only serve to indicate you have no knowledge of the issues involved, or of much of psychology, not to mention it doesn't sound like you have much experience in dealing with children. What's with throwing accusations around? I'd prefer to have a serious argument here, not an emotional flame war; surely you would agree.

No there isn't. In fact the overwhelming amount of research backs my opinion up. That children are not fully developed before puberty. You can't even be bothered in citing anything. You don't even know what you are saying, even when all the scientific evidence refutes your opinion. I don't have much dealing with children? Do you know me?

To be blunt, why do you want to have sex with little boys, Not4chan? What is so important about it to you?

I don't want to have sex with little boys. I'm not sure when this has been implied, but it isn't accurate; and, in any case, it is irrelevant. Child sexuality is, in modern society, the object of an immense amount of anxiety and paranoia; it is as unhealthy for the average joe to cringe at the very mention of pedophilia as it is for the child to have their sexual urges repressed and linked to guilt. We've dealt away with the stigma of pleasure and orgasm which religion gave us centuries ago; we've dealt away with the stigma on masturbation and lust that the victorian ideals of innocense left us with; we've dealt away with, to a good degree, the stigma on interracial and homosexual relations. And now we're hung up on child sexuality; pedophiles are caracterized as "monsters", "predators" and sub-human "animals" that deserve no rights.

Or are people not rather quick to forfeit fundamental human rights when it comes to pedophiles? Look at the state of the laws in the United States and the UK. Lifelong tracking and registries, effectually giving perpetual sentences; the ever-present threat of a mob coming to your house to lynch you, stone you, tear your house apart and kill you; publication of hundreds of names and facial pictures of alleged pedophiles in newspapers for the purpose of selling more copies, destroying the lives of people; aversion therapy, for god's sake! How can this be admissible in a civilized society?

And now we're hung up on child sexuality; pedophiles are caracterized as "monsters", "predators" and sub-human "animals" that deserve no rights.

Dude you are a full of it. I hate being compared to pedophiles. I am a gay male. I have a relationship with another an adult who can consent. A child cannot consent because he/she is not fully physically and emotionally developed. That's supported by solid scientific fact. Your child sexuality nonsnse is just so you can excuse rape.

And pedophiles should be tracked and put under strict rules if they are ever released. I however think they should be sentenced to life.

Selectively picked a post to prove point.

Education, should only be given so that they can survive? I think it is more than that.
And education is rarely, if ever "objective."
And as I and many philosophers before me have stated, granting the "freedom of choice" to someone can be an horrific situation. This may be part of our nature, but certainly does not need to be pointed out to those who could not handle it.
Hmm it's a shame that this thread has degraded into name calling and personal attacks......

Saying I'm a bad father (fuck you), saying everyone is a sicko or prevert, doesn't do anything to express yourself (other than your ignorance), so please cut it out.

Rules do need to be clear, with motivations and reasoning, not "because I told you so". Education is meant to equip poeple with the tools to survive and thrive, to tell right from wrong, what else could it be for? If you think your children can't handle it then keep hiding behind your vague notions of morality.

Why shouldn't you hurt other people? If you can't give your kid a clear and understandable answer for that answer then reallly tie your tubes.....


More disclaimers:
1)don't diss science simpliy because it doesn't agree with you, science isn't perfect (drug company experiments come to mind), it is based on objective skepitism and experiments.
Experiments use 2 or more groups, one not exposed to the independent varible (the control) and one that is. If a difference is detected it is attributed to the influence of the independent varible.

2) I never meant to group homosexuals or "oral sexers" in the same catagory, only to draw comparisions between the two pheomons. In the 80's when AIDS first come to light gays were considered deviant freaks that corrupted innocent straight men. We now know that it is not the case, but back then many would insist a real man would never consent to such behaviors. Much like what we see now.
All times and eras need a moral scapegoat. That was my point.

3) For everyone that was hurt in the past I am truly sorry for what happened to you, but what happened to you was bad because it did not involve your consent. Whoever did that to you should be punished in the harshest ways, but please don't misunderstand the intend of this author. RAPE is rape no matter what age.

Child sexuality is, in modern society, the object of an immense amount of anxiety and paranoia; it is as unhealthy for the average joe to cringe at the very mention of pedophilia as it is for the child to have their sexual urges repressed and linked to guilt.

Your problem is you are qualifying pedophilia under "child sexuality." That's like calling a US invasion of Iraq as "Iraqi politics."

