NationStates Jolt Archive

That's alright. If there's one thing both NSG and formal debating has taught me, it's that you're very unlikely to change the opinions of your opponents. I'm normally arguing with my opponents, for the opinions of the audience.

It's the people who aren't involved in the debate, who are just reading and thinking about it, that my posts are looking to convince. A good debate presents the various positions to them, and lets them make up their mind about the best one.

Looking at it like that, I don't care if there's never a response to that post. I've put out my opinions and my position, I've hopefully spoken convincingly in its defense, and I'm looking to win over the minds of the audience, not my fellow debaters. As long as it's a most excellent post, I'm happy.

Edit: I'm not quite happy with how I've put the last paragraph there. Here's another try at it.

I debate here for two reasons. The first is the thrill of the argument, of trading logical and rhetorical points and phrases with other posters. I find that immensely enjoyable, and a good way to sharpen my own ability. From that side of things, it was a wasted post. However, there is a second reason, and that is for the hearts and minds of the audience. Looking at it like that, I think that post has done exactly what I wanted it to. It presented my position, made my case for it, and has hopefully influenced some of the readers here. For that reason, I'm happy with it.
yeah i wish there was some extra "vote on who is winning the debate" option for those times when you just want one of the debaters to know that everyone thinks that they are an idiot.

yeah i wish there was some extra "vote on who is winning the debate" option for those times when you just want one of the debaters to know that everyone thinks that they are an idiot.

That's what we do in formal debates. Take a vote on the proposition beforehand, let the speakers debate, take questions, and then take another vote. The side who has forced the highest swing towards their position wins. That's because the contest isn't as much about the positions, as the debating ability of the two teams.

That's what we do in formal debates. Take a vote on the proposition beforehand, let the speakers debate, take questions, and then take another vote. The side who has forced the highest swing towards their position wins. That's because the contest isn't as much about the positions, as the debating ability of the two teams.
that would be an interesting "on the fly" option. it would be cool if the OP could set it up (once there is an actual debate going on that is good enough to bother to vote on) the way we can put in polls.

Expect a number of hit and runners. Someone decided to go report to Jolt that the discussion wasn't shut down immediately.

o.0

Seriously? Oy vey...

I totally agree with you. Clothes hangars are not attractive and not fun (well, maybe if you're into purging as a hobby).

Now, women that are naturally that thin, and haven't vomited/starved themselves thin are attractive in their own way. Not my type, but not gag inducing.

I still think more research needs to be done to figure out WHY these women are considered cultural ideals when it seems the majority of men find them less desirable than more naturally curvy, full-figured women. It certainly makes sense from a biological/evolutionary standpoint that curvier women would be considered more desirable, since they're more likely to be able to bear healthy children, whereas MOST women with a BMI under 16 cease to menstruate and so are useless in terms of reproduction.

o.0

Seriously? Oy vey...

Seriously.

Jocabia asked if homosexuality was wrong in terms of what I defined as being the biological purpose of life. As I had previously stated that the purpose of life is to reproduce, and homosexuality does not cause reproduction, then biologically speaking, homosexuality is bad.

As I posted in a later post, that in no-way means that I personally find homosexuality wrong, but just that according to that part of the arguement it is.

There is no such thing as 'biologically wrong' so calling something that is meaningless and adds nothing to the argument.

I still think more research needs to be done to figure out WHY these women are considered cultural ideals when it seems the majority of men find them less desirable than more naturally curvy, full-figured women. It certainly makes sense from a biological/evolutionary standpoint that curvier women would be considered more desirable, since they're more likely to be able to bear healthy children, whereas MOST women with a BMI under 16 cease to menstruate and so are useless in terms of reproduction.
its my understanding that VOGUE notwithstanding american men have come to prefer a somewhat larger, curvier body now that the average woman is a larger size than she used to be.

Well. come on... there's a song about big butts, and Hooters? say no more.

I happen to think that, ironically, it's society's insistence on sex as a taboo that can make it so mentally damaging to a young person, but that can't really be changed.

I think this is one of the questions that's at the heart of the discussion, and it's an amazingly difficult and sensitive question to attempt to answer. I've been thinking about it a lot because this thread happened to be created at the same time I started reading a book about bonobos (the animal with which we share the most recent common ancestor, and a fascinating subject). Sex is the foundation of bonobo culture, and that includes sexual activities with very young members of groups, homosexual activities, group sex and incest. I've been contemplating writing a post about this, but I think most people will just "tl;dr".

agreed entirely
you dont become a victim until youre victimized, even for things like rape if it was socially acceptable the vast majority of people wouldnt be traumatized by it (providing it was just rape and didnt involve anything like attempted murder or assault, in which case those would have to be socially acceptable too)

I'm confused here. Are you saying that if society didn't view rape as traumatic, people who were forced into sex against their will wouldn't be traumatized?

I think when it really comes down to it, people here do not have such great difference when it comes down to the pedophilia itself - I think 90% of us agree that is fine for people to be attracted to children, so long as they never do anything. It also seems to be that no-one is advocating having sexual contact with children without consent.

But again, when we talk about children, isn't consent inapplicable? We've legally created the status of "child" specifically because we believe individuals in this category cannot consent.

There is no such thing as 'biologically wrong' so calling something that is meaningless and adds nothing to the argument.

Then re-word it to "Homosexuality decreases the chance for genetic information to be passed on to the next generation, which when you consider this fact in terms of evolution, is detremental to the survival of the species as a whole".

I think this is one of the questions that's at the heart of the discussion, and it's an amazingly difficult and sensitive question to attempt to answer. I've been thinking about it a lot because this thread happened to be created at the same time I started reading a book about bonobos (the animal with which we share the most recent common ancestor, and a fascinating subject). Sex is the foundation of bonobo culture, and that includes sexual activities with very young members of groups, homosexual activities, group sex and incest. I've been contemplating writing a post about this, but I think most people will just "tl;dr".


If you write it, I promise to read the thing. After all, (at least some) people read my 1000 word epic farther up the thread.

Then re-word it to "Homosexuality decreases the chance for genetic information to be passed on to the next generation, which when you consider this fact in terms of evolution, is detremental to the survival of the species as a whole".
since we dont know the factors that go into biological homosexuality you cant say that.

it may be that genetic lines that spawn non breeding members tend to survive better. (as if gay people dont breed, but never mind that part.) in support of that notion is the 40+ years that women survive after their breeding years end--if that didnt have some evolutionary benefit it wouldnt happen.

it may be that the complex genetic/hormomal/whatever mix that generates homosexuality has elements in it that in a different mix contribute greatly to the generation and survival of offspring with non-breeding offspring being a minor drawback.

Then re-word it to "Homosexuality decreases the chance for genetic information to be passed on to the next generation, which when you consider this fact in terms of evolution, is detremental to the survival of the species as a whole".

Right but we've already shown how homosexuality is actually beneficial rather than detrimental. But going back to the original topic, do you view being attracted to young children in itself as actually wrong, or merely the same as with homosexuality (a.k.a detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole etc...)?

I'm confused here. Are you saying that if society didn't view rape as traumatic, people who were forced into sex against their will wouldn't be traumatized?


I think that is the general idea behind the post, that non-violent rape if was considered a social norm would not affect people as it does today. I believe the idea is that most of the damage from being raped comes from the bottling up of emotions to do with being raped rather than harm from the actual rape itself.


But again, when we talk about children, isn't consent inapplicable? We've legally created the status of "child" specifically because we believe individuals in this category cannot consent.

I don't think many (if any) people are advocating sexual contact with children (below 12-13) even with consent, but around the age of 13-16, I think a small percent, me included, feel that with the right education and knowledge people of that age should be allowed to have sexual contact with whom they wish (assuming both parties consent)

yeah. i find that when there is a disagreement on the evils of pedophilia its because of a bad definition on someone's part.

the media and the feds seem to think that any sexual contact with a legal minor is pedophilia. thats just crazy. it is in no way sick to be very attracted to a 17 year old. (unwanted sexual contact and obsessive thoughts not included).

I agree with this to a certain extent. I think it's probably happened to most people at least once that they found a person who appeared to be physically matured attractive, only to discover that the person was much younger than they'd assumed, and I think there's nothing perverted in that.

However, and this is probably mostly do to socialization, once I discover that someone is underage, any attraction I felt before immediately disappears. I have, for instance, noticed a guy before and found him to be very attractive, only to find out later that he was only 15 or 16 (I'm 25), and that killed my attraction.

I think this is the complex area of sexuality where pure biology and hormones intersect with socialization and higher functioning to create "desire", for lack of a better word. My attraction to people (men and women) is predicated on my variables, and one of them is perceived physical age. When I, without other information, perceived the boy to be 19 or 20, I was attracted; when I discovered his actual age was 15 or 16, I was no longer attracted. And not just because it was "wrong" or I suppressed the attraction; I really ceased to feel physically attracted anymore.

People like to argue biology a lot, even I love to argue it, but I think we also have to take into account the fact that we are also highly socially and mentally evolved animals and that our attractions are not purely physical, that they can be altered and shaped by other factors to a high degree.

since we dont know the factors that go into biological homosexuality you cant say that.

it may be that genetic lines that spawn non breeding members tend to survive better. (as if gay people dont breed, but never mind that part.) in support of that notion is the 40+ years that women survive after their breeding years end--if that didnt have some evolutionary benefit it wouldnt happen.

it may be that the complex genetic/hormomal/whatever mix that generates homosexuality has elements in it that in a different mix contribute greatly to the generation and survival of offspring with non-breeding offspring being a minor drawback.

Well, whatever causes homosexuality, if it can be a gene/s, as is currently believed, then that gene won't be past on to offspring. Of course genetics are not the only cause of being homosexual, so it might not be totally accurate.

The long lives we live now are nothing like it was in the past, life expectancy was much lower, by the time your children had reached puberty, you were already on your last legs. You can tell this from looking at the life expectancy of our closet relatives in the wild, and then compariing that to how long they live with medicine and sanitation and free food in zoos. It makes a huge difference.

With reference to Hydesland's point about homosexuality, its quite possible that a low level of homosexuality does help with reproduction, if you live in a family the ability to get on with everyone in the group, including other males is very important, and sexual acts are a very easy and good way of maintaining harmony within the group, and showing power.

I agree with this to a certain extent. I think it's probably happened to most people at least once that they found a person who appeared to be physically matured attractive, only to discover that the person was much younger than they'd assumed, and I think there's nothing perverted in that.

However, and this is probably mostly do to socialization, once I discover that someone is underage, any attraction I felt before immediately disappears. I have, for instance, noticed a guy before and found him to be very attractive, only to find out later that he was only 15 or 16 (I'm 25), and that killed my attraction.

I think this is the complex area of sexuality where pure biology and hormones intersect with socialization and higher functioning to create "desire", for lack of a better word. My attraction to people (men and women) is predicated on my variables, and one of them is perceived physical age. When I, without other information, perceived the boy to be 19 or 20, I was attracted; when I discovered his actual age was 15 or 16, I was no longer attracted. And not just because it was "wrong" or I suppressed the attraction; I really ceased to feel physically attracted anymore.

People like to argue biology a lot, even I love to argue it, but I think we also have to take into account the fact that we are also highly socially and mentally evolved animals and that our attractions are not purely physical, that they can be altered and shaped by other factors to a high degree.
well yes. once you find out that this guy you were hoping to date is really 15 you drop all romantic thoughts with him in it. even if you find yourself still attracted to him, its not SICK its just wrong (supposing that you are over 20).

unwise and illegal are far different from pathological. its SICK to lust after an 8 year old. its WRONG to lust after a 16 year old.

Well, whatever causes homosexuality, if it can be a gene/s, as is currently believed, then that gene won't be past on to offspring. Of course genetics are not the only cause of being homosexual, so it might not be totally accurate.

The long lives we live now are nothing like it was in the past, life expectancy was much lower, by the time your children had reached puberty, you were already on your last legs. You can tell this from looking at the life expectancy of our closet relatives in the wild, and then compariing that to how long they live with medicine and sanitation and free food in zoos. It makes a huge difference.

With reference to Hydesland's point about homosexuality, its quite possible that a low level of homosexuality does help with reproduction, if you live in a family the ability to get on with everyone in the group, including other males is very important, and sexual acts are a very easy and good way of maintaining harmony within the group, and showing power.
it depends on what the gene IS eh? if its a combination of genes then yeah it will be passed on. if its ONE gene that is recessive, it will be passed on.

and since gay people come from straight people for the most part, i think we can safely say that its not a dominant gene thing.

when it comes to 13 year olds being together...well...if they both start out as beginners they wont start at intercourse eh? (maybe some do, poor things) you start slow and work your way up over the course of an actual relationship. by the time you would be ready for some kind of sex you are probably long broken up. thats not manipulation its human nature.

Actually, my ex first had sex when he was 12 (with another 12 year old), which was the first sexual act he'd ever experienced except for kissing a girl once or twice (and in a very innocent, quick-smooch way). And the girl he had sex with, who initiated it, was not a virgin. While I wouldn't use the word "traumatized", he did say that the event was very confusing and somewhat upsetting to him later, because he'd just gone through puberty and while he had the physical urge to have sex, he had no idea how to handle the emotional issues that went along with it--basically he found it overwhelming and difficult to understand. And this was consensual sex with someone the same age, so imagine how much more confusing and overwhelming such a thing would be with a mature adult.

And don't forget, the prefrontal cortex (the part of our brain that manages our decision making) doesn't work correctly in the teen years. It's been shut down for remodeling (a process called "pruning"). So a teen quite literally isn't at the same place as a 25 year old.

Thank you. This has NOT been given enough attention. Educating children about sex at an earlier age could have many benefits, but it would not "speed up" their maturation as I think the OP stated it, because you can't "speed up" the development of the brain. The same is true, I think for love, and the OP's claim that she was "in love" at 5. I thought I was "in love" at 17, and my view of that has changed dramatically as I've matured both mentally and emotionally.

bolding notwithstanding, thinking isnt the same as planning.

if everyone who ever THOUGHT of killing an american got put into jail, we would have to use australia as a holding pen.

*agrees*. We tried that one anyway... it didn't work so well :(

Dammit, you beat me to it.

Especially in prison.

It is interesting, talking about the nature of pedophilia and sociopathy and such, that the vast majority of prison inmates share the general population's revulsion for and rage over the harming of children.

Also, the drive to procreate is a seperate drive than the drive to have sex.

THANK YOU! This is so often misunderstood in discussion about sexuality, because these drives aren't separate in most animals--but they are in humans and a select few other species (bonobos and dolphins come to mind).

There's a point that needs to be made here; gay people do breed. They have children before they come out, or they have surrogate mothers, or surrogate fathers. A pair of lesbians I know have between then, from previous heterosexual marriages, five children; in fact, thinking about the various lesbian couples I know, most of them have children.

Also, I recall (I think it was in New Scientist, a few years ago now) reading about a study that had shown that the sisters of gay men had more children than those without gay brothers, so that a gene or collection of genes that expresses homosexuality in males may lead to increased descendants for females. This would keep (male) homosexuality well within the gene pool; and I'd expect the situation for female homosexuality to be similar, except I don't know if anyone's studied that.

There's also the fact that if homosexuality were entirely unnatural, and led entirely to people not breeding, it would show the same prevalence of other genetic things that lead to people not breeding - like Huntington's Disease - which is to say, very low. It's clearly far more prevalent than that, and as it's been found all through the animal kingdom as well as H. sapiens sapiens, it's clearly doing something.

Unfortunately that prevalence is also the same for pedophilia, which is another kettle of fish. Surely, since pedophiles are attracted to children, who are by definition below reproductive age, they should have bred themselves out of the gene pool by now? Could it be that, like my lesbian friends, pedophiles also often have children? I'd posit that a lot of child rapists predate upon their own children, simply because access to them is a lot easier.

My theory (entirely unsupported by research, mind) is that humans have been selected to find children attractive (in a non-sexual way, mind) in order to ensure that children - which are, after all, noisy, smelly, stupid and incapable of caring for themselves - survive. Since a low level of attraction to children results in people like me, who can't stand the little rugrats and is not intending to spawn any, a high level of attraction to children is selected for. And occasionally you'll get the people who are way off the far end of the bell curve, and who find children sexually attractive.

It's not the sort of thing you can breed out of the population, then, not even with the most stringent of eugenics. Sex with children is automatically rape, since children by definition cannot consent; but the solution has to be social, not biological.

I have no idea what the solution should be, mind you.

There's a point that needs to be made here; gay people do breed. They have children before they come out, or they have surrogate mothers, or surrogate fathers. A pair of lesbians I know have between then, from previous heterosexual marriages, five children; in fact, thinking about the various lesbian couples I know, most of them have children.

