Synopsis

Subject: Re: Synopsis Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:55 pm

T.E.M. wrote:

Quote:

And as it is well known this side of the Victorian Age that children have sexuality, why then do we deny them the pleasures of sex?

Source please, proving that children have sexuality-- and not something from the Victorian age. I personally remember being asexual as a child and then fairly suddenly experiencing intense sexual desires at puberty. Maybe Mr. Freud would say I repressed it all though and I really did want to be raped by Socrates when I was six.

Lol. It is interesting to note that by the age of 6, 70% of the brain is developed ("give me a child for his first 7 years and I'll give you the man"). By 11 years, 90 % of the brain is developed. It is interesting that most of the brain is developed before puberty. Some people have suggested that as the onset of puberty is becoming younger, that it is interfering with the higher stages of brain development and causing learning/behaviour problems for children. They also suggest that is why children of this age are scoring lower on tests than a previous generation the same age while younger childrens' scores remain the same.

(sorry, I could not recall my source for this.)

Subject: Re: Synopsis Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:55 pm

Cassandra wrote:

Alex, the topic was taboo until relatively recently. That I am merely pointing this out [*1] does not mean that I am arguing that paedophilia is wrong because it is taboo. I do not know where you got that from. Nor am I arging that it or anything is wrong from a moral point of view. [*2] What I am doing is questioning the motives [*3] of those who are making positive claims without proof.

I also agree with what you said earlier and in my own words I am saying something similar, only I think that the damage done can be a lot worse than you have portrayed.

Bollocks.

As I quoted previously, you indeed did make a moral argument. Secondly you tied it to the suffering of taboo.

My argument is sound. Perhaps you should read what you've written more closely?

Certainly we both agree that paedophilia is immoral. You have made an argument that weakens that conclusion.

*1 : Look at what I quoted previously. You made an argument that hinges on the shame of suffering taboo acts, and extended this as proof that it is a crime, thereby equating breach-of-taboo with crime. If you want to argue that point, I'd be very interested in arguing against it.

*2 : I bolded it in the previous post. You made a statement that paedophilia is a crime. You weren't referring to mere legalism, but rather to suffering and taboo, so it is a moral statement.

*3 : You are questioning the argument, not the motives of the argument. You've not once asked Vana what she's arguing for and why, but simply disputed her reasoning and conclusions. That is the definition of argument, not "questioning the motives" of the disputee.

In between the bolded statements in this quote are several italicized other statements which are interesting. Why do you think you include them?

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

Subject: Re: Synopsis Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:57 pm

Alex wrote:

Cassandra wrote:

Alex, the topic was taboo until relatively recently. That I am merely pointing this out [*1] does not mean that I am arguing that paedophilia is wrong because it is taboo. I do not know where you got that from. Nor am I arging that it or anything is wrong from a moral point of view. [*2] What I am doing is questioning the motives [*3] of those who are making positive claims without proof.

I also agree with what you said earlier and in my own words I am saying something similar, only I think that the damage done can be a lot worse than you have portrayed.

Bollocks.

As I quoted previously, you indeed did make a moral argument. Secondly you tied it to the suffering of taboo.

My argument is sound. Perhaps you should read what you've written more closely?

Certainly we both agree that paedophilia is immoral. You have made an argument that weakens that conclusion.

*1 : Look at what I quoted previously. You made an argument that hinges on the shame of suffering taboo acts, and extended this as proof that it is a crime, thereby equating breach-of-taboo with crime. If you want to argue that point, I'd be very interested in arguing against it.

*2 : I bolded it in the previous post. You made a statement that paedophilia is a crime. You weren't referring to mere legalism, but rather to suffering and taboo, so it is a moral statement.

*3 : You are questioning the argument, not the motives of the argument. You've not once asked Vana what she's arguing for and why, but simply disputed her reasoning and conclusions. That is the definition of argument, not "questioning the motives" of the disputee.

In between the bolded statements in this quote are several italicized other statements which are interesting. Why do you think you include them?

I know what I wrote and I know what I meant and if you want to read more into it than I wrote, then that is your projection.

I don't know how I can say it any clearer: I was not asserting that it was a crime because the subject was taboo, I was saying that the reason it was suddenly being talked about in the media in the mid 80s was because at that time, the taboo had been lifted.

I never said that it was only a crime because it was taboo. My second sentence was supposed to read, "If it is not a victimless crime, why then do millions of people affected by it feel the need to get it out of their systems, that they have been damaged in some way?" but even without the missing if, you can still deduce my meaning. What I was asking was: If it is victimless, then how come there are victims?

The only other thing I said was, "people have been coming out with the truth in an attempt to heal and stop it being perpetuated." meaning that they no longer have to suffer in silence, they can talk about it and attempt to do something about it.

I do not care about morality or moral arguments as I have achieved exactly what I set out to achieve in this thread. Instead of telling me what I wrote, you may want to read more carefully before posting twice.

btw, I found your last phrase a bit too Molyscending for my liking.

Guest

"Molyscending" ... good word!

- NonE

Subject: Re: Synopsis Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:50 am

Cassandra, let me ask a simple question or two then instead:

If you say something is a crime, and not just under the law, but has victims, are you or are you not making a moral statement?

If it isn't a moral statement, could you give an example of a crime that is amoral in nature? Again, not a crime under the law, such as a parking ticket, but something that you would call a crime whether or not the law existed.