And now we're hung up on child sexuality; pedophiles are caracterized as "monsters", "predators" and sub-human "animals" that deserve no rights.

Pedophilia =/= child sexuality. It is the sexuality of older males (predominately) forced on children.

How can this be admissible in a civilized society?

I agree, but not with what you were referring to, but what you are advocating. Call me "hung up" if you wish; maybe we can see you calling anyone who takes a firm stance against rape to be "hung up" on "female sexuality."

Call me "hung up" if you wish; maybe we can see you calling anyone who takes a firm stance against rape to be "hung up" on "female sexuality."
Rape is defined as a violation of a person's body, against their wishes, without their consent. Nonconsentual sexual activity is a Really Bad Thing(c). It has nothing to do with child sexual activity. The issue is consent, not age. Laws on age of consent are based on archaic principles that treat children as automatons, not persons capable of decision and self-determination; they are ridiculous. Any child sexual abuse can be dealt with using rape laws; yes: laws to deal with non-consentual sex.

No there isn't. In fact the overwhelming amount of research backs my opinion up. That children are not fully developed before puberty. You can't even be bothered in citing anything. You don't even know what you are saying, even when all the scientific evidence refutes your opinion. I don't have much dealing with children? Do you know me?

Have you ever read anything by, I don't know... Freud? Eric Berne? Ernest Becker? Have you ever heard of Alfred Kinsey's studies on sexology? Or, for that matter, anything about sexology? Anything about modern psychology? How does the fact that children are not fully developed even begin to relate to whether there is child sexuality?

Denying child sexuality is akin to promoting geocentrism; perhaps worse.

Have you ever read anything by, I don't know... Freud? Eric Berne? Ernest Becker? Have you ever heard of Alfred Kinsey's studies on sexology? Or, for that matter, anything about sexology? Anything about modern psychology? How does the fact that children are not fully developed even begin to relate to whether there is child sexuality?

Denying child sexuality is akin to promoting geocentrism; perhaps worse.

You keep talking yet you never bother citing. A lot of recent studies show that children simply cannot consent to an adult. It seems you know little in this regard.. also never cite Freud. He's been refuted a hundred times over.

You don't know what you are talking about, simply put.

Hmm it's a shame that this thread has degraded into name calling and personal attacks......

Saying I'm a bad father (fuck you), saying everyone is a sicko or prevert, doesn't do anything to express yourself (other than your ignorance), so please cut it out.

Rules do need to be clear, with motivations and reasoning, not "because I told you so". Education is meant to equip poeple with the tools to survive and thrive, to tell right from wrong, what else could it be for? If you think your children can't handle it then keep hiding behind your vague notions of morality.

Why shouldn't you hurt other people? If you can't give your kid a clear and understandable answer for that answer then reallly tie your tubes.....


More disclaimers:
1)don't diss science simpliy because it doesn't agree with you, science isn't perfect (drug company experiments come to mind), it is based on objective skepitism and experiments.
Experiments use 2 or more groups, one not exposed to the independent varible (the control) and one that is. If a difference is detected it is attributed to the influence of the independent varible.

2) I never meant to group homosexuals or "oral sexers" in the same catagory, only to draw comparisions between the two pheomons. In the 80's when AIDS first come to light gays were considered deviant freaks that corrupted innocent straight men. We now know that it is not the case, but back then many would insist a real man would never consent to such behaviors. Much like what we see now.
All times and eras need a moral scapegoat. That was my point.

3) For everyone that was hurt in the past I am truly sorry for what happened to you, but what happened to you was bad because it did not involve your consent. Whoever did that to you should be punished in the harshest ways, but please don't misunderstand the intend of this author. RAPE is rape no matter what age.

What does it mean to "survive and thrive" in todays society? For a child it is having the most friends, being liked by everyone, or as Disney would say "fitting in."

If a child can't handle it then why should you force them to be free, to come up with their own morality?

Do you have a concrete explanation for why we shouldn't hurt people? What does that mean. You're saying you've figured it all out?

Science, as I've said before is merely a philisophical tool. It has no moral basis besides "the truth" and cannot explain why it strives for this. The scientist needs to turn the disecting scapal on himself before he declares he has found "objective truth."

And I majored in chemistry, and I am well read in philosophy. I know what I'm talking about.

If we need a scapegoat, why are you so fed up right now?