A very salient point. And in fact, when we talk about homosexuality in other species, we are quite often talking not about homosexuality, but about homosexual activity--that is, homosexual relationships among animals which are generally either heterosexual or bisexual. Animals that use homosexuality to bond generally engage in both homosexual and heterosexual activity, for either different or similar purposes, so the benefits of homosexuality within a group, if it is indeed genetic, would certainly be passed on.

Could it be that, like my lesbian friends, pedophiles also often have children? I'd posit that a lot of child rapists predate upon their own children, simply because access to them is a lot easier.

From what I remember from articles I've read, this is quite true. Wikipedia says about 30% of molesters are relatives of the abused child, most often fathers.

My theory (entirely unsupported by research, mind) is that humans have been selected to find children attractive (in a non-sexual way, mind) in order to ensure that children - which are, after all, noisy, smelly, stupid and incapable of caring for themselves - survive. Since a low level of attraction to children results in people like me, who can't stand the little rugrats and is not intending to spawn any, a high level of attraction to children is selected for. And occasionally you'll get the people who are way off the far end of the bell curve, and who find children sexually attractive.

It's not the sort of thing you can breed out of the population, then, not even with the most stringent of eugenics. Sex with children is automatically rape, since children by definition cannot consent; but the solution has to be social, not biological.

I have no idea what the solution should be, mind you.

i like that theory. its the natural love of children gone haywire.

So your distinction is not just ethical, but legal?

If a person is attracted to fifteen-year-olds in a state where the age of consent is fourteen, and then the government raises it to sixteen, does that person suddenly become disturbed when he or she was not before? What about the reverse? If the government abolished ages of consent, would pedophiles cease to be disturbed?

I suggest that a term like "unethical" or "unacceptable" would be more appropriate here.



I'm not asking for what most people think, I'm asking for a standard.


Ok, since you two are bickering so much, I'm going to bring a new element to this. I currently love my female french teacher. I'm male, there is a 17 year age difference. If I love her, and she loved me, would it be wrong if I dated her and entered into a sexual relationship with her? And is she disturbed for loving someone for the RIGHT REASONS?! :mad::mad::mad:. No, quite simply, because we both have emotions for each other, and what form, shape, and level those manifest in, it does not matter. Now, if she was molesting me or something after-school, I'd see that as something wrong, and she'd be disturbed to me. And if said attraction is unethical for her, because I'm her student, why am I the victim, when I was as guilty as her in the actions we hypothetically did TOGETHER. If I, as a student, as a victim, and her as a teacher, is an offender, it makes no sense. I would need to be held to the same account as her, because, one party cannot be in a breach of ethical conduct, if the other is not. Except in situations where the "victim" has no conscious will or ability to decide if they want the 'offender' to do something to them. I could and can. Quite simple of you think about it.



Also, your friends deserve all manner of persecution they've gotten in school/work/home/online because, quite simply, they revealed shocking
fact(s) about themselves that people are NOT open to hearing.

Oh and if children are indeed prodigies, akin to the level a very early poster said, then they are imho, old enough to consent if they are of the mindset to do college level academic work, but this would only be supported as my opinion if they are also aware of all aspects of sex, sex ed, and prevention of unwanted pregnancies, plus STIs and STDs.

Ok, since you two are bickering so much, I'm going to bring a new element to this. I currently love my female french teacher. I'm male, there is a 17 year age difference. If I love her, and she loved me, would it be wrong if I dated her and entered into a sexual relationship with her? And is she disturbed for loving someone for the RIGHT REASONS?! :mad::mad::mad:. No, quite simply, because we both have emotions for each other, and what form, shape, and level those manifest in, it does not matter. Now, if she was molesting me or something after-school, I'd see that as something wrong, and she'd be disturbed to me. And if said attraction is unethical for her, because I'm her student, why am I the victim, when I was as guilty as her in the actions we hypothetically did TOGETHER. If I, as a student, as a victim, and her as a teacher, is an offender, it makes no sense. I would need to be held to the same account as her, because, one party cannot be in a breach of ethical conduct, if the other is not. Except in situations where the "victim" has no conscious will or ability to decide if they want the 'offender' to do something to them. I could and can. Quite simple of you think about it.



Also, your friends deserve all manner of persecution they've gotten in school/work/home/online because, quite simply, they revealed shocking
fact(s) about themselves that people are NOT open to hearing.
of course one person can be in breach of ethics when the other isnt.

as the person in authority, as the responsible adult it is HER burden to put off any romantic relationship with you until you are of legal age and out of her school. if its "twoo wuv" it will wait until there is no ethical problem.

she would not, however, be SICK for being attracted to you. she would be wrong for acting on it at this point though.

And if said attraction is unethical for her, because I'm her student, why am I the victim, when I was as guilty as her in the actions we hypothetically did TOGETHER.

This is the real crux of the issue--it isn't a matter of statutory rape in my mind so much as an issue of ethics and positions of authority. It's the same principle that does not allow sexual relationships between managers and their employees--when one person has authority over another in such a situation it produces an unequal balance of power which is only made more pronounced by the difference in ages.

Add to that the fact that, at 17, your brain has not finished developing yet, especially in the area that controls executive functioning (decision-making, risk analysis, planning, etc.) and hers has, and the balance becomes even more skewed.

Oh and if children are indeed prodigies, akin to the level a very early poster said, then they are imho, old enough to consent if they are of the mindset to do college level academic work, but this would only be supported as my opinion if they are also aware of all aspects of sex, sex ed, and prevention of unwanted pregnancies, plus STIs and STDs.

The problem with that reasoning is that you assume that different parts of the brain develop at the same rate, which they don't. The concrete mathematic and language skills that an unusually talented child might possess develop in a different way and on a different timeline than other abilities, like the executive functioning I mentioned above. I'm sure that child prodigies could learn all about sex ed, STIs and pregnancy prevention and understand it with perfect clarity, but they do not--CAN not--understand the complex social and emotional ramifications of a sexual relationship.

In fact, one of the biggest reasons that parents hesitate to accelerate gifted children through their schooling is the fear that they do not have the tools to deal with the aspects of high school or college that are not purely academic--the social aspects, the pressure, the navigation of a basically adult life.

Firstly, I'd like to apologize to Rubgish. It seems I did offend you with my wild accusations. Indeed, all the posts I made around that time seem to me now on the assoholic side of "joking."

I'd also like to apologize to Katganistan. I was being a dick. Henceforth I'll just treat all your posts as Modly decree and try to abide by them.

So this doesn't happen again I have decided not to post when I've had even one drink. I do enjoy posting when alcohol has lowered my standards of what's postworthy. It will probably be hard to read the forum without replying, but I can always write up answers and review them with a sober eye before posting them the next day.

Henceforth, I will post with my sober account: BunnySaurus Bugsii. BSB has never posted drunk and never will. (I know, it doesn't sound like the name of a sober poster, but names don't mean much.)

The Hobos is dead. Long live the Bunny!

Also, your friends deserve all manner of persecution they've gotten in school/work/home/online because, quite simply, they revealed shocking fact(s) about themselves that people are NOT open to hearing.

I have to disagree with this bit. You're stating that these people deserve abuse because people don't want to hear about them. I would say that things like this need to be discussed (indeed, I'm fairly gratified to see the discussion in this thread mostly civil and thoughtful) if we want to solve these problems. We may not like what we hear, but pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve anything.

im sorry i didnt see your question to me until after you were already "on vacation".

not that it would have kept you here, this is a particularly hard to deal with topic.

I am pleased to say that, to the best of my knowledge, I have NO friends who are active paedophiles.

I have to disagree with this bit. You're stating that these people deserve abuse because people don't want to hear about them. I would say that things like this need to be discussed (indeed, I'm fairly gratified to see the discussion in this thread mostly civil and thoughtful) if we want to solve these problems. We may not like what we hear, but pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve anything.

It bothered me at first because of the implication that Avriia's friends had discussed their fantasies with someone under the age of consent (ie her in years past.)

I still feel a bit awkward about a 23 yo discussing such fantasies with a 16 yo. But it's not illegal since 16 is the age of consent where she lives.

The point I'm making here is that "discussing" the explicit fantasies would be on the "doing" side of the line if she were underage. As far as I know, the law sees it that way too.

It bothered me at first because of the implication that Avriia's friends had discussed their fantasies with someone under the age of consent (ie her in years past.)

I still feel a bit awkward about a 23 yo discussing such fantasies with a 16 yo. But it's not illegal since 16 is the age of consent where she lives.

The point I'm making here is that "discussing" the explicit fantasies would be on the "doing" side of the line if she were underage. As far as I know, the law sees it that way too.
thats a good point.

It bothered me at first because of the implication that Avriia's friends had discussed their fantasies with someone under the age of consent (ie her in years past.)

I still feel a bit awkward about a 23 yo discussing such fantasies with a 16 yo. But it's not illegal since 16 is the age of consent where she lives.

The point I'm making here is that "discussing" the explicit fantasies would be on the "doing" side of the line if she were underage. As far as I know, the law sees it that way too.

Ah. I was operating on the assumption that Noble Law Offices meant "discussion" as in "discussing things as a society", as he said "your friends deserve all manner of persecution ... because, quite simply, they revealed shocking fact(s) about themselves that people are NOT open to hearing." This implies that the problem is they're saying things their persecutors don't want to hear; and I think that as a general rule of thumb that's a very bad one. Persecutors should be made to hear things; if you're going to persecute someone, even with the best of intentions, you need to own up to the fact and not try to squash any discussion of it.

The situation as you're describing it is a different kettle of fish, of course; a pedophile discussing their fantasies with a child (whom they presumably are attracted to?) is clearly unacceptable.

if everyone who ever THOUGHT of killing an american got put into jail, we would have to use australia as a holding pen.

So go back to using Australia for it's original purpose as a British colony?

Ah. I was operating on the assumption that Noble Law Offices meant "discussion" as in "discussing things as a society", as he said "your friends deserve all manner of persecution ... because, quite simply, they revealed shocking fact(s) about themselves that people are NOT open to hearing." This implies that the problem is they're saying things their persecutors don't want to hear; and I think that as a general rule of thumb that's a very bad one. Persecutors should be made to hear things; if you're going to persecute someone, even with the best of intentions, you need to own up to the fact and not try to squash any discussion of it.

Absolutely! Even when the law is on-side (ie it's "prosecution" not "persecution") everybody deserves a fair hearing.

So go back to using Australia for it's original purpose as a British colony?

We used the US for the same thing. We should start making more jokes about that I think.

So go back to using Australia for it's original purpose as a British colony?

The Brits didn't really want it you know. ;)

They just didn't want the Dutch or the French to get it.

So go back to using Australia for it's original purpose as a British colony?
they dont hardly use that dry middle part anyway.

We used the US for the same thing. We should start making more jokes about that I think.

Go for it.




I have family in Georgia.

[QUOTE=Ryadn;13909597]

Add to that the fact that, at 17, your brain has not finished developing yet, especially in the area that controls executive functioning (decision-making, risk analysis, planning, etc.) and hers has, and the balance becomes even more skewed.

[QUOTE=Ryadn;13909597]




I never said I was 17, I said a '17 year age difference' not "i'm 17 and there's an age difference'. Also, you are assuming things. You cannot tell how far my brain has progressed because, you've run no mental analysis, something akin or in actuality is an IQ test, would sum up the matter nicely I believe. Also, A poster after you said that I was saying they should be persecuted because they "said something no one wants to hear" I did not intend the message to be taken THIS way. I meant, that if they harbor such perverse desires and openly express them:


1. You must evaluate the society in which you intend to reveal your "perversions". If, for example, they revealed them in any Western society with any semblance to 'normality' at all, they would be ostracized.

2. How it is NOT acceptable in the mainstream to tell people about your sexual preferences or fantasies unless they would help or serve to illustrate a point, or were the focus of a support-group meeting or some such thing.




In conclusion, by this I MEANT that they should be persecuted for telling others about something which, unless they've got mental problems/issues, they shouldn't tell society those kinds of things, nay, should by rule of common sense see what they'd be revealing, and not reveal said desires. And I'd say fantasizing is acceptable, because no one is being harmed, no physical action nor any of any kind is allowed in societies, so they should be in the mind to not do said revealing.



and to Ryadn. I'm under 17.:eek: is probably what you all are thinking. I've started a thread on this under "klavier gavin", check it out, it is called:


Student Teacher Relationships. In Serious Discussions.


Link:


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=559470


Also, if minds do not developed equally in the same amount of time, then surely certain trains of thought and mental excersises and such? If not, then I must try it. Next, I'd like to think I am good at the areas you mentioned specifically.

I've got a lot of replies I want to make, but I'll start with posters who are actually around just now.

Rhyno, you posted this right after an omnibus reply by Avriia:

Stop talking about 4chan and start responding to my posts. Good grammar included.

Did you mean this post:

I'm not talking about fetish sex, I'm talking about plain, missionary position, male and female sexual intercourse. *snip*

Or this earlier one?

If other posters, like myself, have the courtesy to proof-read our ideas so that when they are presented to you they are *snip*

In any case, the chances of Avriia replying a week later seem minimal, given how much material there is in this thread. Quite a bit directed to the OP, too.

I'm happy to discuss either post with you. They're pretty good ... though I am not the poster they were directed to.

I have to disagree with this bit. You're stating that these people deserve abuse because people don't want to hear about them. I would say that things like this need to be discussed (indeed, I'm fairly gratified to see the discussion in this thread mostly civil and thoughtful) if we want to solve these problems. We may not like what we hear, but pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve anything.



I just meant persecution for SEXUAL things, I mean like underage girl fantasies. Not them having them, but people doing it about them, unless they are near/in the same age group. It just pisses me off, that these people are allowed to walk free when they stand a big chance of raping, hurting, or molesting someone through these fantasies.

Add to that the fact that, at 17, your brain has not finished developing yet, especially in the area that controls executive functioning (decision-making, risk analysis, planning, etc.) and hers has, and the balance becomes even more skewed.


I never said I was 17, I said a '17 year age difference' not "i'm 17 and there's an age difference'. Also, you are assuming things. You cannot tell how far my brain has progressed because, you've run no mental analysis, something akin or in actuality is an IQ test, would sum up the matter nicely I believe. Also, A poster after you said that I was saying they should be persecuted because they "said something no one wants to hear" I did not intend the message to be taken THIS way. I meant, that if they harbor such perverse desires and openly express them:

1. You must evaluate the society in which you intend to reveal your "perversions". If, for example, they revealed them in any Western society with any semblance to 'normality' at all, they would be ostracized.

2. How it is NOT acceptable in the mainstream to tell people about your sexual preferences or fantasies unless they would help or serve to illustrate a point, or were the focus of a support-group meeting or some such thing.

In conclusion, by this I MEANT that they should be persecuted for telling others about something which, unless they've got mental problems/issues, they shouldn't tell society those kinds of things, nay, should by rule of common sense see what they'd be revealing, and not reveal said desires. And I'd say fantasizing is acceptable, because no one is being harmed, no physical action nor any of any kind is allowed in societies, so they should be in the mind to not do said revealing.

and to Ryadn. I'm under 17.:eek: is probably what you all are thinking. I've started a thread on this under "klavier gavin", check it out, it is called:

Student Teacher Relationships. In Serious Discussions.

Link:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=559470

if youre old enough for an adult relationship you are old enough to know that you need to leave this woman alone since a relationship with you would ruin her whole life.

I've started a thread on this under "klavier gavin", check it out, it is called:


Student Teacher Relationships. In Serious Discussions.


Link:


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=559470

I don't think linking elsewhere on Jolt is a very good idea. We should stay in the sandpit, lest we annoy Jolt at large.

But that's just my opinion, I'm no Mod. I won't be posting over there is all I'm saying.

I just meant persecution for SEXUAL things, I mean like underage girl fantasies. Not them having them, but people doing it about them, unless they are near/in the same age group. It just pisses me off, that these people are allowed to walk free when they stand a big chance of raping, hurting, or molesting someone through these fantasies.

If they can keep the fantasies to themselves (ie not entertain the underage with them) then surely they can keep the hands/organs to themselves?

Maybe. Idk. I could, but I'm no person with a thing for children or underage girls. I like older women and my teacher. Thats all.

Maybe. Idk. I could, but I'm no person with a thing for children or underage girls. I like older women and my teacher. Thats all.

Then you're in a very awkward position.

You're essentially saying "it's OK by me, but only in my case."

Would you take the word of an underage girl that she is capable of consenting to a relationship with an older man? No, right?

So, do you concede that you are not capable of consenting to sex with your teacher?

It's an awkward position in another way. Even if you wait until you are 18, by wanting to marry your (then) 35 yo (ex-)teacher, you are wanting to do something which would pretty much destroy her teaching career. Is that something to do to someone you "love"?