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

Subject: Re: Synopsis Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:41 am

Cassandra wrote:

...70% of the brain is developed ("give me a child for his first 7 years and I'll give you the man"). By 11 years, 90 %...

(sorry, I could not recall my source for this.)

"Could not recall a source for this"? Is that because it's made up?

Percent of brain use?

You're not one of those people who also believes the demoralizing myth that people use only ten percent of their brian are you?

Contrary to the recipe you give; it is impossible to 'cause' a man.

"Someone who grew up in a war-zone can come out of it a deeply happy and good person. Someone who grew up in a nice New England suburb can come out of it deeply unhappy and a very bad person. That amazes me. As though, it isn't the past and the things that people did to us that makes us who we are... but who we choose to be and what we choose to do... Or something like that..."

Subject: Re: Synopsis Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:25 pm

Alex wrote:

Cassandra, let me ask a simple question or two then instead:

If you say something is a crime, and not just under the law, but has victims, are you or are you not making a moral statement?

If it isn't a moral statement, could you give an example of a crime that is amoral in nature? Again, not a crime under the law, such as a parking ticket, but something that you would call a crime whether or not the law existed.

Just for the record, I did not bring in the law. Iirc, it was Vana who referred to the law, I was merely going along with her since in fact paedophilia is actually a crime in many countries.

What I was disputing was that it did result in people being hurt, thus the action was not victimless.

Everyday, the civil court rooms are filled with people being awarded damages for actions by others that are not persued in the criminal court.

I could think of many things that hurt people that are not called as such. How about the confiscation of gold by FDR in 1933 and the ongoing theft by stealth via inflationary policies persued today? The socialisation of risk and the privatisation of profit?

Whether you want to call these actions moral or not is up to you, personally, I don't care. People get hurt being mauled by lions and it's awful for them, but this is the nature of the lion.

http://bovination.com/cbs/morality.jsp

This is all the reply I have time for as I am going on holidays tommorrow and I will not be taking my laptop.

Number of posts: 2159 Registration date: 2007-09-20

This is an interesting conversation in light of recent events involving Roman Polanski, steming from his not-so-recent crime of forced sodomy on am unwilling and intoxicated 13 year old girl.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Number of posts: 281 Registration date: 2008-12-04

So there are people who make a good bit of cash in an anti-pedophilia industry; this doesn't mean there is or ever was a conspiracy to make people anti-pedophilic. Long before any of this, society had gradually built up anti-pedophilic norms in an emergent manner.

There exists a strip club industry, but no conspiracy to make men like lap dances, that happened naturally.

I think you are falling into a trap most far leftists fall into, and that is looking at traditions as if they arise in the same manner as leftist anti-traditionalist reforms. The leftist is a societal creationist-- believes that society can be rearranged to fit leftist whims in one fell swoop, one single act of rearrangement. Therefore, its easy for leftists to see traditions as if they did not evolve gradually in a process of natural selection, but rather, artificially in a sudden coup de tat, as these far left reforms tend to occur.

Exactly how pedophilia came to be taboo I'm not sure. It was certainly less taboo in certain societies of the past such as the ancient Romans and Greeks, but even then it wasn't exactly the sort of free love hippy any child/animal/plant can be sexed up any time/place.

In short, I don't think there are or ever were countless poor little kids crying themselves to sleep at night because they might not be able to experience any form of genital contact with adults before puberty; and I don't think there was or is a conspiracy make money of the misery of these poor, suffering, sodomy-free children.

Guest

Dylboz wrote:

This is an interesting conversation in light of recent events involving Roman Polanski, steming from his not-so-recent crime of forced sodomy on am* unwilling and intoxicated 13 year old girl.

Not to make bold, undocumented, pull-it-out-of-your-ass kinds of assertions or nuthin' !!! Or were you there moderating at the time?

- NonE

* Sleudian Frip???

Number of posts: 2159 Registration date: 2007-09-20

She said she was resisting, though not very actively (she was scared of him) and saying "no," and he admitted that she was as well. He also admitted to, and she corroborated and a third party witnessed, him giving her champagne and quaaludes. Finally, in his guilty plea, he acknowledged that he knew she was only 13. This is all in the court documents, I'll gladly link you to them if you're interested, but Google can get you there faster. He plead guilty, NonE, and neither denied nor objected to any of the victim's testimony. So, these are not at all, "bold, undocumented, pull-it-out-of-your-ass" assertions. In fact, the sodomy part is in the record too. He was worried she'd get pregnant, so he asked her "you want me to go in the back?" She said "no!" He did it anyway. So as far as that goes, it's a documented, shove-it-in-her-ass fact.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Subject: Re: Synopsis Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:22 am

Dylboz wrote:

So as far as that goes, it's a documented, shove-it-in-her-ass fact.

Hah.

Number of posts: 2159 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Stewart wrote:

Dylboz wrote:

So as far as that goes, it's a documented, shove-it-in-her-ass fact.

Hah.

There's some irony around here somewhere... Or is it satire?

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Guest

No irony, no brasserie, no coppery, no satire... just a simple case of NonE inserting his ____ firmly up his ___.

- NonE ;-)

Guest

Arthur Silber has made an interesting post on the Polanski situation which many here may find worth a read...

HERE

- NonE

» Book Review & Synopsis: I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness
» Surah Al-'Adiyat (100)
» General Law - Law Relating to Transfer of Property Act
» Export of Service
» Book Review and Synopsis: I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

Synopsis

Synopsis

Similar topics

Similar topics