You keep talking yet you never bother citing. A lot of recent studies show that children simply cannot consent to an adult. It seems you know little in this regard.. also never cite Freud. He's been refuted a hundred times over.

You don't know what you are talking about, simply put.

Not to mention Freud was a coke addict for a good portion of his life.

You keep talking yet you never bother citing. A lot of recent studies show that children simply cannot consent to an adult. It seems you know little in this regard.. also never cite Freud. He's been refuted a hundred times over.

You don't know what you are talking about, simply put.

The "Freud is false" attack is rather old and trite; anyone with half a clue knows a lot of his work is heavily disputed. I'm obviously not going to cite large texts into this forum; what would it accomplish? If you want studies, start on Rind et al. and work your way on from there.

The "Freud is false" attack is rather old and trite; anyone with half a clue knows a lot of his work is heavily disputed. I'm obviously not going to cite large texts into this forum; what would it accomplish? If you want studies, start on Rind et al. and work your way on from there.

You obviously won't cite anything as you have nothing.

You have virtually no concept of the facts. And you don't even know what you are talking about. Human biology and development has all to do with this. The idea that sexuality exists in children before puberty is a crock of shit and it has been proven as such. You essentially sound like you yourself have something to hide.

I'm relatively young myself. 17, actually. I remember very clearly to pre-puberty. Sexuality does exist... but not in the form that exists when you're older and more mature. Anyone could've talked me into having sex when I was 11... that's not consent... that's vulnerability taken advantage of.

I'm relatively young myself. 17, actually. I remember very clearly to pre-puberty. Sexuality does exist... but not in the form that exists when you're older and more mature. Anyone could've talked me into having sex when I was 11... that's not consent... that's vulnerability taken advantage of.

Well ok, maybe it does to some extent, but how does that make on able to consent? It doesn't.

You obviously won't cite anything as you have nothing.

Uhm, look back into the thread; I have referred to works before. Not to mention the authors I referred in the last post.

If your intent is to troll, though, I commend you.

Uhm, look back into the thread; I have referred to works before. Not to mention the authors I referred in the last post.

If your intent is to troll, though, I commend you.

You have not complied with scientific facts.

You have not complied with scientific facts.

For God's sake, how many times do I have to say it? Rind et al. (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm) Rind et al. (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm) Rind et al. (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm) Start there. Look at the references in it. Read the actual facts. Read.

For God's sake, how many times do I have to say it? Rind et al. (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm) Rind et al. (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm) Rind et al. (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm) Start there. Look at the references in it. Read the actual facts. Read.

You have to read the actual facts. I don't buy into someone saying that children can consent in having sex with adults. That's plain sick and the scientific facts refute yor position.

Well ok, maybe it does to some extent, but how does that make on able to consent? It doesn't.

You're right... it's not consent... It's giving in. Like I said before, you could've convinced me to do anything when I was 11. hardly consent. It would be taking advantage of me.

You have to read the actual facts. I don't buy into someone saying that children can consent in having sex with adults. That's plain sick and the scientific facts refute yor position.
So only statements that agree with your position are actual, scientific facts, and everything else is plain sick and a lie?

Yeah, okay. Goodbye.

So only statements that agree with your position are actual, scientific facts, and everything else is plain sick and a lie?

Yeah, okay. Goodbye.

Actually in your view, only things that agree with you are the truth, even though those things have been refuted a hundred times over. In essence, stop defending child rape.

Children cannot in the same way as one can normally expect of adults judge the possible consequences of sexual intercourse, like sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, etc. Partially because they in general are less informed about these subjects, but also because children are much more easily influenced by their seniors. They trust them more easily as sources of authority ("he's a grown-up, so he must know better than me,") and are much more easily intimidated as they are physically smaller than adults and are more suspectible to bluff threats.

For girls, getting pregnant at an early age presents a dire health risk if the pregnancy is carried through, as their hips are not yet developed to deal with childbirth. The result is a much greater chance of permanent crippling or death. This is the case in countries where girls are married away aged twelve or thirteen. An abortion is traumatic enough to most adult women, and would be more so to a child.

Simply put, children do not have the mental or physical supposition to act as responsible as one can expect of adults. This is why they cannot be punished for criminal offences the same way as adults are, are not able to own credit cards, cars, etc, and cannot consent to sexual intercourse with an adult on an equal standing.

Rape is defined as a violation of a person's body, against their wishes, without their consent. Nonconsentual sexual activity is a Really Bad Thing(c). It has nothing to do with child sexual activity. The issue is consent, not age.