EDIT: I just realized that Ashmoria said the same thing.
if youre old enough for an adult relationship you are old enough to know that you need to leave this woman alone since a relationship with you would ruin her whole life.
Dang, it's that Vulcan Mind-Meld thing again ... :lol:

It all depends on her. If she'd be ok with it, I would. I think that the male student/male underage and female teacher/ female over 18 is a better set up. Not good, but better. No, I'm saying that I think it's better to like OLDER women than like YOUNGER women, because the younger party is committing no wrongs in the eyes of the law. And I'm only saying that I think in my case, It'd be better. Esp. considering I'm very intellectual, and I debate things with myself, my friends and others. I get better grades than most of my classmates. And unlike them, I use common sense, and I always try to defend adults. In the eyes of kids, not en general.

why would it be better for one gender to violate teaching ethics than the other?

Oh, and I'd try and hopefully succeed in keeping it in my pants if I dated her underage. I am a firm believer in abstinence until marriage.

you are living in delusion.

a 30+ year old woman is not interested in a chaste relationship with a 16 year old.

whatever else you do, dont tell her how you feel. keep it to yourself.

Well, on the whole, I think women are a lot more logical, they think more than us men do. I'm not saying "if women molest kids it is ok" I'm saying that teacher/student relationships would be better in that gender position, plus teenage boys are a lot more strong willed. Not that some aren't, but I think you get it.

Hey, people.


I NEVER STATED MY EXACT AGE. It is further down than 16. Next, she is 29.

so you already understand that there is no way she is interested in being your girlfriend eh?

i have several friends who are pedophiles, none would ever dream of harming a soul, at the same time though, they do wish they could have sex with people either slightly below the age of consent or substantially below

my best friend (and ex, although im a year older) prefers girls in the 5 - 12 yr old range (hes 15) and also has a rape fetish, he also is into incest and wants to rape his cousin

another very close friend prefers girls in the 12 - 17 yr old range (hes 23 and married)

and yet another former friend prefers girls in the 5 - 17 yr old range (he is 17) and is very much into rape s&m and incest

all three of them have been subjected to a lot of harassment for their views, which theyre all very open about, on a website two were threatened with account deletion, by an admin, for being pedophiles, the rules dont even broach pedophilia
on this same website users have made threads saying that they should be reported to the police, when none have done anything wrong

outside of my circle of friends plenty of people also endure the same persecution - if someone should be so bold as to declare they are pedophiles or have a similar fetish they have made attempts to make it known to the entire town what their sexual preferences were, so that no one would be raped or sexually assaulted - yet these are unconvicted people
havent people ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

my question to you is the following:
are pedophiles entitled to the same rights as others? think before you answer; many would automatically say yes having been raised upon the belief that all people are equal in terms of their unalienable rights, some would say that they most certainly are - until those rights conflicted with the rights of a child
but exactly how can you decide where to draw the line? if banning unconvicted people from a public library just on the basis they might do something is okay than why cant we apply that to everything else? shouldnt their rights only be revoked if they commit an actual crime?

and what of statutory? we send 11 yr olds to colleges, if there are people that are smart enough to go to college at only 11 than surely people can make the decision to have sex at that age, all they would need is a proper understanding of sex and its consequences/ benefits as well as to be fully matured
there are 20 yr olds out there who arent emotionally mature enough to be having sex, yet its legal, i realize realistically speaking that abolishing the age of consent could provide a horrid legal nightmare, but nonetheless is an age of consent really necessary? and if so why apprx 16 in many places when most people are fully matured in their mid 20s? if a person consents and their consent is not forced in any way, than i believe that they should be entitled to have sex without either party being punished for it. obviously some ages would not be able to have sex (infancy) because at that age they cannot talk, cannot understand all but the most basic of words, and therefore cannot consent, however once they have become old enough to learn sex ed (which should be taught much earlier) they should be able to give proper consent that could hold up in court, unlike now

do you believe age of consent should be lowered? abolished? should pedophiles have the same rights we enjoy? or should their rights to privacy be limited? should they have rights at all? or something else entirely?

what is your take on this?

also: someone once said (this person is essentially the laughing stock of the politics forum on the aforementioned site, and blocked me for entering a debate with them. every single point made religious or otherwise was refuted by a belief in god and my being atheist - and so clearly immoral because of that) but nonetheless its relevant:

The legal age to have sexual relations aren't there to be broken young lady, theyre there to protect your ungreatful ass, if a 40 year old man kidnapped and raped you, you wouldn't have such feelings would you.
Also youngs girls such as yourself have no concept of love at all exept the love of your family, sexual interactions at your age could be fatal to you, your mind and body.

I have seen too much in my life even though I'm only a few years older, I'm more experienced and I'm here to tell you no, obey and respect the law, some laws aren't fair I know wtf u think I'm doing on my account page (protesting the government and their corruption of the law)

Since you clearly have no authority figure you must be running wild in a twisted philosophy rampage, must be why you don't believe in God.

Let me tell you straight, you do things because you want to, everything that happens in reward or consequence is your fault, debateable in some situations but you know what I mean.
Like if you're at a party n ur freinds pressure u into drinking or doing drugs, you are responsible for what you do, and for what is done TO you due to your condition (likely an unconcious condition)

Cause and effect is the law, don't be stupid and you may live long enough to realize why.

my response, drastically shortened (my actual response was about twice as long as this entire thing), was this:

actually, i would, if someone raped me i wouldnt condemn sex, nor would i condemn sex between certain age groups, merely i would condemn the rapist and rape

ill try to dig up sources later. eventually. a lot of things on my computer had to be deleted recently, and that probably includes the sources i have about pedophilia (ive been planning to send a private message - most practical way of contacting them - to the admin of the aforementioned site about pedophilia for a while so i had collected some sources on it over time and started writing it - though im not sure where it is now) but later i promise ill try to find stuff

I, being the father of 3 children, think; that your friends are the scum of the earth, and that if I ever met them in the street; that it would be in my families, nay; SOCIETY's best interest, that they be euthanized (screw humanely) at the town common.
Your "friends" are human filth, and, by extention, so are you.
These people do not deserve to breathe .

Well, on the whole, I think women are a lot more logical, they think more than us men do.

Please don't undertake to speak for all men. I'm a man and I resent that.

Hey, people.


I NEVER STATED MY EXACT AGE. It is further down than 16. Next, she is 29.

So you're twelve or perhaps thirteen.

I'd resent you characterizing "all women" as more logical or thoughtful than "all men" in any case. I'd resent you characterizing "all men" as more strong willed than "all women" in any case.

But in this case, double it. With instant whip and a chocky stick on top.

What a mess.

Once again, it depends. I'm/I'd waiting or I'd wait until 18 to tell her, and see what she said. Definitely not uprooting my entire academic career just for a woman. I'll wait.

So you're twelve or perhaps thirteen.

I'd resent you characterizing "all women" as more logical or thoughtful than "all men" in any case. I'd resent you characterizing "all men" as more strong willed than "all women" in any case.

But in this case, double it. With instant whip and a chocky stick on top.

BINGO! I'm 12. Thanks.

I, being the father of 3 children, think; that your friends are the scum of the earth, and that if I ever met them in the street; that it would be in my families, nay; SOCIETY's best interest, that they be euthanized (screw humanely) at the town common.

Proposal to commit a crime.


Your "friends" are human filth, and, by extention, so are you.

Personal flame. And by analogy with the above, a personal threat.

These people do not deserve to breathe .

Take a deep breath bro. I doubt anything you could say in reply to this will save you from a warning or even ban ... but I invite you to try to put the above in the form "the law should be altered in x, y and z ways" so you don't just look like a thug.

What a mess.

When I hop into a subject there always ends up being mess. ;)

Proposal to commit a crime.



Personal flame. And by analogy with the above, a personal threat.



Take a deep breath bro. I doubt anything you could say in reply to this will save you from a warning or even ban ... but I invite you to try to put the above in the form "the law should be altered in x, y and z ways" so you don't just look like a thug.

...and just what part of sex with children do you see defensible at all?

Wanna ban me for that opinion? Be my guest!

Being part of ANY forum that could find this defensible repells me, it is morally reprehensible.

...if I ever met them in the street; that it would be in my families, nay; SOCIETY's best interest, that they be euthanized (screw humanely) at the town common.


What horrible disease do you possess that requires the euthanization of people you meet?

Once again, it depends. I'm/I'd waiting or I'd wait until 18 to tell her, and see what she said. Definitely not uprooting my entire academic career just for a woman. I'll wait.

I think you should answer Ashmoria's point (the one I quoted.) Ash asked first, but I'll put it again.

Your teacher has invested much more time in HER academic career than you have yet. Would you ask her to "uproot" it for your love?

...and just what part of sex with children do you see defensible at all?

Wanna ban me for that opinion? Be my guest!

I'm not a mod and can't ban you.

But I pointed out two rules you broke. Flaming and personal threats.

You probably only have one more chance to put a reasonable version of "if I met these people I would kill them" so don't waste your words trying to paint me as a child rapist or defender of same.

...and just what part of sex with children do you see defensible at all?

Wanna ban me for that opinion? Be my guest!

This topic is much more about thought or desire without intent to act, and much less about the act itself. What is certainly defensible is that someone's thoughts, no matter how reprehensible they may be to another, are harmless so long as they remain only thoughts, words, drawings, or whathaveyou.

And having an opinion isn't against the rules. Implying violence against other posters is, which is what Bugsii was referring to; whether or not your post actually constitutes that doesn't really interest or concern me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Law Offices
Once again, it depends. I'm/I'd waiting or I'd wait until 18 to tell her, and see what she said. Definitely not uprooting my entire academic career just for a woman. I'll wait.

END QUOTE

QUOTE of above quote
I think you should answer Ashmoria's point (the one I quoted.) Ash asked first, but I'll put it again.

Your teacher has invested much more time in HER academic career than you have yet. Would you ask her to "uproot" it for your love?


end quote of above quote




No. I would simply see what SHE said about my attraction for her at 18 years of age. I don't expect her to do any more for me than what I said I'd do. And I meant, I won't make my life and hers a living Hell just to tell her.

so when youre 18 she'll be 35.

and married.

i wouldnt build my life around that dream.

I won't trust me. I won't. Its second to a bunch of things right now.

This all seems to be a great big mess, but I'll add my say anyway.

As a victim of a peodophile, I being a guy and the peodophile being my grandmother, I spent a long time (12 years) wishing my nan dead and almost let it ruin my life.

What she did was dispicable, to me and the other victims (three or us that I know of).

However, I no longer wish her dead, though I will never forgive her. It is extremely difficult to explain to other people, but I have come to the realisation that by simply getting on with my life, and by supporting charities and groups that protect children, she will never win.

I think that people too often beleive that only men are peodophiles, and also that gay men are peodophiles. I am a gay man, and a victim of 4 years of sexual abuse, and I cannot possibly see what anyone can see sexually in a child. I do not condemn such people to be killed, but I do think that if someone has feelings for underage people then the should seek psyciatric help, for their own protection as well as that of children.

I am too online. Sporadically.

I am too online. Sporadically.

I shouldn't criticize. I'm often shown as "online" even though I'm sound asleep. Sometimes at the keyboard ;)

So let's go right to the subject. You said this:

What is certainly defensible is that someone's thoughts, no matter how reprehensible they may be to another, are harmless so long as they remain only thoughts, words, drawings, or whathaveyou.

But "words" could be salacious words, describing sex acts as fun or exciting, and directed at children.

They could be simple descriptions of what the person fantasizes about, and directed at children.

They could even be simple admissions that the person feels something they decline to describe, and be directed at children.

Would you defend "words" in any of these cases?

Oh well. I'll just set to making myself an avatar then.

Thread seems to have stopped dead. Who would have thought?

BINGO! I'm 12. Thanks.

Then everything I said goes double, or maybe triple. Have you even finished puberty yet? It seems unlikely. And you can't speed up the maturation of your brain with "mental exercises", at least not to any reasonable extent. Most studies conclude that brain development continues until about 23-26. That's TWICE your current lifespan, and your teacher is on the other side of it.

You speak well for someone of your age and I'm sure you're quite bright and mature in your own way, but you're far from being an adult. Even if the teacher-student dynamic didn't make the relationship impossible (which it does), your age--you're not even a teenager yet--certainly does. As a teacher a few years younger than the one you profess to love, I have to tell you that I have never found a student or 12 or 13 (the oldest I've taught) sexually attractive or compelling--it is a complete ick factor. I'd never go out with someone under 18, and to be honest, it would take an incredibly mature 20 year old to get me to go out with them. I know you think you love this woman, but trust me when I say that it's best for BOTH of you if you never, ever tell her this.

i have several friends who are pedophiles

How? Why?

Has anyone asked this yet? The odds of this are infinitesimally small if you aren't a pedophile yourself or otherwise fascinated by their kind. I mean, I might not abandon a friend if I found out they were a pedophile, so long as they were determined to control those feelings, but winding up with "several" is something else.

Anyway. Fact is, 95% of people we send to prison will be back on the streets eventually. Given that fact, it makes sense that we would attempt rehabilitation whenever possible, and make the same available to those *contemplating* committing sex crimes as well those who already have.

...and just what part of sex with children do you see defensible at all?

Wanna ban me for that opinion? Be my guest!

Being part of ANY forum that could find this defensible repells me, it is morally reprehensible.

I don't find sex with children at all defensible, as I have already explained here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13909184&postcount=486). However, I am able to see the difference between desires and acting on those desires. You are the one who is making the logical fallacy here, assuming that paedophilia automatically means child molestation.

I am also civilised enough not to flame other posters, or threaten them. So I repeat to you the same thing I said previously: If you can't state your opinion politely and without flaming, please leave this forum until you can. I'm not interested in having to skip past your posts when I'm trying to have a serious debate.

How? Why?

Has anyone asked this yet? The odds of this are infinitesimally small if you aren't a pedophile yourself or otherwise fascinated by their kind. I mean, I might not abandon a friend if I found out they were a pedophile, so long as they were determined to control those feelings, but winding up with "several" is something else.


This was answered earlier on in the thread, two of those who she mentions she knows anyway. Which is perfectly likely, as if you are attracted to children, you would want to talk about it, just like everyone talks about girlfriends or boyfreinds etc. It makes sense that you would find someone else who was also attracted to children to talk about it with. Once one of those tells the OP that they are attracted to children, and she doesn't go crazy like some people have on here, its likely they would also tell the OP about the friend they speak too. The 23 year old friend was met via a forum, where the OP stuck up for them against other posters who were insulting them.


Anyway. Fact is, 95% of people we send to prison will be back on the streets eventually. Given that fact, it makes sense that we would attempt rehabilitation whenever possible, and make the same available to those *contemplating* committing sex crimes as well those who already have.

Those people who having molested children should be rehabilitated, and possibly those contemplating commiting sex crimes, but it depends on what you mean by comtemplating? If they are just imagining raping someone or wondering what it would be like then they shouldn't, but if they are actively planning a rape (by this I mean following people without them noticing, and thinking "I could rape them now if I wanted" or something similar to that). then they should also probably seek help.

If these people are truly harboring thoughts of rape and pedophilia... and in fact are excited by these thoughts they should seek help. There are people out there who can help them. Someday circumstances may just somehow come together to give them the oppurtunity and they could be in no position to control themselves. TELL THEM TO SEEK HELP NOW. Even if it never happens the mental strain they put themselves under because of thier inner turmoil can have long and far reaching effects. Your one 'friend' has even mentiond how he wants to rape his cousin that should have set off warning bells in your head!

If these people are truly harboring thoughts of rape and pedophilia... and in fact are excited by these thoughts they should seek help. There are people out there who can help them. Someday circumstances may just somehow come together to give them the oppurtunity and they could be in no position to control themselves. TELL THEM TO SEEK HELP NOW. Even if it never happens the mental strain they put themselves under because of thier inner turmoil can have long and far reaching effects. Your one 'friend' has even mentiond how he wants to rape his cousin that should have set off warning bells in your head!

Number 1 - You used the word "may", it may happen someday that you run someone over while driving your car. I think to be on the safe side, we should stop you from driving right now. Sounds rediculous doesn't it? But thats just what you are saying.

Number 2- Being in a situation where there you can't control yourself is stupid, what if things come together for some reason, with someone you find attractive and you are in no position to control yourself? Should I tell you to go and seek help about being attracted to people?

Number 3 - It would only ever create inner turmoil if you both wanted to be attracted and didn't want to be attracted. It creates no turmoil if you are perfectly happy the way that you are. The turmoil comes from people needlessly insulting pedophiles and making them feel awful about themselves, and from pushing them to the fringes of society where they are more likely to do something stupid.

Number 1 - You used the word "may", it may happen someday that you run someone over while driving your car. I think to be on the safe side, we should stop you from driving right now. Sounds rediculous doesn't it? But thats just what you are saying.


I don't see anywhere where I stated that because something may or may not happen that they should be prevented from doing anything, you are just nit picking.


Number 2- Being in a situation where there you can't control yourself is stupid, what if things come together for some reason, with someone you find attractive and you are in no position to control yourself? Should I tell you to go and seek help about being attracted to people?


Drugs, alchohol, peer pressure, distress... there are plenty of factors that can cause people to loose thier inhibitions in the face of temptation; I make a valid argument.


Number 3 - It would only ever create inner turmoil if you both wanted to be attracted and didn't want to be attracted. It creates no turmoil if you are perfectly happy the way that you are. The turmoil comes from people needlessly insulting pedophiles and making them feel awful about themselves, and from pushing them to the fringes of society where they are more likely to do something stupid.

And since you can never stop the ignorant people from being ignorant people then its only responsible to try and find ways to prevent ignorant people for having reasons to be ignorant to anyone but ignorant people. Also, if there is something I want to do and know I can't do it it most certainly nags at me; that being said I can imagine how badly something like that could nag at someone.

Even when I attempt to be compassionate someone has to come around and try to make me look like some kind of asshole... why the hell can't people read things for what they are?

Even when I attempt to be compassionate someone has to come around and try to make me look like some kind of asshole... why the hell can't people read things for what they are?

It's NSG.

*nods sagely*

It's NSG.

*nods sagely*

Please explain to SaintB that people don't read entire posts or threads - they just pick something out that looks juicy, and wail on it.

If you post here enough, people don't even read your posts at all - they just reply with "OMFG YOU FUCKING **** RACIST*** SCUM**** ASSHOLE#@!&*@!!!!!".

Please explain to SaintB that people don't read entire posts or threads - they just pick something out that looks juicy, and wail on it.

If you post here enough, people don't even read your posts at all - they just reply with "OMFG YOU FUCKING **** RACIST*** SCUM**** ASSHOLE#@!&*@!!!!!".

Do you realize how often you post just to complain about how unfair the world and/or NSG is? It's a little sad.

Jocabia, off-topic and personal; cut it out. Hotwife, off-topic and exaggerated; cut it out.

This thread is sensitive enough without posters who should know better fuelling the fires.

Ok, since you two are bickering so much, I'm going to bring a new element to this. I currently love my female french teacher. I'm male, there is a 17 year age difference. If I love her, and she loved me, would it be wrong if I dated her and entered into a sexual relationship with her? And is she disturbed for loving someone for the RIGHT REASONS?! :mad::mad::mad:. No, quite simply, because we both have emotions for each other, and what form, shape, and level those manifest in, it does not matter. Now, if she was molesting me or something after-school, I'd see that as something wrong, and she'd be disturbed to me. And if said attraction is unethical for her, because I'm her student, why am I the victim, when I was as guilty as her in the actions we hypothetically did TOGETHER. If I, as a student, as a victim, and her as a teacher, is an offender, it makes no sense. I would need to be held to the same account as her, because, one party cannot be in a breach of ethical conduct, if the other is not. Except in situations where the "victim" has no conscious will or ability to decide if they want the 'offender' to do something to them. I could and can. Quite simple of you think about it.



Also, your friends deserve all manner of persecution they've gotten in school/work/home/online because, quite simply, they revealed shocking
fact(s) about themselves that people are NOT open to hearing.

There wouild be something ethically wrong; she is a person of direct authority over you and would indeed be arrested and fired for having that relationship -- once you graduated, however, that would be a whole new kettle of fish.

There wouild be something ethically wrong; she is a person of direct authority over you and would indeed be arrested and fired for having that relationship -- once you graduated, however, that would be a whole new kettle of fish.

I don't think teachers should be fired for sexual contact with mature (17 or over) students.

I don't think teachers should be fired for sexual contact with mature (17 or over) students.
of course they should.

Why shouldn't they? They have no business doing anything but transmitting/guiding a student through their content area; there is something very wrong with having a relationship with someone who is not legally able to consent, and over whom you hold the power to fail or fire or whom you can pass or promote for no reason other than their personal relationship with you.

You'll find that relationships between supervisors and their direct underlings are also proscribed for the exact same reasons.

There is really something wrong with a teacher who wants to have a sexual relationship with a student who could agewise be their own child.

of course they should.

I should mention that I'm in the UK where the age of consent is 16.

Why shouldn't they? They have no business doing anything but transmitting/guiding a student through their content area; there is something very wrong with having a relationship with someone who is not legally able to consent, and over whom you hold the power to fail or fire or whom you can pass or promote for no reason other than their personal relationship with you.

You'll find that relationships between supervisors and their direct underlings are also proscribed for the exact same reasons.

There is really something wrong with a teacher who wants to have a sexual relationship with a student who could agewise be their own child.

Where I live a 16 year old can consent and a 22 year old can be a teacher.

Edit: How about a teacher with no power over the student?

And what would happen if a 16 year old and their teacher had a sexual relationship while still in the same school?

And what would happen if a 16 year old and their teacher had a sexual relationship while still in the same school?

They should move to Florida?

And what would happen if a 16 year old and their teacher had a sexual relationship while still in the same school?

I'm looking at this from the slightly different angle. In the UK you leave school at 16 and are in sixth from college after.

I don't think that teachers should be able to abuse students but once you're over the age of consent then the student should be able to make whatever decision they like.

Still not good -- as long as they are in the same school, they can exert power -- if only by pleading with other teachers to give them a break, or be harder on them, or by having access to their records...

It really is an abuse.

I should mention that I'm in the UK where the age of consent is 16.
it doesnt matter. the teacher can wait until the student is not a student any more.

Still not good -- as long as they are in the same school, they can exert power -- if only by pleading with other teachers to give them a break, or be harder on them, or by having access to their records...

It really is an abuse.

I didn't think so. I went into a sexual relationship knowing what it entailed. How would an English teacher justified asking Maths, Physics or Chemistry teacher to change my marks?

Still not good -- as long as they are in the same school, they can exert power -- if only by pleading with other teachers to give them a break, or be harder on them, or by having access to their records...

It really is an abuse.


And as soon as they do that, you report them. I know too simple to be comprehended, huh?

And as soon as they do that, you report them. I know too simple to be comprehended, huh?

Could you really destroy the career of someone you were sleeping with?

If they were ok with it. I'm not gonna do it if they wouldn't let me. And if I'd not do something or want something done to me, I won't to the best of my abilities do that to her.

But if they were blacmailing me or helping/hurting me academically because of that relationship, I'd report em. Like you said, they should know better, and, well, the school thinks I'm a victim, so.... I guess, things could just....happen to her.

And as soon as they do that, you report them. I know too simple to be comprehended, huh?
no, the teacher doesnt do it to begin with.

ethics isnt a small thing in the teaching biz.

If they were ok with it. I'm not gonna do it if they wouldn't let me. And if I'd not do something or want something done to me, I won't to the best of my abilities do that to her.
you must be too young to have heard of mary kay letourneau.

she went to prison for statutory rape of her 13 year old student.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Latourneau

Also, your friends deserve all manner of persecution they've gotten in school/work/home/online because, quite simply, they revealed shocking
fact(s) about themselves that people are NOT open to hearing.
You realize that you are condemning her friends in part for PRECISELY the same situation that you are saying you think are fine for you?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=559470[/url]


Also, if minds do not developed equally in the same amount of time, then surely certain trains of thought and mental excersises and such? If not, then I must try it. Next, I'd like to think I am good at the areas you mentioned specifically.

Again -- you realize you are advocating doing precisely what the folks you're condemning have done -- revealing about yourself that you are thinking about an inappropriate sexual relationship while you are well under the age of majority.

It all depends on her. If she'd be ok with it, I would. I think that the male student/male underage and female teacher/ female over 18 is a better set up. Not good, but better. No, I'm saying that I think it's better to like OLDER women than like YOUNGER women, because the younger party is committing no wrongs in the eyes of the law. And I'm only saying that I think in my case, It'd be better. Esp. considering I'm very intellectual, and I debate things with myself, my friends and others. I get better grades than most of my classmates. And unlike them, I use common sense, and I always try to defend adults. In the eyes of kids, not en general.
No offense meant, but you should know that these comments do not speak toward convincing adults that you are as mature as you believe.

And as soon as they do [I]that, you report them. I know too simple to be comprehended, huh?
You can't have it partway. You cannot have a relationship with a teacher because it is illegal and unethical; to plan to enjoy it until she does something you don't like and then report it is, again, not a mature response.

But if they were blacmailing me or helping/hurting me academically because of that relationship, I'd report em. Like you said, they should know better, and, well, the school thinks I'm a victim, so.... I guess, things could just....happen to her.

And basically, by saying you'd let her take the fall because you're young and therefore not responsible, you've sunk your own argument about being mature enough and responsible enough to enter into such a relationship.

Nor should it be left to the judgement of a legal minor whether the teacher is "helping or hurting them academically."

Even if the teacher behaved completely scrupulously in ever other regard, having such a relationship would be destructive of their credibility. With their students and with other teachers.

I'm not a teacher, but my best friend is a very senior teacher and I've heard stories of a teacher who married one of his students when she graduated. He moved around schools, but other teachers always treated him with suspicion and that most certainly damaged his career.

I don't see any reason that it would be different with genders reversed.

you must be too young to have heard of mary kay letourneau.

she went to prison for statutory rape of her 13 year old student.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Latourneau

No, I'd already heard of her, I did research on those kinds of relationships to gauge the problems that come with them. Legal, is another way of saying "do what the gov't says because they know what is best" they don't.

I'm not a teacher, but my best friend is a very senior teacher and I've heard stories of a teacher who married one of his students when she graduated. He moved around schools, but other teachers always treated him with suspicion and that most certainly damaged his career.

I don't see any reason that it would be different with genders reversed.



Well, he's the one that could've made that choice to not marry his student. The fact is, you've gotta leave it up to THEM if they want to destroy their career. Who cares if he did? It was his choice, and he can deal with the fall out. Narrow minded philisophical America sheesh.

No, I'd already heard of her, I did research on those kinds of relationships to gauge the problems that come with them. Legal, is another way of saying "do what the gov't says because they know what is best" they don't.
whether or not its "best" is irrelevant when they can send you to prison for it.

Nor should it be left to the judgement of a legal minor whether the teacher is "helping or hurting them academically."

Even if the teacher behaved completely scrupulously in ever other regard, having such a relationship would be destructive of their credibility. With their students and with other teachers.

I'm not a teacher, but my best friend is a very senior teacher and I've heard stories of a teacher who married one of his students when she graduated. He moved around schools, but other teachers always treated him with suspicion and that most certainly damaged his career.

I don't see any reason that it would be different with genders reversed.

It does happen occasionally that teachers marry their former students, but I would SERIOUSLY suggest that they wait YEARS AFTER the student has graduated to even contemplate it.

You realize that you are condemning her friends in part for PRECISELY the same situation that you are saying you think are fine for you?



Again -- you realize you are advocating doing precisely what the folks you're condemning have done -- revealing about yourself that you are thinking about an inappropriate sexual relationship while you are well under the age of majority.


No offense meant, but you should know that these comments do not speak toward convincing adults that you are as mature as you believe.


You can't have it partway. You cannot have a relationship with a teacher because it is illegal and unethical; to plan to enjoy it until she does something you don't like and then report it is, again, not a mature response.



And basically, by saying you'd let her take the fall because you're young and therefore not responsible, you've sunk your own argument about being mature enough and responsible enough to enter into such a relationship.



No no no, if it was just a matter of "you did this, I don't like that" I wouldn't report her. If this happened:


She molested me.

She harmed me physically, emotionally, or mentally.

She in any way threatened or black-mailed me.



I'd give her the boot, and like I said, I'm the victim... Just pretend to be traumatized and down she falls. Not if she does stuff I don't like if she does the stuff above that would hurt me in any way.

No no no, if it was just a matter of "you did this, I don't like that" I wouldn't report her. If this happened:


She molested me.
Technically, since you're underage, she would have.
She harmed me physically, emotionally, or mentally.
Technically, it could be argued that two and three are given.

I'd give her the boot, and like I said, I'm the victim... Just pretend to be traumatized and down she falls. Not if she does stuff I don't like if she does the stuff above that would hurt me in any way.
Right. I rest my case re: maturity.

whether or not its "best" is irrelevant when they can send you to prison for it.

That is why we've got Germany and Europe. AOC--- 14. Go there. Hide away. Run away. Something, as long as it doesn't happen again and you learn from that mistake. My grandmother says "well if a teacher doesn't want to hurt them, then maybe they'd be quiet then they'd get introuble if someone found out". Well, they new they stood that chance, and took it. Irresponsible. They deserve the punishment they get for not thinking about that area of consequence.

uhhuh

it may well be that a teacher having sex with a student is also illegal in germany no matter what the age of consent.

Technically, since you're underage, she would have.

Technically, it could be argued that two and three are given.


Right. I rest my case re: maturity.


Well, that is technical. That would be if someone found out. If no one found out, then she wouldn't because as far as everyone else knows we've no relationship.

It does happen occasionally that teachers marry their former students, but I would SERIOUSLY suggest that they wait YEARS AFTER the student has graduated to even contemplate it.

I agree completely.

The ex-student needs some experience of an adult life (eg a job or their own place or both.) Otherwise, how are they to know if they are perhaps just fixing on any available authority figure to replace parents? That's not a good basis for a relationship, at all.

I've got a lot of replies I want to make, but I'll start with posters who are actually around just now.

Rhyno, you posted this right after an omnibus reply by Avriia:



Did you mean this post:



Or this earlier one?



In any case, the chances of Avriia replying a week later seem minimal, given how much material there is in this thread. Quite a bit directed to the OP, too.

I'm happy to discuss either post with you. They're pretty good ... though I am not the poster they were directed to.

I meant the longer one (as the shorter one is a bit from the bigger one that someone wanted to sig. And yeah, go for it.

Well, he's the one that could've made that choice to not marry his student. The fact is, you've gotta leave it up to THEM if they want to destroy their career. Who cares if he did? It was his choice, and he can deal with the fall out.

I'm arguing this entire thread from the point of view of what is ethical. Of what a responsible adult SHOULD do so as not to cause unjust harm -- harm which is preventable by their own choices.

In doing that, I must necessarily imagine that a person could be a responsible adult and an ethical person and also be a paedophile. Some posters clearly see such "humanization" of paedophiles as a defence of child molestation, and I've tried to be patient with those posters. They have mental defences against even thinking about what they find repugnant ... and I can empathize with that too.

But talking to you, and taking on faith your claim to be 12 years old -- it doesn't make any sense to appeal to your sense of adult responsibility, of ethics. Though in a sense I did that with the line of argument "if you really love her you won't let her do something -- a relationship with you -- which will cause her harm overall."

It is very awkward talking to someone who claims to be unmistakeably a legal minor, on this subject. It's good, actually, that you directed our attention to that, BECAUSE of the subject discussed here. But my honest advice for other discussions is to make another nation and never mention your age, because some General posters will dismiss your comments, or refuse to take them seriously, or refuse to discuss them with you. No matter their merits, but only because they know you are not adult or nearly adult.

You can always get an argument on NSG, on almost any topic, by sheeting all ethical questions back to individual self-interest. You won't be the only one, but the "Libertarians" -- Randians, small-Statists, Anarchists of some kinds -- don't go unchallenged. You'll be badly outnumbered, and your "allies" won't lend you a bullet ... but you'll get an argument all right.

Narrow minded philisophical America sheesh.

I put my hand up to "philosophical." Thinking is the greatest pleasure of my life.
The other characterisations are laughable. Sheesh yourself.

Firstly, I agree RhynoD about Avriia's typing. In fact the grammar and spelling aren't bad (some sentences aren't complete,) but that isn't evident when the sentences and clauses are so hard to separate due to LACK OF PUNCTUATION. Full stops and commas at least, Avriia, even if holding down Shift is too much trouble for ya.

I never said that puberty defined readiness to have sex. But puberty and sex are profoundly linked together. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most people are still not ready to have sex until a good deal after puberty. Puberty is not just a set of physical changes to your body, it is also a serious personal and emotional change. The readiness to have sex that comes with puberty does not come from physical changes, but from those psychological changes.

The division between mind and body is not as perfect as the classical philosophers imagined. Having a physical body (being affected by and affecting the physical world) may even be a prerequisite of Mind, and certainly moods, pleasure rewards and physiological needs direct the attention and therefore the development of a personality.

And for the record: masturbation is not sex. Masturbation only involves you, so most of the emotional and psychological aspects of sex are not there. That said, masturbation can be a helpful tool that makes young children aware of their parts and pubescent teenagers aware of their feelings. But, exploratory masturbation like that should not be guided: it's something that a child figures out on its own, outgrows, and then possibly falls back into with puberty.

Close, but not quite. I would say rather "masturbation is inherently pleasurable for anyone, with or without orgasm." That little kids do it without thinking its any big deal, then usually give it up isn't "outgrowing" at all, it's the development of an inhibition. Their affections (of all kinds) begin to attach to other people and that usually means people about their own age. Other kids, people they can empathize with because they're at about the same level of understanding and of worldly power.