Yes, and children are not legally, and in mine (and it seems many others here) opinion not any other way either, capable of giving consent to having sex. Therefore pedophilia is a form of rape. What you would call "consent" I would call child abuse and rape.

Good closing statement, again can this thing die?

Yes, and children are not legally, and in mine (and it seems many others here) opinion not any other way either, capable of giving consent to having sex. Therefore pedophilia is a form of rape. What you would call "consent" I would call child abuse and rape.

It is considered "statutory rape".

What does it mean to "survive and thrive" in todays society? For a child it is having the most friends, being liked by everyone, or as Disney would say "fitting in."

If a child can't handle it then why should you force them to be free, to come up with their own morality?

Do you have a concrete explanation for why we shouldn't hurt people? What does that mean. You're saying you've figured it all out?

Science, as I've said before is merely a philisophical tool. It has no moral basis besides "the truth" and cannot explain why it strives for this. The scientist needs to turn the disecting scapal on himself before he declares he has found "objective truth."

And I majored in chemistry, and I am well read in philosophy. I know what I'm talking about.

If we need a scapegoat, why are you so fed up right now?
Most would define being successful in life as being happy with what they have done in life. I'm not as versitile as you, I'm only in med school atm, but I think everyone has their own idea of what it means to be successful.

Maybe I am old fashioned and/or down-to-earth but I think you could explain why not to hurt others without over-philosiphying or getting into wordplay and syntax. Or are you like this all the time? But for your information I have figured it all out, I would explain it to you as if you were a child but I don't really see the point since you will only over-dramatisize it, and try to steer the debate into another direction.

I never said that there absolutly needs to be a scapegoat, I said there always is one. I don't like having scapegoats, they are a byproduct of trying solve complex issues in a simple way (anyone remember the Jews pre-WW2?).

Just because you have a BA in philoshophy doesn't mean much to be honest, just because I am training to be a doctor (in psychiatry no less) I don't proclaim to know everything about behavior. Such a childish display of educational "status" is very un-becoming. If anything you are putting it to poor use. If science is a tool it should be as valid as your circular logic.

On the other hand, by you agreeing that a scapegoat is needed in every society you agree that while pediphiles may be wrongfully accused that it is a nessicary evil? You're talking yourself into circles.

Actually in your view, only things that agree with you are the truth, even though those things have been refuted a hundred times over. In essence, stop defending child rape.

Actually you guys are just arguing over science. Science has limited evidence and has not seen all there is to offer. So you're both arguing over nothing. How about learning from personal experience? Here's some personal experience... It's sick, it's wrong, it's perverted, and it hurts people... and to allow people who are mentally ill and want to touch little kids to keep doing it... you are only putting fuel on the fire. You're only making their mental illness worse. And when you allow them to do it to children, you're making the children mentally ill.. and most of those kids grow up and do it to other kids. It doesn't matter what science says... look how often science is wrong. Psychology and science are just collective theories based on limited unseen evidence... science and psychology gets people killed and destroys their lives every damned day. You ever notice that the more people search for "truth" through science, the worse things get morally... and the more arguing and disputing and mud-slinging there is?

Yes, and children are not legally, and in mine (and it seems many others here) opinion not any other way either, capable of giving consent to having sex. Therefore pedophilia is a form of rape. What you would call "consent" I would call child abuse and rape.

Amen, not to mention... being able to say yes or no does not make you able to consent.

Actually you guys are just arguing over science. Science has limited evidence and has not seen all there is to offer. So you're both arguing over nothing. How about learning from personal experience? Here's some personal experience... It's sick, it's wrong, it's perverted, and it hurts people... and to allow people who are mentally ill and want to touch little kids to keep doing it... you are only putting fuel on the fire. You're only making their mental illness worse. And when you allow them to do it to children, you're making the children mentally ill.. and most of those kids grow up and do it to other kids. It doesn't matter what science says... look how often science is wrong. Psychology and science are just collective theories based on limited unseen evidence... science and psychology gets people killed and destroys their lives every damned day. You ever notice that the more people search for "truth" through science, the worse things get morally... and the more arguing and disputing and mud-slinging there is?

Uh, I appreciate science and feel it has a lot of truth,and I feel the more investigating we do the better things will get. We need to keep an eye on people who misuse science.