As to "not guided": I take it you mean that kids shouldn't be taught how to do it, or shouldn't be told not to beyond "don't do it when strangers are watching." It should still be something they can talk about with their parents, if they're curious about the feelings they get doing it.

I also feel that sex-play between children is perfectly fine. Unless one of them is acting-out adult sex-acts which they probably shouldn't have been exposed to, it's unlikely to be a big deal to them and falls within the scope of "learning about their bodies." And like masturbation, such low-reward activity is very likely to be suppressed by the developing social expectations of their peer group, around about puberty. If no-one has made a big deal of it before then, it's unlikely to affect the development of the kid's sexuality any more than playing Halo would make them a serial killer. It's just games.

Your post was long ... so let's go with that for now.

Firstly, I agree RhynoD about Avriia's typing. In fact the grammar and spelling aren't bad (some sentences aren't complete,) but that isn't evident when the sentences and clauses are so hard to separate due to LACK OF PUNCTUATION. Full stops and commas at least, Avriia, even if holding down Shift is too much trouble for ya.



The division between mind and body is not as perfect as the classical philosophers imagined. Having a physical body (being affected by and affecting the physical world) may even be a prerequisite of Mind, and certainly moods, pleasure rewards and physiological needs direct the attention and therefore the development of a personality.



Close, but not quite. I would say rather "masturbation is inherently pleasurable for anyone, with or without orgasm." That little kids do it without thinking its any big deal, then usually give it up isn't "outgrowing" at all, it's the development of an inhibition. Their affections (of all kinds) begin to attach to other people and that usually means people about their own age. Other kids, people they can empathize with because they're at about the same level of understanding and of worldly power.

As to "not guided": I take it you mean that kids shouldn't be taught how to do it, or shouldn't be told not to beyond "don't do it when strangers are watching." It should still be something they can talk about with their parents, if they're curious about the feelings they get doing it.

I also feel that sex-play between children is perfectly fine. Unless one of them is acting-out adult sex-acts which they probably shouldn't have been exposed to, it's unlikely to be a big deal to them and falls within the scope of "learning about their bodies." And like masturbation, such low-reward activity is very likely to be suppressed by the developing social expectations of their peer group, around about puberty. If no-one has made a big deal of it before then, it's unlikely to affect the development of the kid's sexuality any more than playing Halo would make them a serial killer. It's just games.

Your post was long ... so let's go with that for now.




Yes, but "sex-play" could be defined as anything from indulging in "role play" sex acts to mere "fooling around" and said behaviors, if left unchecked, are wrong. Not to mention unhealthy at their age. No, any sexual acts (besides masturbation because it is, imho, a form of pre-emptive (dunno if that is the right adj prevention of pregnancy) are wrong. Depending on your moral/religious standpoint.

I'm arguing this entire thread from the point of view of what is ethical. Of what a responsible adult SHOULD do so as not to cause unjust harm -- harm which is preventable by their own choices.

In doing that, I must necessarily imagine that a person could be a responsible adult and an ethical person and also be a paedophile. Some posters clearly see such "humanization" of paedophiles as a defence of child molestation, and I've tried to be patient with those posters. They have mental defences against even thinking about what they find repugnant ... and I can empathize with that too.

But talking to you, and taking on faith your claim to be 12 years old -- it doesn't make any sense to appeal to your sense of adult responsibility, of ethics. Though in a sense I did that with the line of argument "if you really love her you won't let her do something -- a relationship with you -- which will cause her harm overall."

It is very awkward talking to someone who claims to be unmistakeably a legal minor, on this subject. It's good, actually, that you directed our attention to that, BECAUSE of the subject discussed here. But my honest advice for other discussions is to make another nation and never mention your age, because some General posters will dismiss your comments, or refuse to take them seriously, or refuse to discuss them with you. No matter their merits, but only because they know you are not adult or nearly adult.

You can always get an argument on NSG, on almost any topic, by sheeting all ethical questions back to individual self-interest. You won't be the only one, but the "Libertarians" -- Randians, small-Statists, Anarchists of some kinds -- don't go unchallenged. You'll be badly outnumbered, and your "allies" won't lend you a bullet ... but you'll get an argument all right.



I put my hand up to "philosophical." Thinking is the greatest pleasure of my life.
The other characterisations are laughable. Sheesh yourself.




First off, I meant "philisophical" in the way America tries to act hot-shit. Next, I cannot make a new nation, because I'm "royalty" in an RP. 3rd, I agree, I love to think esp, about moral dillemas. Next, Anarchists are NOT libertarian. The modern party is completely different, and I am one. Next, if someone is willing to sacrifice as in a teacher/student relationship (not the molesting kind) then, if said sacrificers partner would be willing to make a similar sacrifice. Next, I'm going to use the same situation one of my college friends did on the NSGF. From a racial veiw, then I'll spin the topic so it makes sense in this context and current line of thought, about you saying that people want to take me seriously:


If the Chinese restaurant up the street from you, or anyone, said it was the "No-Mongolian Chefs Chinese Restaraunt" and didn't hire Mongolians, Who the Hell cares? I mean, the restaurant owners are the ones missing out, if the Mongolians have better culinary prowess."


In this context:


If someone doesn't take me in seriousness of mind, Do I care? They are the one missing out on my opinion. I don't care. I'm not missing out. Who wants to be with people that don't take you seriously?


Finally: See the bolded text above? Well I'd like to say something about those lines. You say it is awkward talking to me, non? Well, je ne sais pas if you aren't just saying that because in your mind you say "he cannot abide frankness and is easy to have his feelings hurt". Or something. To that I say, disregard all reservations you'd have about telling me what you'd tell any adults on this forum. seriously.

Thanks!

i have several friends who are pedophiles, none would ever dream of harming a soul, at the same time though, they do wish they could have sex with people either slightly below the age of consent or substantially below
So long as they don't harm a soul... okay. I can live with that.

my best friend (and ex, although im a year older) prefers girls in the 5 - 12 yr old range (hes 15) and also has a rape fetish, he also is into incest and wants to rape his cousin
Rape fetish? Might I suggest a therapist? If he acts upon it, I'll be forced to suggest a 7.62 NATO from roughly 200 to 800 meters, depending on the firearm.

another very close friend prefers girls in the 12 - 17 yr old range (hes 23 and married)

and yet another former friend prefers girls in the 5 - 17 yr old range (he is 17) and is very much into rape s&m and incestSame goes as previously stated.

all three of them have been subjected to a lot of harassment for their views, which theyre all very open about, on a website two were threatened with account deletion, by an admin, for being pedophiles, the rules dont even broach pedophilia
on this same website users have made threads saying that they should be reported to the police, when none have done anything wrongLets hope their innocence stays that way.

outside of my circle of friends plenty of people also endure the same persecution - if someone should be so bold as to declare they are pedophiles or have a similar fetish they have made attempts to make it known to the entire town what their sexual preferences were, so that no one would be raped or sexually assaulted - yet these are unconvicted people
havent people ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?However, justice is blind.
Many individuals are not, and wish to bring justice that so very often the Justice System does not.

my question to you is the following:
are pedophiles entitled to the same rights as others?
Yes! Of course! EVERYONE can engage in sexual conduct with persons who are 18+ (sometimes, 17 if the other person is 18 or 19), so long as they themselves are! Everyone has the EXACT SAME RIGHTS!
think before you answer;
I did!

many would automatically say yes having been raised upon the belief that all people are equal in terms of their unalienable rights,
YES!
some would say that they most certainly are Indeed!

- until those rights conflicted with the rights of a childWhatever do you mean? Every child has the right to not be sexually assaulted or statutorily raped until they are 18, which is the average (and therefore, required) age at which one is capable of making such a decision. (My belief goes to perhaps raising it, as many have proven to be incapable of making intelligent decisions for long after 18 years of age)

but exactly how can you decide where to draw the line?Oh, I don't know, the fact that the decision making part of the Brain isn't fully developed until age 18? (Proven, too... though, in some individuals, past 18)
if banning unconvicted people from a public library just on the basis they might do something is okay than why cant we apply that to everything else? shouldnt their rights only be revoked if they commit an actual crime?Theoretically. But there are a lot of people who claim, "They wouldn't harm a soul." Many have been proven serial killers. One can't be too cautious, especially when a sizable number of child molesters have killed their victims.
Not to mention the Mental issues such victims (if not killed) endure for the rest of their lives!

and what of statutory? we send 11 yr olds to colleges,Yeah, like five.
if there are people that are smart enough to go to college at only 11 than surely people can make the decision to have sex at that age, all they would need is a proper understanding of sex and its consequences/ benefits as well as to be fully maturedOkay, go find those FIVE people. The rest of the 11 year olds will have to wait 7 years, because they are not at all effected by your arguement.
Those 11 year olds who made it to college are obviously smarter than you.

there are 20 yr olds out there who arent emotionally mature enough to be having sex,Blame the parents, or the natural stupidity that follows human society like an incurable disease

yet its legal,Sad, but true, for some. Some are perfectly adequate. However, as previously stated, 18 is proven, scientifically, and through experience, to be the best age.
i realize realistically speaking that abolishing the age of consent could provide a horrid legal nightmare, Good arguement!
but nonetheless is an age of consent really necessary?Read your last statement!
and if so why apprx 16 in many places when most people are fully matured in their mid 20s?No place is perfect.
if a person consents and their consent is not forced in any way, than i believe that they should be entitled to have sex without either party being punished for it.Yes, because ALL decisions teens make are perfectly rational!
You're talking about an age of hormones andcuriosity. If you expect a 14 year old girl to make a rational decision about a man who is 20 years old (see Electra-complex on this subject), you're either ignorant or insane. People below the age of 18 are not rational enough, normally not intelligent enough, or experienced enough (which is the big one, seeing as 18 year olds finally are forced to deal with the real world and real decisions), to make such a vital, important, et cetera, type of decision as losing virginity, sex, or the like, especially to someone so far advanced in years! Even 16, or 17 year olds are notorious for making bad choices. (Lets not lie, older still make horrible decisions, but there is a massive change in maturity at 18).
Regardless, hormones in a teenager are far more likely to lend them to having sex - especially in women, as women have a slightly higher natural tendency to want to please others as well as be attracted to older men, lending to a further incapacity to make such a decision.

obviously some ages would not be able to have sex (infancy)And toddlers, children, adolescents, and teenagers... because at that age they cannot talk, cannot understand all but the most basic of words, and therefore cannot consent,Or make appropriate decisions on sex...
however once they have become old enough to learn sex ed (which should be taught much earlier) they should be able to give proper consent that could hold up in court, unlike nowAh, yes, Sexual Education classes endow instant responsibility! Years of experience in life have nothing to do with whether or not someone can make an important decision.

do you believe age of consent should be lowered?No!
abolished?Absolutely not!
should pedophiles have the same rights we enjoy?They already do. They can stay having sexual contact with persons age 18 or above like everyone else! It's their right! (But not technically smartest thing in all cases...)
or should their rights to privacy be limited?If they have sex with minors!
should they have rights at all?Same rights as everyone else!
or something else entirely?

what is your take on this?
I say we bring back the firing line for all persons who have sex with minors. Also to include rapists.

also: someone once said (this person is essentially the laughing stock of the politics forum on the aforementioned site, and blocked me for entering a debate with them. every single point made religious or otherwise was refuted by a belief in god and my being atheist - and so clearly immoral because of that) but nonetheless its relevant:

The legal age to have sexual relations aren't there to be broken young lady, theyre there to protect your ungreatful ass, if a 40 year old man kidnapped and raped you, you wouldn't have such feelings would you.
Also youngs girls such as yourself have no concept of love at all exept the love of your family, sexual interactions at your age could be fatal to you, your mind and body.

I have seen too much in my life even though I'm only a few years older, I'm more experienced and I'm here to tell you no, obey and respect the law, some laws aren't fair I know wtf u think I'm doing on my account page (protesting the government and their corruption of the law)

Since you clearly have no authority figure you must be running wild in a twisted philosophy rampage, must be why you don't believe in God.

Let me tell you straight, you do things because you want to, everything that happens in reward or consequence is your fault, debateable in some situations but you know what I mean.
Like if you're at a party n ur freinds pressure u into drinking or doing drugs, you are responsible for what you do, and for what is done TO you due to your condition (likely an unconcious condition)

Cause and effect is the law, don't be stupid and you may live long enough to realize why.I agree with some of that. Not all, but some.

my response, drastically shortened (my actual response was about twice as long as this entire thing), was this:

actually, i would, if someone raped me i wouldnt condemn sex, nor would i condemn sex between certain age groups, merely i would condemn the rapist and rapeNo, you're be entirely mentally traumatized for the rest of your life, like everyone else who gets raped. Well, not everyone, but vast majority.

ill try to dig up sources later. eventually. a lot of things on my computer had to be deleted recently,Hiding from the government? Or the men-in-white-coats?
and that probably includes the sources i have about pedophilia (ive been planning to send a private message - most practical way of contacting them - to the admin of the aforementioned site about pedophilia for a while so i had collected some sources on it over time and started writing it - though im not sure where it is now) but later i promise ill try to find stuff

Try. You mean make up?
Pedophilia and rape is nothing to laugh at (unless you're shooting at rapists and pedophiles, perhaps... especially rapists, only warning shots at pedophiles, unless they raped the minor, then torture the pig to death).
You act nonchalantly - and in that, prove utter ignorance - about rape, acting as if getting raped would be nothing. No. It certainly is not. I know people who have been raped (and subsequently, I vowed to kill said rapist on sight), and they have been forever changed by it. Only a few certain cases have I seen where the person eventually became (relatively) "normal," or at ease with the situation, and the person was a firm Christian and relied on God and forgiveness of the rapist in the situation.

Rapists are victims to the utmost degree. The mental scarring of the scenario is so immense, I support the death penalty of the rapist, as many victims of rape commit suicide as an aftershock of the rape, sometimes days, sometimes decades, later. Rape is as bad as giving a person a deadly virus, one that is very, very difficult to cure. It can lead to many other aftereffects, such as inability to perform sexually inside of a perfectly legal marriage, many mental illnesses, and nearly every single victim of rape undergoes some form of a drop in self confidence, some to such degree that habits such as cutting, eating disorders, and the like, develop.

Of course, apply your philosophy - pedophilia is allowed, and now, rapes happen more frequently at lower ages, as it's now even less of a faux pas or taboo subject - rape, inevitably, would follow as slightly more acceptable or at least defend-able in court to some degree, though that's debatable, but not critical to the argument - and, inevitably, more girls in their adolescent years and teen years - when many girls already suffer confidence drop on average, which is proven - are raped, which is also proven to drop self esteem and cause the above effects. Cutting, eating disorders, mental disorders, and suicide skyrockets. Yeah. Great plan to abolish/lower age limits...

-SNIP!-

First off, I meant "philisophical" *snip*

1. It's spelled "philosophical". Bugsii tried to save some of your dignity by using the word with the proper spelling in his post, but you seem to have missed out.

2. At least 75% of your post made no sense in any way. Please correct, thanks!

First off, I meant "philisophical" in the way America tries to act hot-shit.
Quite a few of the posters on here are American, including some of my favourite posters. I will thank you not to characterise ANYONE's opinion by their nationality.
Next, Anarchists are NOT libertarian.
I didn't say they all were. Defining "anarchists" as members of a particular Anarchist party does rather make me chuckle.
Perhaps I was indulging myself in an "in-joke." Those who argue politics from a reductionist viewpoint ("start with the individual and define society outwards, glossing over the dimensional inflation involved in one-->two-->many") are often labelled Libertarian even if they are in fact anarcho-individualists.

Next, if someone is willing to sacrifice as in a teacher/student relationship (not the molesting kind) then, if said sacrificers partner would be willing to make a similar sacrifice. Next, I'm going to use the same situation one of my college friends did on the NSGF. From a racial veiw, then I'll spin the topic so it makes sense in this context and current line of thought, about you saying that people want to take me seriously:

If the Chinese restaurant up the street from you, or anyone, said it was the "No-Mongolian Chefs Chinese Restaraunt" and didn't hire Mongolians, Who the Hell cares? I mean, the restaurant owners are the ones missing out, if the Mongolians have better culinary prowess."

I for one wouldn't eat there, since as it stands they have a racially discriminatory employment policy.

I the Hell care about such things.

That's why I say it is "awkward" for me to discuss this with you. I try to treat all posters as starting equal to me, and judge only their words. Even when a poster claims special knowledge from their real life, I try not to over-value in light of that, what they actually write.

Ageless, genderless and omninational NSG crew. You would fit that perfectly had you not insisted on us knowing your real life age.

As I said before, in the context of this thread it is relevant. But in a negative way ... there are things I would say which I would have no problem with a child reading, but which I WILL NOT say directly to a child.

I'm sorry if it offends you to be called "a child." I don't like the word "tween" because it phonically references only "teen." If you are twelve years old, I'm afraid I must treat you as a child.