If you wish to remain blind to so many things that are plainly in front of you, it is a shame indeed. But, granted, this discussion isn't going anywhere anymore, and it has gone on for long enough. I look forward to more productive discussion in the future, as the trolls and sheep will allow.

If you wish to remain blind to so many things that are plainly in front of you, it is a shame indeed. But, granted, this discussion isn't going anywhere anymore, and it has gone on for long enough. I look forward to more productive discussion in the future, as the trolls and sheep will allow.

I'm not the on being blind in the sight of scientific evidence and truth. You are a troll.

If you wish to remain blind to so many things that are plainly in front of you, it is a shame indeed. But, granted, this discussion isn't going anywhere anymore, and it has gone on for long enough. I look forward to more productive discussion in the future, as the trolls and sheep will allow.

I can see what's plainly in front of me. I've been through it, and it obviously did not have an excellent effect on me. It's sad that you'd ignore personal experience because someone who's never been through it thinks differently.

Uh, I appreciate science and feel it has a lot of truth,and I feel the more investigating we do the better things will get. We need to keep an eye on people who misuse science.

Thing is... science only has truth until science steps in once again to say that it's wrong.

I remember all the way back to when I was 2, and my memories of when I was 11 included nothing about sex. Hell, I couldn't even decide what colour was my favorite, or what clothes I wanted to wear. And there are whack-jobs that expect children to make up their mind whether they want to fuck an adult?!

To those pervos who think that raping children is good, do us a favour and remove yourselves from the gene pool, because we're tired of you peeing in the shallow end.

Thing is... science only has truth until science steps in once again to say that it's wrong.

No. There are scientific laws. There are theories that is ever-changing supported by facts, like evolution.

No. There are scientific laws. There are theories that is ever-changing supported by facts, like evolution.

In essence that's what I just said. The thing is, it's ever changing because of new evidence.. and since we haven't seen all of the evidence there is to offer... how can we honestly say that something is fact? that's why it's ever-changing. Heck, a2+b2=c2 is even disputed to not be completely factual... as is 1+1=2. Science has it even worse... because they're just guesses made on limited evidence.

In essence that's what I just said. The thing is, it's ever changing because of new evidence.. and since we haven't seen all of the evidence there is to offer... how can we honestly say that something is fact? that's why it's ever-changing. Heck, a2+b2=c2 is even disputed to not be completely factual... as is 1+1=2. Science has it even worse... because they're just guesses made on limited evidence.

Uh you said science is not factual. I say it is because of scientific law. And what exactly is better then it? Religion? HAhahah... the same religion that tells me i'm going to hell?

Uh you said science is not factual. I say it is because of scientific law. And what exactly is better then it? Religion? HAhahah... the same religion that tells me i'm going to hell?

Eh, if you do, I'll save you a place by the fire. ;)

Eh, if you do, I'll save you a place by the fire. ;)

Uh.. well i happen to be gay... and atheist.

Uh you said science is not factual. I say it is because of scientific law. And what exactly is better then it? Religion? HAhahah... the same religion that tells me i'm going to hell?

Science isn't factual, and never will be. It's like only telling part of the truth... it's still a lie. Science is an ongoing process.. and therefore will NEVER be completely accurate... at one time they thought the world was flat, and that cocaine was a miracle drug. Both, of which happen to be bullshit, and science itself proved them both wrong. I don't understand why you can't get it through yourself... but science itself KNOWS that's it's not and won't ever be completely true. So we can only guess that something is right, not prove it... because we haven't seen all the evidence supporting either side. It's not like every bit of evidence ever is just floating around in our lit books. We find new shit out everyday... Just like science didn't think there was such a thing as anti-matter for the longest time... we now know that that was NOT factual. Just because science says so one day, doesn't make it true the next. You really shouldn't beleive everything your told.

Science isn't factual, and never will be. It's like only telling part of the truth... it's still a lie. Science is an ongoing process.. and therefore will NEVER be completely accurate... at one time they thought the world was flat, and that cocaine was a miracle drug. Both, of which happen to be bullshit, and science itself proved them both wrong. I don't understand why you can't get it through yourself... but science itself KNOWS that's it's not and won't ever be completely true. So we can only guess that something is right, not prove it... because we haven't seen all the evidence supporting either side. It's not like every bit of evidence ever is just floating around in our lit books. We find new shit out everyday... Just like science didn't think there was such a thing as anti-matter for the longest time... we now know that that was NOT factual. Just because science says so one day, doesn't make it true the next. You really shouldn't beleive everything your told.