Finally: See the bolded text above? Well I'd like to say something about those lines. You say it is awkward talking to me, non? Well, je ne sais pas if you aren't just saying that because in your mind you say "he cannot abide frankness and is easy to have his feelings hurt". Or something. To that I say, disregard all reservations you'd have about telling me what you'd tell any adults on this forum. seriously.

Serious, I can't. My own moral compunctions prevent me from, for instance, flirting with you as I might with Neesika or Nanatsu no Tsuki or Straughn. Not to mention that I would be breaking the laws both of my own country, and of the country where this forum is hosted.

YOU might think, and you might say, that you are competent to consent to frank discussions of sex. But as long as I believe, or have been given reason to believe, that you are in fact a legal minor I simply cannot do as you wish.

Your posts stand up fine as those of an adult. Make a new nation -- and don't ask, don't tell. (Your current nation would not be disabled, you can still use it in RP.)

*snip*

Stand back Tolstoy!
Your post has made my "read over a few drinks, later" list. :D

EDIT: Nah, there's nothing else going on. Reply follows four posts down.

1. It's spelled "philosophical". Bugsii tried to save some of your dignity by using the word with the proper spelling in his post, but you seem to have missed out.

2. At least 75% of your post made no sense in any way. Please correct, thanks!

Bugsii uses the Firefox spell-checker actually. "Philosophical" isn't a hard word for me, but I think there were two words in my reply which I would have misspelled (not just typos) without it. (Perhaps "phonically" should have been "phonetically" too.)

Anyway, what's wrong with your red pen, Miss Ryadn? :p

Bugsii uses the Firefox spell-checker actually. "Philosophical" isn't a hard word for me, but I think there were two words in my reply which I would have misspelled (not just typos) without it. (Perhaps "phonically" should have been "phonetically" too.)

And I can't spell accommodation without the Firefox spell-checker, but if I didn't haven't it, I'd use a dictionary. I mean, an online dictionary, of course, I'm not that hardcore.

Anyway, what's wrong with your red pen, Miss Ryadn? :p

He has a teacher fetish--I was afraid it might be a turn-on.

Ah, yet another major issue crafted by the people themselves. When it comes to starting absolutely pointless posts on NS forums, this one is up there with God, Religion, and politics.

I'm so tired of reading stuff about this. Laws are a myth that last as long as the people enforcing them. Sort of like global warming, AIDS, and written language. So, best get uncreating the issue if you want people to stop posting about them.

Of course, we really should be directing our attention to important issues like what our favourite bands are, what we ate today, and the hilariousness of someone pwning themselves on youtube.

Perhaps it's true that our discussions are pointless, given that we cannot affect the existence or otherwise of God, and that politics attracts both more eloquent speakers and a wider audience than NSG has available.

Or perhaps we are simply directing our attention wrongly. Let Floreria lead us from the wilderness, lead us from pointless bickering into consequential discussion of something that really matters and which we can bring about change in. Let us study their works, that we may draw wisdom from them and reform our ways.

Asked "Weird things you do with food?" Floreria replied "Sometimes I cook it."

I must meditate on this. It seems too profound for my disputatious mind to comprehend.

However, justice is blind.
Many individuals are not, and wish to bring justice that so very often the Justice System does not.

You misuse most tellingly the phrase "justice is blind."
It does not mean that justice ignores crimes! It means that justice proceeds according to the facts of what the accused actually did, without consideration of who the accused is.
This single principle is not enough to ensure justice, of course, but it has an important historical place in overcoming the hugely unjust situation where a person's status in society could hold them above suspicion or above prosecution.

Now let us compare YOUR way. An individual, having formed a "judgement" of guilt or innocence, without hearing the cases for and against put with equal competence by those trained in the law, and themself without the training to assess that evidence, grabs his gun and shoots what he believes to be a rapist.

And what if this individual isn't quite sure? Suppose they investigate, and suppose that they take the trouble to question all parties to the possible rape (including the accused and the victim.) What prevents ANY of these parties from lying to the judge-jury-executioner? The individual is just an interfering busybody, after all. Not an investigating police officer. Not a prosecutor nor defender. Not a judge. Just some guy with a gun.

Well, what if after all that the individual with a gun and a thirst for justice still isn't sure? They let the accused rapist go free. Great justice that. Death or nothing.

Do you REALLY think "an individual" can dispense justice better than a system which centuries of good bad and indifferent jurists have worked on and refined to deliver justice? The idea is laughable. I would in fact laugh, but that what you propose is murder. Unlawful killing. Murder.

Yes! Of course! EVERYONE can engage in sexual conduct with persons who are 18+ (sometimes, 17 if the other person is 18 or 19), so long as they themselves are! Everyone has the EXACT SAME RIGHTS!

Avriia said the age of consent where she lives is 16.

Just a tiny example of how "your way" could lead to the killing of an innocent.

Oh, I don't know, the fact that the decision making part of the Brain isn't fully developed until age 18? (Proven, too... though, in some individuals, past 18)

23-26 on average, according to other posters to this thread. I don't have to take their word for it as "proven" either, sources were given.

(Here I discard many more foolish statements which could be easily debunked.)

Note that I agree that rape is a terrible crime. I agree that it often has long-lasting effects, though I think that to describe it as "ruining a life" is unhelpful to the survivors of rape -- it creates an expectation of long-term suffering, when in fact trauma therapy can certainly make a survivor's life worthwhile afterwards.

Is a life a perfect thing, a spring flower, and a single rape a mighty boot which crushes it into the mud? Don't empower the rapist so! Their crime is very likely motivated by hate, it's a destructive act -- and we should not take the risk of glorifying rape by their own standard.

It is a terrible crime. It must be punished harshly, but proportionately to the harm done. And the causes of it must be treated, preferably before it occurs. In that I agree with you in your comments to Avriia -- anyone who thinks that they might actually commit a rape or molest a child should themselves seek treatment.

Furthermore, if Avriia has suspicions that any of her friends actually do molest children, or commit rapes, she has a legal obligation to report her suspicions, and give over any logs which might help in the investigation of such. Law enforcement might not have enough to prosecute -- on the other hand, investigation could well lead to firm evidence.

Now, of course, I must make this statement: "Sir, I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!" - Couldn't be more true, as I'll be going to Great Lakes for Naval Boot Camp and then onto Nuclear School.

That is a non sequitur, unless the reader accepts that freedom of speech is guaranteed only by US nuclear weapons. I do not.

Now we turn to the filthy and despicable conclusion of your post. I note the "disclaimer" at the end, and to any moderators who read this I suggest that this is precisely the consequence of giving Free Bikers the benefit of the doubt in what I believe was "advocacy of a crime." This will continue to happen until the thread is shut down or posters are warned for making such statements.

However, that brings up another point - my circle of friends already includes a veritable rainbow of military personnel, many of whom are Special Forces, such as TACP, EOD, SEALs, and MFR. It will soon expand even further, such as the Intelligence and Computer Specialist field, which means my circle of friends can find out if your circle of friends, or any like persons, happen to be engaging in illicit activities.

This is a direct claim that your "circle of friends" is capable of conducting illegal surveillance of US citizens. Of course they ARE ... but to mention it here surely implies that you think that has a reasonable possibility of happening.

You might want to think twice before making such boasts on a public forum. It could seriously impact your military career.

While said encounter is unlikely, due to things that have happened in my life and the lives of those around me, pedophiles and certainly rapists are not exactly what one might deem as "safe."

Intention to be complicit in, or actually commit, a CRIME. You give a veiled motive "things that have happened." You have described the means. The crime is implied.

If you were aware of law-breaking by service members, and did not report it, you would be a traitor to your country, notwithstanding that you were loyal to your "circle of friends" or to the military itself.

To speculate thus about the "possibility" is a veiled threat. Surely a military approach would be to accentuate the strengths of the military? Not to dwell thus, and without condemning, on the misuse of military resources by service personnel.

It follows that you approve such misuse. Shame!

Note: Seriously, did not mean to make that a personal issue, nor am I truely attempting to make a real threat over the internet, I am merely dramatically stating my opinion of rapists, pedophiles, and the like.

... in terms which should be forbidden, personal or not. This is a real-world threat against a group of people, and while not as egregious as a personal threat against another poster, should be disallowed.

Pedophiles in the sense that Avriia has described them are just as legally innocent, as a group of people, as Jews are. You would not be allowed to make such veiled threats to misuse US military capabilities against Jews, and you should not be permitted to do so against pedophiles. Or for that matter, rapists.

It is entirely disgraceful that you would propose using US military resources to conduct law enforcement in secret, against US citizens. Your "dramatism" is unbefitting even to a poster on this little forum, let alone to your uniform.

Free Bikers, I've been on here all day (well, multitasking with some work I probably won't be paid for but ... on here for hours anyway.) I could easily have composed a long thought-out answer, but please take my word for it, I'm just writing this up now that I see you're here.

...and just what part of sex with children do you see defensible at all?

I have in no way defended any "right" of any adult to have sex with children. But I have defended the full rights and liberties of anyone who has the urge to and doesn't.

The point has been made repeatedly throughout the thread, and it was made by UNIverseVERSE directly to you, that 'being a paedophile' does NOT mean 'having sex with kids' or even molesting kids in any way.
I'm not going to quibble about common or psychiatric definitions of the word. So far as Avriia has described, her "friends" have described only fantasies and urges, not acts.

But if you wish, I WILL defend the rights of CHILD MOLESTORS. If you want that argument (I know I don't.)

Wanna ban me for that opinion? Be my guest!

What I want is for you to clarify the meaning of "if I ever met them on the street." It isn't clear, what with all the semi-colons breaking up the order of the comment.

I actually quite like your posts most days. You breeze by, make lighthearted comments or simple statements of opinion. There's quite a bit of colourful detail too -- in sum, they're entertaining and reasonable for the most part.

Being part of ANY forum that could find this defensible repells me, it is morally reprehensible.

I won't keep you long in this thread then.

Just restate this so that it is unambiguous enough for a Mod to rule on whether it breaks rules:

I, being the father of 3 children, think; that your friends are the scum of the earth, and that if I ever met them in the street; that it would be in my families, nay; SOCIETY's best interest, that they be euthanized (screw humanely) at the town common.

(I snipped out the part which a Mod has ruled a Flame and warned you for. That's done now.)

Or, if you really want to save time and won't stand by your "opinion" -- delete the silly post and we can all forget it.

I am very uncomfortable posting on a forum where others can advocate murder. But I'm not going to be the one to leave.

Having sex with little kids isn't a "sexual preference". What's wrong with you? You need some new friends and perhaps should seeks some help yourself for even having 'friends' that believe it's ok to have sex with little kids. wtf?

Having sex with little kids isn't a "sexual preference". What's wrong with you? You need some new friends and perhaps should seeks some help yourself for even having 'friends' that believe it's ok to have sex with little kids. wtf?

Learn to read please. That is all. Thank you!

However, that brings up another point - my circle of friends already includes a veritable rainbow of military personnel, many of whom are Special Forces, such as TACP, EOD, SEALs, and MFR. It will soon expand even further, such as the Intelligence and Computer Specialist field, which means my circle of friends can find out if your circle of friends, or any like persons, happen to be engaging in illicit activities. While said encounter is unlikely, due to things that have happened in my life and the lives of those around me, pedophiles and certainly rapists are not exactly what one might deem as "safe."
A veiled threat is still a threat. Knock it off, NOW.
[Note: Seriously, did not mean to make that a personal issue, nor am I truely attempting to make a real threat over the internet, I am merely dramatically stating my opinion of rapists, pedophiles, and the like.]
Then perhaps in future you should learn to hold your tongue, or your typing fingers, or what have you. You crossed the line, and adding a disclaimer or a "j/k" or a :p doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to your own statements.

Frisbeeteria
NationStates Senior Game Moderator

You misuse most tellingly the phrase "justice is blind."
It does not mean that justice ignores crimes! It means that justice proceeds according to the facts of what the accused actually did, without consideration of who the accused is.
This single principle is not enough to ensure justice, of course, but it has an important historical place in overcoming the hugely unjust situation where a person's status in society could hold them above suspicion or above prosecution.

Now let us compare YOUR way. An individual, having formed a "judgement" of guilt or innocence, without hearing the cases for and against put with equal competence by those trained in the law, and themself without the training to assess that evidence, grabs his gun and shoots what he believes to be a rapist.

And what if this individual isn't quite sure? Suppose they investigate, and suppose that they take the trouble to question all parties to the possible rape (including the accused and the victim.) What prevents ANY of these parties from lying to the judge-jury-executioner? The individual is just an interfering busybody, after all. Not an investigating police officer. Not a prosecutor nor defender. Not a judge. Just some guy with a gun.

Well, what if after all that the individual with a gun and a thirst for justice still isn't sure? They let the accused rapist go free. Great justice that. Death or nothing.

Do you REALLY think "an individual" can dispense justice better than a system which centuries of good bad and indifferent jurists have worked on and refined to deliver justice? The idea is laughable. I would in fact laugh, but that what you propose is murder. Unlawful killing. Murder.
Indeed. Part of me supports vigilantes, to an extent, and I will agree, logically, such acts are a bad idea. They could only, ever, be acceptable under certain scenarios (for instance, where the rapist killed someone as well, and would get the death penalty).

What I mean to say in that Justice is blind - there are cases where there is insufficient evidence that someone has raped or sexually assaulted or abused someone, and it is frankly known to even the judge or investigating officer, but nothing can be done without sufficient evidence.
That doesn't bring justice, and can let the guilty go free.

No, I don't really thing individuals can bring justice better than the government can. To many would seek only revenge. Like I said, it would only ever be acceptable in such cases as where the individual knows the perpetrator is 100% guilty and the government does nothing about it - such a case should be reported, first. Even then, acceptability of such an act is questionable, only a "lesser of two evils," really.

Avriia said the age of consent where she lives is 16.

Just a tiny example of how "your way" could lead to the killing of an innocent.Of course, whenever I speak about such acts, I mean only in such scenarios where such a thing is blatantly known, nor do I support such acts in many cases. I confuse myself on that subject - emotion says kill all rapists, logic says leave it up to police.

As for those who have the urge and do not act on it, more power to them for their self control. Good for them. Treatment is advised, however, to ensure that they do not act on such urge when a scenario might arise offering them full opportunity, as temptation is a powerful thing.



23-26 on average, according to other posters to this thread. I don't have to take their word for it as "proven" either, sources were given.

(Here I discard many more foolish statements which could be easily debunked.)

Note that I agree that rape is a terrible crime. I agree that it often has long-lasting effects, though I think that to describe it as "ruining a life" is unhelpful to the survivors of rape -- it creates an expectation of long-term suffering, when in fact trauma therapy can certainly make a survivor's life worthwhile afterwards. True, true. I made many mistakes in that post, and such a thing was one of them. It was not, necessarily, aimed towards the general public, just to give a general idea towards those who wish to support the ideas of the author of this thread.
My point was that too many are vastly hurt by rape.

Is a life a perfect thing, a spring flower, and a single rape a mighty boot which crushes it into the mud? Don't empower the rapist so! Their crime is very likely motivated by hate, it's a destructive act -- and we should not take the risk of glorifying rape by their own standard.Rapists empower themselves in their acts. Their crimes are motivated by lust, and many assume the victim will carry on as normal afterwards, when that is not the case. Most victims require therapy, or at least go through quite a bit of depression, which, indeed, is possible to persevere through.

It is a terrible crime. It must be punished harshly, but proportionately to the harm done. And the causes of it must be treated, preferably before it occurs. In that I agree with you in your comments to Avriia -- anyone who thinks that they might actually commit a rape or molest a child should themselves seek treatment.
I normally would agree, however, I am a firm believer that a public threat should be eliminated. Castration is an option, if only as a scare tactic to deter the action, and, in my opinion, should be implemented on repeat offenders of rape and sexual assault.

Furthermore, if Avriia has suspicions that any of her friends actually do molest children, or commit rapes, she has a legal obligation to report her suspicions, and give over any logs which might help in the investigation of such. Law enforcement might not have enough to prosecute -- on the other hand, investigation could well lead to firm evidence.

That is a non sequitur, unless the reader accepts that freedom of speech is guaranteed only by US nuclear weapons. I do not.

Now we turn to the filthy and despicable conclusion of your post. I note the "disclaimer" at the end, and to any moderators who read this I suggest that this is precisely the consequence of giving Free Bikers the benefit of the doubt in what I believe was "advocacy of a crime." This will continue to happen until the thread is shut down or posters are warned for making such statements.

This is a direct claim that your "circle of friends" is capable of conducting illegal surveillance of US citizens. Of course they ARE ... but to mention it here surely implies that you think that has a reasonable possibility of happening.