I don't agree. Science is not a lie and it is based heavily on evidence making accurate statements of the truth. First off, there is scientific law which is established. Quit mixing up law and theory..

In essence that's what I just said. The thing is, it's ever changing because of new evidence.. and since we haven't seen all of the evidence there is to offer... how can we honestly say that something is fact? that's why it's ever-changing. Heck, a2+b2=c2 is even disputed to not be completely factual... as is 1+1=2. Science has it even worse... because they're just guesses made on limited evidence.
Science isn't perfect, it is full of partisan beliefs and biases, and most of all greed. But it is the best tool we have to understand the universe we live in, and we as a race have made great progress.

Science holds alot of promise, and to deny it completly is folly, besides it has little to do with the disscussion at hand.

I don't agree. Science is not a lie and it is based heavily on evidence making accurate statements of the truth. First off, there is scientific law which is established. Quit mixing up law and theory..

Law is theory. Law is just retestable, theory isn't. But even law says that doesn't make law completely accurate... Law has changed, and will continue to change. I'm not confusing anything buddy.

You keep saying that it's based on evidence, but we have not seen all the evidence. You're convicting the suspect of murder just because you saw him in the area at the time leaving the house. We still haven't found the fingerprints, and we don't know if someone else was there with the gun. GET IT?

Uh.. well i happen to be gay... and atheist.

Yeah, well... same here. :)

You keep saying that it's based on evidence, but we have not seen all the evidence. You're convicting the suspect of murder just because you saw him in the area at the time leaving the house. We still haven't found the fingerprints, and we don't know if someone else was there with the gun. GET IT?

You have not seen it because you are just not looking and accepting the evidence. That simple.

You have not seen it because you are just not looking and accepting the evidence. That simple.

I accept the evidence for what it is... but I also accept that there is always MORE evidence.

I could care less what science says about an adult screwing a child . Science could say it was the most natural thing in the world. If I find you screwing a child I will cut off your balls then maybe call the cops . An adult that abuses or has sex with a child is the lowest life form on earth . children have sexuality but its not there to be used an abused by adults . Its not fully formed just like their bodies or their minds. A child Having sexuality IS NOT A FUCKING EXCUSE FOR AN ADULT TO SCREW A CHILD .
Find a study that says its healthy for children to have sexual relations WITH AN ADULT . Cant find one can you ?

I accept the evidence for what it is... but I also accept that there is always MORE evidence.

Some things are more defined then other things. Take evolution and young earth creationism (intelligent design). Creationism obviously does not qualify as factual.

Eh, ok, 11 is pushing it, severely. I think it should be 13 at lowest. If you're 40, and you want to bang an 11 year old girl, that's too bad. Making 13 okay is all we'll do for you. And under 16, it should need to be written consent, just in case it turns into a big mess.

I repeat, 13 at lowest. I'm 16, I know 13 year old girls I'd bang, and I feel rather bad about that. But I degress, any lower than that is just... no. Now, if you're 13, you have a 12 year old partner, and you're both idiots, whatever, go ahead, it's not my problem.

Kudos beer & guns... Kudos, kudos, kudos. :p

Some things are more defined then other things. Take evolution and young earth creationism (intelligent design). Creationism obviously does not qualify as factual.


We're not discussing creationism, now are we? Yes, some things are more defined than others. You and I have both always accepted 1+1=2 to be completely factual... I still find it very hard to discredit... but alot of more credible, intelligent scientists happen to think that axiom is bullshit. Get it? I'm not saying that science is definitely wrong, I'm just saying it can't be defined as complete truth, although it is very dependable. Also, evolution is hardly clearly defined. It is in the sense of microevolution, but not in macroevolution. We have no proof of the latter, really. It's just an educated guess based on very debatable evidence.

I personally do believe in creationism... but that's not fact based, it's faith based. I don't need facts to believe in that. Because it simply stands, that if there is a God, I think he can do whatever he wants, despite the evidence. But I refuse to debate on creationism because I hold it sacred.


gotta go guys, argue with ya later. byebye

I could care less what science says about an adult screwing a child . Science could say it was the most natural thing in the world. If I find you screwing a child I will cut off your balls then maybe call the cops . An adult that abuses or has sex with a child is the lowest life form on earth . children have sexuality but its not there to be used an abused by adults . Its not fully formed just like their bodies or their minds. A child Having sexuality IS NOT A FUCKING EXCUSE FOR AN ADULT TO SCREW A CHILD .
Find a study that says its healthy for children to have sexual relations WITH AN ADULT . Cant find one can you ?