You might want to think twice before making such boasts on a public forum. It could seriously impact your military career.
Now that I've got a good night's sleep behind me, I am forced to agree. That was over the top, not the best choice of words, and certainly not said in good sense or reason at all. I shall delete that.
Thank you for enlightening me - seriously - I find I far too often go over the top and let emotion (often unwarranted) take hold of my words if I carry on too long. I am quite ashamed of myself.


Intention to be complicit in, or actually commit, a CRIME. You give a veiled motive "things that have happened." You have described the means. The crime is implied. I am sworn to secrecy by the victim about the crime - police investigation at this point would not only be fruitless, but useless and would only aggravate mental trauma.

If you were aware of law-breaking by service members, and did not report it, you would be a traitor to your country, notwithstanding that you were loyal to your "circle of friends" or to the military itself.Indeed, I would be a traitor. Thankfully, I am not aware of any such cases.

To speculate thus about the "possibility" is a veiled threat. Surely a military approach would be to accentuate the strengths of the military? Not to dwell thus, and without condemning, on the misuse of military resources by service personnel.

It follows that you approve such misuse. Shame!While such actions will not be used, if they had, civilian resources would be used, though, knowledge of how to use such resources would be the item brought to the table. But yes, shame on me.



... in terms which should be forbidden, personal or not. This is a real-world threat against a group of people, and while not as egregious as a personal threat against another poster, should be disallowed.Indeed. Hence why I shall be snipping that section of the post.

Pedophiles in the sense that Avriia has described them are just as legally innocent, as a group of people, as Jews are. You would not be allowed to make such veiled threats to misuse US military capabilities against Jews, and you should not be permitted to do so against pedophiles. Or for that matter, rapists.

It is entirely disgraceful that you would propose using US military resources to conduct law enforcement in secret, against US citizens. Your "dramatism" is unbefitting even to a poster on this little forum, let alone to your uniform.Indeed. Hence why I shall be snipping that section of the post.

A veiled threat is still a threat. Knock it off, NOW.

Then perhaps in future you should learn to hold your tongue, or your typing fingers, or what have you. You crossed the line, and adding a disclaimer or a "j/k" or a :p doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to your own statements.

Frisbeeteria
NationStates Senior Game Moderator

Section snipped. My sincerest apologies. I indeed was in error.

Of course, we really should be directing our attention to important issues like what our favourite bands are, what we ate today, and the hilariousness of someone pwning themselves on youtube.

Perhaps it's true that our discussions are pointless, given that we cannot affect the existence or otherwise of God, and that politics attracts both more eloquent speakers and a wider audience than NSG has available.

Or perhaps we are simply directing our attention wrongly. Let Floreria lead us from the wilderness, lead us from pointless bickering into consequential discussion of something that really matters and which we can bring about change in. Let us study their works, that we may draw wisdom from them and reform our ways.

Asked "Weird things you do with food?" Floreria replied "Sometimes I cook it."

I must meditate on this. It seems too profound for my disputatious mind to comprehend.

I can't tell where the direction was with this, however, my only advice to anyone willing to take it would be to "consider all paths, bring it back to the source, and never stop thinking." That is, our ways are very easily changed contrary to the understanding of those who view the world as the only one. We have built many forms of the world over our earth. In another world, pedophilia can be considered non-existent as it exists in ours. In essence, the reality we have created for ourselves is responsible for this. Since people who are born, at least partially attracted to people under the age of consent will always exist as long as humans continue to exist, if we wanted to alter the world to be less damaging to both children and these people, we could do it. My personal belief is that we simply have no desire or will to alter our current situation.

Just a contribution to a conversation I believe will lead nowhere, honestly. I don't see my contribution saving it from the OP, who hurt their cause more than harmed it.

In my view, there is nothing more important about discussing those other things, they are all equally without meaning. That is not a bad thing, we have, as humans, created meaning for ourselves in doing these things.

Quite a few of the posters on here are American, including some of my favourite posters. I will thank you not to characterise ANYONE's opinion by their nationality.

I didn't say they all were. Defining "anarchists" as members of a particular Anarchist party does rather make me chuckle.
Perhaps I was indulging myself in an "in-joke." Those who argue politics from a reductionist viewpoint ("start with the individual and define society outwards, glossing over the dimensional inflation involved in one-->two-->many") are often labelled Libertarian even if they are in fact anarcho-individualists.



I for one wouldn't eat there, since as it stands they have a racially discriminatory employment policy.

I the Hell care about such things.

That's why I say it is "awkward" for me to discuss this with you. I try to treat all posters as starting equal to me, and judge only their words. Even when a poster claims special knowledge from their real life, I try not to over-value in light of that, what they actually write.

Ageless, genderless and omninational NSG crew. You would fit that perfectly had you not insisted on us knowing your real life age.

As I said before, in the context of this thread it is relevant. But in a negative way ... there are things I would say which I would have no problem with a child reading, but which I WILL NOT say directly to a child.

I'm sorry if it offends you to be called "a child." I don't like the word "tween" because it phonically references only "teen." If you are twelve years old, I'm afraid I must treat you as a child.


Serious, I can't. My own moral compunctions prevent me from, for instance, flirting with you as I might with Neesika or Nanatsu no Tsuki or Straughn. Not to mention that I would be breaking the laws both of my own country, and of the country where this forum is hosted.
YOU might think, and you might say, that you are competent to consent to frank discussions of sex. But as long as I believe, or have been given reason to believe, that you are in fact a legal minor I simply cannot do as you wish.

Your posts stand up fine as those of an adult. Make a new nation -- and don't ask, don't tell. (Your current nation would not be disabled, you can still use it in RP.)




If you've got moral standards against being frank with me, I respect that. Next, if you flirted with me I'd immediately leave the thread, and brand you a homosexual pedophile. Next, I was not trying to deem the attitudes of American citizens hot shit, but the attitudes of America's government officials. Next, the bolded spots above are there to say I agree with them. The area I must feel I must address in your post are in underlines.



I have no problem in being referred to as a child. And, as aforementioned, I also do not care that you will not adress certain things to me, if you, as you say, have "moral compunctions". What I resent is the simple fact that, as an upstanding and studious member of my school, class, NS, and every facet of my life, that you would say things as you just have in the tone that you are looking down on me.

Indeed. Part of me supports vigilantes, to an extent, and I will agree, logically, such acts are a bad idea. They could only, ever, be acceptable under certain scenarios (for instance, where the rapist killed someone as well, and would get the death penalty).

What I mean to say in that Justice is blind - there are cases where there is insufficient evidence that someone has raped or sexually assaulted or abused someone, and it is frankly known to even the judge or investigating officer, but nothing can be done without sufficient evidence.
That doesn't bring justice, and can let the guilty go free.

No, I don't really thing individuals can bring justice better than the government can. To many would seek only revenge. Like I said, it would only ever be acceptable in such cases as where the individual knows the perpetrator is 100% guilty and the government does nothing about it - such a case should be reported, first. Even then, acceptability of such an act is questionable, only a "lesser of two evils," really.
Of course, whenever I speak about such acts, I mean only in such scenarios where such a thing is blatantly known, nor do I support such acts in many cases. I confuse myself on that subject - emotion says kill all rapists, logic says leave it up to police.

As for those who have the urge and do not act on it, more power to them for their self control. Good for them. Treatment is advised, however, to ensure that they do not act on such urge when a scenario might arise offering them full opportunity, as temptation is a powerful thing.


True, true. I made many mistakes in that post, and such a thing was one of them. It was not, necessarily, aimed towards the general public, just to give a general idea towards those who wish to support the ideas of the author of this thread.
My point was that too many are vastly hurt by rape.

Rapists empower themselves in their acts. Their crimes are motivated by lust, and many assume the victim will carry on as normal afterwards, when that is not the case. Most victims require therapy, or at least go through quite a bit of depression, which, indeed, is possible to persevere through.


I normally would agree, however, I am a firm believer that a public threat should be eliminated. Castration is an option, if only as a scare tactic to deter the action, and, in my opinion, should be implemented on repeat offenders of rape and sexual assault.


Now that I've got a good night's sleep behind me, I am forced to agree. That was over the top, not the best choice of words, and certainly not said in good sense or reason at all. I shall delete that.
Thank you for enlightening me - seriously - I find I far too often go over the top and let emotion (often unwarranted) take hold of my words if I carry on too long. I am quite ashamed of myself.


I am sworn to secrecy by the victim about the crime - police investigation at this point would not only be fruitless, but useless and would only aggravate mental trauma.

Indeed, I would be a traitor. Thankfully, I am not aware of any such cases.

While such actions will not be used, if they had, civilian resources would be used, though, knowledge of how to use such resources would be the item brought to the table. But yes, shame on me.



Indeed. Hence why I shall be snipping that section of the post.

Indeed. Hence why I shall be snipping that section of the post.



Section snipped. My sincerest apologies. I indeed was in error.




I am a firm believer in capital punishmet of ALL sex offenders, and imho, once again, they should either be:

A. Sexually tortured to death if they've committed a crime.

B. Castrated if they've committed a crime.

C. Thrown in Gitmo. If they've committed a crime.









And also, I'm sure I'll draw a bit of flak from this, but I feel I must say it, in light of our current topic.



I myself have a rape fetish, but not as the raper, but the raped. Don't ask me why. I don't know. I've tried to examine why I feel this way, but human emotions aren't meant to be understood, they are meant to be analyzed, and reacted towards accordlingly.

I am a firm believer in capital punishmet of ALL sex offenders, and imho, once again, they should either be:

A. Sexually tortured to death if they've committed a crime.

B. Castrated if they've committed a crime.

C. Thrown in Gitmo. If they've committed a crime.


Why?

.

Because they deserve to be punished severely. Next, read the bottom of my post? Did you? Good.

Because they deserve to be punished severely.

Why in that way?


Next, read the bottom of my post? Did you? Good.

Why should I care about your rape fetish? It's not relevant to what I'm asking.

I am a firm believer in capital punishmet of ALL sex offenders, and imho, once again, they should either be:

A. Sexually tortured to death if they've committed a crime.

B. Castrated if they've committed a crime.

C. Thrown in Gitmo. If they've committed a crime.




I for one find rape and other sexual offenses despicable enough to not wish to be part of supporting doing it to others.

Those who try to justify in their own minds doing it to criminals always seemed to me one step away from justifying doing it to innocents

I for one find rape and other sexual offenses despicable enough to not wish to be part of supporting doing it to others.

Those who try to justify in their own minds doing it to criminals always seemed to me one step away from justifying doing it to innocents


I support your line of thought. But only because, in a rapists mind, I'm sure getting raped is akin to raping someone. Besides, who would WANT to rape someone, unless they are one themselves? I want to be raped, if my attacker was female. Just saying. :eek:. Next, sorry for saying that so much, but it is a critical area of my thoughts on this subject.

Why in that way?



Why should I care about your rape fetish? It's not relevant to what I'm asking.

Because I support tit for tat punishment against criminals. Next, that was relevant, because you need to know my mental structure to get where I'm coming from.

Having sex with little kids isn't a "sexual preference".

On the contrary - it is. It is just one society has deemed unacceptable to act on.

Actually, no. Based on this topic society has decided that people that have this preference should die the most gruesome deaths imaginable. Regardless of if the pedophile acts on his/her feelings or not.
Bad society. Shame on you.

I think Paedophiles should have the same rights yes. However:

We should stick them all on a reote island in a little town of their own where they can live normal lives without harming civilisation's Children.

As ever, I think South Georgia should be used.

I think Paedophiles should have the same rights yes. However:

We should stick them all on a reote island in a little town of their own where they can live normal lives without harming civilisation's Children.

As ever, I think South Georgia should be used.

Why not the whole of Georgia?

I for one find rape and other sexual offenses despicable enough to not wish to be part of supporting doing it to others.

Exactly.

Those who try to justify in their own minds doing it to criminals always seemed to me one step away from justifying doing it to innocents

Yet, it IS only fantasy. I mean their proposed solutions are fantasy! They do not, and probably will not, ever act them out.

To live under such a harsh law, a law which would banish people to deserted islands for what they think but do not express, which would rape and torture before killing a felon, and extract confessions by torture, would actually be worse, it would be meaner and more miserable than living in a world where dirty old men grope children in the supermarket and walk free because the judge can't be persuaded that the groping wasn't an accident.

That our law has mercy as well as harshness is a big part of why we are proud of our societies. Why we call ourselves civilized.

Child molestation is apparently the worst crime in the world to some people. A special case which demands the worst punishment they can think of. So what would we do with a criminal who is proved beyond reasonable doubt to have kidnapped a whole family, then raped and tortured and killed them? An eye for an eye would say: do the same to their family. Rape and torture their own children, their grandmother who raised six kids through the depression, their grandfather who was decorated for bravery in the War ...

It's hard to stay cool when contemplating heinous crimes. I find it hard to stay cool when contemplating armed thugs taking the law into their own hands. If posters need that fantasy to defend themselves against the knowledge that child mollestation or rape occurs, if they need some "unthinkable" of their own to balance it out, then fine.

But let us not pretend for one moment that acting out revenge fantasies would make our world a better place. People killing each other, raping and torturing each other for revenge ... or even the law doing so with due process ... would make our world a worse place.

Hey, I just realized! "Noble Law Offices" is a play on "Nobel's Law Officer"

Neat-o! My very own Cop!

You see paedophiles, even working molestors, on the streets and the trains and in the cinemas and amusement parks. And you think your time is well spent reading my rantings?

Honestly, guys. What a waste of taxpayer's money. Get a real job!

On the contrary - it is. It is just one society has deemed unacceptable to act on.

Actually, no. Based on this topic society has decided that people that have this preference should die the most gruesome deaths imaginable. Regardless of if the pedophile acts on his/her feelings or not.
Bad society. Shame on you.
It's not so much that I want pedophiles to die gruesome deaths, as much as that I wouldn't bother to cross the street to save one.

Why not the whole of Georgia?

South Georgia is an Island in the South Atlantic

Because I support tit for tat punishment against criminals.

Why?


Next, that was relevant, because you need to know my mental structure to get where I'm coming from.

I still don't see how a rape fetish would influence ideas about 'tit for tat punishment'.

It's not so much that I want pedophiles to die gruesome deaths, as much as that I wouldn't bother to cross the street to save one.

Same thing, you prefer death on people who have thoughts they can't control (or by paedophile do you actually mean someone who's sexually assaulted a child?).

Same thing, you prefer death on people who have thoughts they can't control (or by paedophile do you actually mean someone who's sexually assaulted a child?).

Umm lets think this one through a moment.

I would say that a peadophile is both somebody whos sexual prefereance was for prepubecant children, and somebody who has acted sexualy on that preferance.

As to 'can't control their thoughts', come on now of course they can, can't you ?

Personly thinking about sex with children although obviosely disturbing being unatural and all that is prefrable to the actual act of sex with children, but still I would aviod this sort of person.

Same thing, you prefer death on people who have thoughts they can't control (or by paedophile do you actually mean someone who's sexually assaulted a child?).
I'm sure if you read my post again you'll be able to answer your own question.

I would say that a peadophile is both somebody whos sexual prefereance was for prepubecant children, and somebody who has acted sexualy on that preferance.


Nonsensical definition. You can't be a pedophile without sexually assaulting children?


As to 'can't control their thoughts', come on now of course they can, can't you ?


You really think people choose what they are sexually attracted to, and what their fetish is? You really think people would CHOOSE to be sexually attracted to children, even if it caused them shit loads of problems?


Personly thinking about sex with children although obviosely disturbing being unatural and all that is prefrable to the actual act of sex with children, but still I would aviod this sort of person.

There is a difference between that and refusing to save that persons life.

I'm sure if you read my post again you'll be able to answer your own question.

Not really. "as much as that I wouldn't bother to cross the street to save one" - that essentially means that if you were given the choice to decide whether this person lives or dies, you would choose death (thus you prefer death on this person). You didn't give any definition on pedophile either, so your post doesn't answer what you actually define as a pedophile either.

Not really. "as much as that I wouldn't bother to cross the street to save one" - that essentially means that if you were given the choice to decide whether this person lives or dies, you would choose death (thus you prefer death on this person).

No, it actually doesn't mean that, but thanks anyhow.


You didn't give any definition on pedophile either, so your post doesn't answer what you actually define as a pedophile either.
I use the correct definition of the term. When I say "pedophiles," I am referring to pedophiles. I am not referring to non-pedophiles.

Nonsensical definition. You can't be a pedophile without sexually assaulting children?.

Umm not so sure on that one. If you are into a bit of S&M, but have not yet actualy done it, can you then claim to be either sado or masochist? I think you can. If you have a clear idea of what your sexualpreferamces are then, irrigardless of wheter or not you are a virgin you can of course claim the label to that sexual preferance.



You really think people choose what they are sexually attracted to, and what their fetish is? You really think people would CHOOSE to be sexually attracted to children, even if it caused them shit loads of problems?

Now I didn't say that and neither did you. You only said 'can't control their thoughts' Of course they can, we all can. Look I'm doing it right now, I'm controling my thoughts so that the words I wish to type are being typed.