Beautiful! This is the will of those who govern, those who should rule, not some weakling "objective" stance of a lowly scientist.

A scientist is a little man, unfit to govern.

No, my personal belief is if they both understand what sex is, both are sexually mature (postpuberty) and they love each other, its ok. But its hard to determine understanding, so those in the age bracket of 12-16 are allowed to fuck those in their age bracket, those in the age bracket of 17+ are allowed to fuck anyone else in their age bracket.

But Paedophilia means love for children WHO HAVE NOT BEGUN PUBERTY, so they don't understand. So no, screw you you paedophile.

Beautiful! This is the will of those who govern, those who should rule, not some weakling "objective" stance of a lowly scientist.

A scientist is a little man, unfit to govern.

A philosopher is one who can only ask questions and never agree on an answer. Unfit to do...... anything really. Take your BS in philosophy elsewhere because I'm not impressed.

If you think so lowly of science then give up your computer that you are typing on, the air conditioning that you are enjoying, the antibioitics that saved you, I could go on but it with posts like that I see there is really no point with such a willy- nilly conversation.

Yes, some things are more defined than others. You and I have both always accepted 1+1=2 to be completely factual... I still find it very hard to discredit...

There are things in science that are like 1+1=2.

I'm not saying that science is definitely wrong, I'm just saying it can't be defined as complete truth, although it is very dependable. Also, evolution is hardly clearly defined. It is in the sense of microevolution, but not in macroevolution. We have no proof of the latter, really. It's just an educated guess based on very debatable evidence.

I never said it was a total truth. We don't have absolute truths. We only have definite truths. Also evolution is very much backed up. I see that creationists attack it without backing themselves up.

But it is my fault for drifting off towards that debate topic.. that's for another thrad.

Yeah...and with the evidence of the "dumbing down of America" and all of that...it seems like in the US the age should be raised, not lowered, if anything at all.

We stay kids longer now. The last I heard on the news was that sociologists determined you're now not an adult in all realistic senses of the word until you're 27. It's not like back in the day when 12 year olds were expected to raise a family, have a job, etc themselves. Now kids are still living with their parents at 24.

I think back to all the dumb things my friends did when we were 18...it's not like that's some magic number that automatically brings you into adulthood. In many cases, bodies aren't even completely developed at that point. So...11? They may have kids dressing more inappropriately these days, but that doesn't mean they're ready to start thinking about having sex with adults with actual life experience.

because there are cases of children as young as 8 who have fully developed does not mean that child is ready for sex with an adult. or even understands what it going on. full sexual development does not for the majority of children happen till after 12 and for some children is not completed until 15 or 16. and that folks is in the text books and established as fact. just because a child's body is able to deal with sexual intercourse does not mean they are mentally ready for it. physical development is not the benchmark. there is a natural progression to a childs sexual life and any adult sexual intercourse at a young age is an interruption in that natural progression. infants are capable of reflexive sexual responses from birth. male infants are capable of erections, and female infants are capable of vaginal lubrication. should we allow adults to have sex with them? i don't think so. an 11 year old you can achive and erection or vaginal lubricate and may be beginning to explore the sexual world. that does not mean the child is ready for intercourse or to have an adult be that adult 16 or 42 have a physical relationship with them. anyone who assumes that it is, is just looking for self sexual gratification for themselves. the childs well being isn't even taken into consideration. yes does not mean consent.
any adult willing to risk a childs development is a monster and any time an adult talks a child into saying yes, is abuse.

Next thing I know, the same people arguing to lower the age of consent below 16, will be arguing to legalize rape.

Pope hope, I had to go on my own when I was 18. I very well think I'm an adult at that age.

So what...so did I. So do most people. And I know full well my heads on a lot straighter now than it was at 18.

The factors sociologists site for raising the perceived level of adulthood include drastic changes in our educational system and in technology/media exposure. There are many studies demonstrating the lowering of maturity and decision-making skills.

This of course is not true for every individual, as is the case with most sociological findings.

A philosopher is one who can only ask questions and never agree on an answer. Unfit to do...... anything really. Take your BS in philosophy elsewhere because I'm not impressed.

If you think so lowly of science then give up your computer that you are typing on, the air conditioning that you are enjoying, the antibioitics that saved you, I could go on but it with posts like that I see there is really no point with such a willy- nilly conversation.

I was willing to forgive your other post, but now you have to shut the fuck up.

I never said a philosopher should rule WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT!!!!????

And if you ahve a child, if you are a father WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING ON NS!!! Give your child some attention you pompous little shit. Or is converting me to your logic more important than the future of your child? Get your fucking priorities straight.

And I'm not here to impress you, don't forget that.

well i kinda think that mabye the age of consent should be when the kids/teenagers are physically ready for sex so it doesn't harm them say 12-13 or whenever. BUT: they should have an age limit to who people can have sex with, like if someone is 13, they could only have sex with someone who is 17 years or younger.But a 17 year old could have a relationship with someone 21 years old and we should have 18 be the age where you can start having sex with someone of any age, who is older than 18 also. it might be confusing but it lets kids who are able to experiment as they want, but it wont let older people take advantage of them. im not saying an older person always would take advantage of a younger person, but just in case (not everyone is going to be happy with every law...sorry)
But with that said sex without consent is rape and should be illegal in ANY case. and sex of someone who is say 24 and someone who is 14 should be illegal at least until that 14 year old turns 18.
And another thing, i dont know if anyone knows this but the united states has more laws regarding the different kinds of sex you can participate in than ALL of the european countries combined. so enough of this "anal sex is illegal" and "oral sex is a illegal" yea says fuckin who? the curch???? what? :headbang: i thought there was a seperation of church and state in this country. even though the person in power seems to be able to speak with god. yea he needs to go. but still i dont know if i made ANY sense at all but thats just what i think...

I don't think anyone really pays attention to or enforces the oral/anal sex laws...or if they did, our prisons would be jam-packed.

I don't think anyone really pays attention to or enforces the oral/anal sex laws...or if they did, our prisons would be jam-packed.

Sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003. Which is quite ridiculous if you think about it.. they never were really enforced, and they should of never been on the law books at all.

Sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003. Which is quite ridiculous if you think about it.. they never were really enforced, and they should of never been on the law books at all.
Not really true since Oscar Wilde was imprisoned under said law, although that was great britian. Also sodomy was enforced mostly as a punitive manner to gays.

I was willing to forgive your other post, but now you have to shut the fuck up.

I never said a philosopher should rule WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT!!!!????

And if you ahve a child, if you are a father WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING ON NS!!! Give your child some attention you pompous little shit. Or is converting me to your logic more important than the future of your child? Get your fucking priorities straight.

And I'm not here to impress you, don't forget that.You are not allowed to Flame...

I am not going to stand by your multiple bulling on Sinutria...(Congrats you made it to Moderation)

If you cannot debate in a proper way...you do not belong in here.

It makes perfect sense. Not his fault if you're too stupid to understand.

Knock off the insults immediately.

Not really true since Oscar Wilde was imprisoned under said law, although that was great britian. Also sodomy was enforced mostly as a punitive manner to gays.

Notice I said 2003. And I was talking about the United States. These laws may have been on the books, but it is impossible to enforce them.

lockzor this threadazor :mad:

pedophiles are just plain wrong d00d

they like wanna have sex with 8 year olds and shit

I was willing to forgive your other post, but now you have to shut the fuck up.

I never said a philosopher should rule WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT!!!!????

And if you ahve a child, if you are a father WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING ON NS!!! Give your child some attention you pompous little shit. Or is converting me to your logic more important than the future of your child? Get your fucking priorities straight.

And I'm not here to impress you, don't forget that.

You may not be here to impress anyone, but you're going to abide by the rules, whether you like it or not. This is an example of how not to debate. There's absolutely no reason for insults such as the ones that you have posted. I would also suggest that you not capitalize entire sentences. It makes you look like you have a bad temper, which you've let loose in this post by calling someone a 'pompous little shit'. I'm not going to give you an official warning, but let it be known that if there's a next time, I won't be so easy on you. I'd suggest that you check out the rules on the Moderation forum in a thread titled "The One-Stop Rules Shop" and look at the term "flaming". This is what you've done here, so don't do it again.

Hmm it's a shame that this thread has degraded into name calling and personal attacks......

Saying I'm a bad father (fuck you), saying everyone is a sicko or prevert, doesn't do anything to express yourself (other than your ignorance), so please cut it out.


You can knock off the insults as well. There's no reason to say 'f*** you'.