There is a difference between that and refusing to save that persons life.

Yes there is, and I agree with Bottle, on that score. If I knew one of my friends was having such fantisies, then bye bye freind. If I found that one of them had engaged in such acts, then, well I have lots of family, many brothers, and not all of them as nice as me.

No, it actually doesn't mean that, but thanks anyhow.


In the hypothetical situation, you had a choice to save the person, you chose not to. You chose death.


I use the correct definition of the term. When I say "pedophiles," I am referring to pedophiles. I am not referring to non-pedophiles.

First sentence of wikipedia: The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and popular vernacular.

Bottle, please give your definition of "pedophile" if it differs from the OP's.

Which is "one who admits to being sexually attracted to small children."

My personal definition is "one whose primary sexual attraction is to small children (ie pre-puberty)"

If your definition of "pedophile" is "one whose sexual attraction affects children" or "one who commits sexual offences against children" then please provide a source. And not just a dictionary definition -- this was argued at length earlier in the thread (by Snafturi and some other poster).

I'm sorry that I didn't reply when I said that I would, but I was away for two days and the thread moved on. I'll reply to your earlier posts if you wish.

Why not the whole of Georgia?

Because the north of it is occupied by Russia. :tongue:

I think Paedophiles should have the same rights yes. However:

We should stick them all on a reote island in a little town of their own where they can live normal lives without harming civilisation's Children.

As ever, I think South Georgia should be used.

South Georgia wouldn't be a good choice, mainly because 20 people live there, and the paedos would probably rape the penguins.

I would say that a peadophile is both somebody whos sexual prefereance was for prepubecant children, and somebody who has acted sexualy on that preferance.

The second one is a pedosexual. Or childmolester if you prefer a simpler term.

However, someone who merely desires to have sex with children, but does not act on it because he/she has made a moral choice not to, is in an entirely different league as far as I am concerned. Somewhat like someone fantasising about kidnapping and forcing Angelina Jolie to have sex with him vs someone actually doing it.

South Georgia wouldn't be a good choice, mainly because 20 people live there, and the paedos would probably rape the penguins.

20 people can easily be shipped to the Falklands or South Sandwich Islands.

And that would mean they were Bestialphiles not paedophiles.

Hey, I just realized! "Noble Law Offices" is a play on "Nobel's Law Officer"

Neat-o! My very own Cop!

You see paedophiles, even working molestors, on the streets and the trains and in the cinemas and amusement parks. And you think your time is well spent reading my rantings?

Honestly, guys. What a waste of taxpayer's money. Get a real job!


No it isn't. I started my own law offices in NS. Now defunct.

Thankfully me, Ruffy, and LG are here to stop them with our legions of pie based soldiers. *Nods*

*increases budget*

But "words" could be salacious words, describing sex acts as fun or exciting, and directed at children.

They could be simple descriptions of what the person fantasizes about, and directed at children.

They could even be simple admissions that the person feels something they decline to describe, and be directed at children.

Would you defend "words" in any of these cases?

It's already illegal to direct any adult material at children, as it's contributing to the delinquency of a minor. There's also laws against soliciting sex from a child. You don't also need to make a huge dent in freedom of speech by outlawing specific topics of discussion between adults.

ehh... im back, but right now im too tired to either read through or reply to any of this... ill work on it over tomorrow or later today
ive spent the last few hours catching up elsewhere though and i cant be bothered to right now, but just figured id let you know im back
and on the off chance anyone wants to know: my vacation was boring, but not necessarily bad

first off, i'd like to mention that:

a) i'm just coming back to these boards after a while away, and,
b) i haven't been here much, in the first place.

i'm definitely a newbie.


also, i'll state outright that:

i'm not going to wade into the finer points of this discussion---nor the tit for tat---at this time. i don't really have the bandwidth for that in this moment.


however---having read most of this thread, in spare moments, over the last few days---i'd like to say the following:

1) i admire the bravery of the opening poster, in broaching a subject as combustible as this one with so much honesty and straightforwardness.
:hail:
2) i admire the moral integrity of the opening poster, in demonstrating a commitment to field a reply to all other posters. such is no easy task, and is barely expected, really; this displays a more mature sense of responsibility than i---for one---am used to seeing---here, or anywhere else.
:hail:
3) i admire the intellectual integrity of the opening poster, whose arguments i consider to be exceptionally well-reasoned.
:hail:
4) i admire the tenacity and restraint of the opening poster, who has persisted in this discussion relatively peacefully despite her abject villification by many---and at least a bit of condescension from even many of the few who agree with her, in at least some part.
:hail:
5) i admire the intelligence of the opening poster, in assuming a position---in the first place---that seems to me to be so highly principled.
:hail:

so: i'd like to personally thank avriia for bringing so much that is positively human to this discussion---and to these boards; as a result, i find these boards---to at least some degree---a more attractive place to hang out.

so---y'all be hearing more from me.

maybe one of these days, i'll actually get around to commenting directly on the topic. :wink:


in the meantime---given that a) the opening poster has stated that she is a 16 year-old female, b) many are likely to assume that i am not, and c) the subject of the thread is suggestive to this effect---many may choose to assume that i am a "pedophile" who is trying out a sophisticated strategy of hitting on a "young girl", by praising her so profusely while also appealing to her intelligence.

of course---if you do so assume---you can also go fuck yourself. :D


best, and

peace. ;)

FUCK
i spent the time composing a reply to EVERY SINGLE THING HERE (almost, there was some in the end i was saving for later due to exhaustion and what not) and by the time i was done i went to click post, and guess what
id timed out from logging out
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
that means EVERYTHING i wrote was lost, because it decided to go back to the original thing i quoted and JUST that
i havent gone to sleep yet. im tired. im gonna go to sleep. ill work on rewriting some stuff when im awake =/

Have you just arrived from /b/?
Someone had to say it, that's what I thought when I saw the first sentence.

"So the friends are /b/tards?"

I don't like it, but I don't think we should "Kill on Sight" just because they such disturbing thoughts.

Aren't I kind? ;)

Someone had to say it, that's what I thought when I saw the first sentence.

"So the friends are /b/tards?"

I don't like it, but I don't think we should "Kill on Sight" just because they such disturbing thoughts.

Aren't I kind? ;)

one is a /b/tard - the former friend, because hes a furry
anyways, the 15 yr old isnt a /b/tard, he does go to notfourchan (like the former friend)
and the 23 yr old hasnt ever been to 4chan (they just now went to 4chan - i convinced him to look at it, of all the boards he can go to the first one he went to was [modedited] - ive never been to there but its the 'sexy beautiful women board' i can name lots of boards)[MODEDIT: Don't.]

anyways, heres a quote a friend (the 23 yr old) said to me - first im going to explain the background info though:
id just gotten back from vacation a bit ago, as everyone knows, and i wanted to talk to him because id missed him a lot and because i had no one else to talk to at the time, but he was busy and i didnt get a reply for several hours and by that time i was asleep
anyways, i also mentioned there was this random girl iming me on msn (she kept saying the same thing, id block her, and another im from her would come up from a different name - only way i knew it was her because 1. she signed it nikki every time 2. it was the exact same message every time) at that point i hadnt specified it was a she though, so he assumed it was a he
so heres his response (and this just might be interesting for some of you who think all pedophiles are rapists):

Sounds like a good list of things to do when you first get home from a vacation. What's up with that bitch? Who is it? I can talk to her :D

I don't mind spam...in fact I love to fuck with them right back.
I spent too many years being a troll to not get a little rush when someone trolls me. Like..you don't want to do that :P Not you, them.

I dunno why this always happens to you. I told eanemokid to leave you alone. Has he left you alone?

I'll cyber him if it'll get him to go away, and I'll make it one he'll never forget.

There was once a site, prolly still is, bating.org

If someone hits on your 12 y/o profile(you make one up) and they're too old to hit on a 12 year old then you don't put them on Chris Hansen dateline...nah..that's mean and all they do is go to jail and get raped. That's horrible for someone who just wanted to cyber. But you can scare them off just as easily..like in the middle of a big sex scene where you're this little 12 y/o girl you pull your "massive cock" out and ask them to play with it.

If they do, you go 100% crazy gay on them and take it to another level. [MODEDIT: more graphic advice removed.]
Usually you can find a line of attack to scare them away from trying to hit on random kids again...

And I'm not afraid to bust a move on some punk emo kid :P Maybe I can recite the bible to him while we cyber, and push religion on him. He's used to pain and torture, probably likes it, but having some 12 year old girl pushing the bible on you midcyber? That's gotta be crazy..Then she could go into how she's going to be a counterterrorist someday and he should join her. They could blow themselves up in the enemy base together and go to heaven and be together FOREVER.

Always some vulnerability...
---
there was more, but it was replying to the rest of my pm and way off topic to this, but this applies to it so... meh
and i will work on replies soon (again)
oh and eanemokid was a guy on newgrounds, who kept essentially stalking me on several accounts just... spamming and hitting on me and stuff (hes like 12, too young to even BE on newgrounds, i had to block tons of his accounts

FUCK
i spent the time composing a reply to EVERY SINGLE THING HERE (almost, there was some in the end i was saving for later due to exhaustion and what not) and by the time i was done i went to click post, and guess what
id timed out from logging out
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
that means EVERYTHING i wrote was lost, because it decided to go back to the original thing i quoted and JUST that
i havent gone to sleep yet. im tired. im gonna go to sleep. ill work on rewriting some stuff when im awake =/
Logging in should have let you post what you had written.

Logging in should have let you post what you had written.

it didnt, it went back to the quote thing, with all of the stuff id written... gone

it didnt, it went back to the quote thing, with all of the stuff id written... gone

Did you try clicking "Back" afterwards? You might get back to the post you've written.

Also, get a better browser :p

Did you try clicking "Back" afterwards? You might get back to the post you've written.

Also, get a better browser :p

lol, i have whatever the latest version of ie is (what im on now and usually am on) or aol 9.0
i choose the lesser of two evils
anyways, im on /b/ for my first time... well, second, first time was when "/b/ was being destroyed" because newgrounds had like 30 threads about it and i decided to see what the big deal was
now im on and actually posting... haha... you know the demotivational snowflake pic? nvm... point is im fulfilling it with a make-a-flake website... and ive gotten help

lol, i have whatever the latest version of ie is (what im on now and usually am on) or aol 9.0
i choose the lesser of two evils
anyways, im on /b/ for my first time... well, second, first time was when "/b/ was being destroyed" because newgrounds had like 30 threads about it and i decided to see what the big deal was
now im on and actually posting... haha... you know the demotivational snowflake pic? nvm... point is im fulfilling it with a make-a-flake website... and ive gotten help

Anon on my NSG? :)

Anon on my NSG? :)

absolutely
semi nsfw (if you consider snowflake-dicks nsfw) (http://img.4chan.org/b/res/80659320.html)
ahh well, its gone now, was fun while it lasted

by the by---

(question from a newbie)

---why are there only three pages of threads on the general forum?

what happens to the threads when they drop off?


is there a way to get to them without having to search?


thanks.

by the by---

(question from a newbie)

---why are there only three pages of threads on the general forum?

what happens to the threads when they drop off?


is there a way to get to them without having to search?


thanks.

Well, we can tell what YOU'VE been searching for...

Well, we can tell what YOU'VE been searching for...

oh yeah, good one! :rolleyes:

i had already posted on this thread and wanted to know what happened to it. (doesn't that go without saying?) :confused:

maybe someone a little less moronic and a little more charitable would still be willing to answer my question...

oh yeah, good one! :rolleyes:

i had already posted on this thread and wanted to know what happened to it. (doesn't that go without saying?) :confused:

You'll learn not to expect more from him.

maybe someone a little less moronic and a little more charitable would still be willing to answer my question...

Bottom left, under all the post, is your filter options, you're only showing threads with posts from the last 24 hours. Expand your parameters to see more.

Bottom left, under all the post, is your filter options, you're only showing threads with posts from the last 24 hours. Expand your parameters to see more.

thank you, thank you, thank you.


and i like your quote, by the way.

peace.

Crap. Utter, confused, schizophrenic crap.

Wanna argue it?

If not, I'll just leave you to get pwned by RhynoD. Your choice.

You know, I never pwned him. Apparently he was in need of pwning. Let the pwnage begin.

Naaa it's not that hard to argue really. It seems clear that here are some pedopihies around, so clearly it is natural that soem peoples brains work in this way, just as it is natural that some peoples brains work in such a way as to enable us to label them schizophrenic.

Schizophrenia, is one of the many mental health issues we have, and people who are schizophrenic are considered to have a brain that is not working normaly, or as nature intended, they have in other words a problem that if corrected would bring the brain back to working in a more 'natural way.

Pedophila is the same, it is not natural for adults to be sexualy attracted to pre-pubecant children.

Random mutation is not only inevitable, it is biologically necessary. It is therefore perfectly natural for a random mutation to create a sperm or egg that carries the gene, for, say, schizophrenia (although the exact cause(s) for schizophrenia are not entirely known). And since sexual reproduction is perfectly natural, for a sperm or egg with the gene to combine and create a human being that carries the gene. And since it's perfectly natural for your genes to influence how your brain works (because that's what certain genes do), it is therefore perfectly natural for a person to have schizophrenia. Abnormal, sure. But perfectly natural.

Or, more succinct: nature created human beings. How, then, can anything a human does be unnatural?

And of course, there's always the world shattering accusation that you are schizophrenic, or otherwise insane, and the real world is absolutely nothing like you think it is.

Or even better: Someone else is schizophrenic and you're just a figment of their imagination.


Either way.




The point is, you don't know. You have absolutely no authority to call one thing more natural than another.

And on that note: there are plenty of animal species that have sex with siblings, parents, relatives, juveniles, dead things, themselves, the same gender, etc. etc. Dolphins actually gang rape the females: pods are based around males "protecting" a couple of females from other males.

You'll learn not to expect more from him.


Neo, your help to a new poster is appreciated. Your recurrent sniping at Hotwife isn't. Cut it out (and that's the second time I've had to say that recently. Third time unlucky).

Avriia, if you're going to stick around NS -- and I hope you do, people who actually debate are very welcome -- you should check this out in detail:

The One-Stop Rules Shop. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

You'll find this section, for example:

Obscene and Explicit Content: Sexually graphic images and posts, and violent images such as bloody corpses. Very strictly forbidden. Obscene imagery and content in the forums should be reported to the Moderation Forum. Please provide a link to the topic, but do not quote it while explaining its illegality. Then we have to find and delete your posts too.

The standard for both forums and game is the US movie rating "PG-13". Mild swearing may be tolerated, mild sexuality may be hinted, but explicit or excessive versions of either or both may result in proportional mod response[/B].

... which is why I edited your post about how to deal with an online stalker. Equally, your exasperation about losing your post, though understandable, is excessive -- you'd better join the vast number of us who have learnt to second-guess the system's vagaries by copying and pasting long posts as saved documents.

This post is unwise, too: absolutely
semi nsfw (if you consider snowflake-dicks nsfw) (http://img.4chan.org/b/res/80659320.html)
ahh well, its gone now, was fun while it lasted

If it's Not Safe For Work, it's probably Not Safe For School, either, or for the Uni library, or a public computer. As many posters access NS from these sites, it's polite to consider them and, by doing so, avoid rulebreaking. Just because a site isn't specifically banned doesn't mean you should link to it. It may be NSFNSGen.

oh and eanemokid was a guy on newgrounds, who kept essentially stalking me on several accounts just... spamming and hitting on me and stuff (hes like 12, too young to even BE on newgrounds, i had to block tons of his accounts

If you ever encounter this sort of thing through NS telegrams or Jolt PMs, please submit a Getting Help (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=help) request as fast as your fingers can type. We really, really don't like people who do that. (Don't delete any; do take screenshots).

Yet, it IS only fantasy. I mean their proposed solutions are fantasy! They do not, and probably will not, ever act them out.

Hmm. Yeah that must be why crimes such as rape and child abuse are so rare.

On the contrary - it is. It is just one society has deemed unacceptable to act on.

No. Wanting to have sex with children is not a sexual preference (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?sexual+preference). "Big tits" is not a sexual preference either. "Midgets" is not a sexual preference either. Although these are sexual qualities or acts, and you can colloquially describe them as 'preferences,' you are trying to place them on the same level as a biological desire to have sex with either male or female or both and it doesn't work like that.

Honestly, if someone asks you your sexual preference, "with the lights off" is not a legitimate answer. Nor is "children." Nor is "21 year olds." Etc.

Given that the OP, who was previously very involved in this thread, hasn't been back on NS for six days; given that, at 600-plus posts, it's been pretty thoroughly discussed; and given that discussion now seems to me to be verging into areas already covered in other threads, I'm lightly locking this.

"Lightly locking" as in, if the OP comes back, wants to continue the discussion and can show she's got something new to say, I'll reopen it.